| Username |
Post |
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 24-May-01 12:16 AM
Greetings,
I tried to post this under the thread ashu dai started but something went wrong, so I am starting a new thread. I hope this won't cause anyone any incovenience.
Now getting straight to the point-
First of all, I can't believe that ashu dai believes in such propoganda stuffs.
Second, Tibet is an inetrnal issue of China and we should let them resolve it. Tibet, as historians suggest, was never a free country and sending the PLA troops by the Chinese leadership wasn't against any international law. Here are the facts:
1- Tibet was never a FREE country. The Dalai Lama was sent to Tibet by a Yuan (mongol) dynasty emperor in the thirteenth century to preach Buddhism to the people there. The Dalai Lama was never a political figure, he was a religious/spiritual figure. This also illusttrates that China had a firm control over Tibet then. For more on this, read Fairbank's China. If Fairbank is to believed, and i don't see any reason why we should not, then Tibet was never a FREE country. It was under the juridiction of governers appointed by the Chinese emperors in Beijing.
2-We all know we had border skirmishes with Tibet during the unification process when Nepal was expanding its boundries under Bahadur Shah. Bahadur Shah's army captured Xigatse and was moving further inland towards Lhasa. The Tibetan authorities then wrote a letter to the Chinese Emperor asking for help. The Chinese emperor sent his army to defend Tibet. Bahadur Shah stepped back as he knew he couldn't possibley fight the Imperial Chinese Army and signed a treaty with the Chinese emperor. Nepal agreed to pay certain sum of money (tribute) to the Chinese emperor every year. NOTE: we did not sign the traety with the Tibetan government and also an interesting fact, the Chinese Imperial army stayed there even when we stepped back. From modern historical accounts, we can say that this is the day when the Tibetans formally lost their independence.
3- Nobody knows for sure what happend in Tibet when the PLA marched in. We all know that the Chinese governmnet had agreed to respect the Tibetan autonomous status and had sent the Dalai Lama proposals, but people at Potala and Norbu Linka didn't handle it right. For more on this, read Tshering Sakya's "The Dragon in the land of snow"
4- Tibet was freed from its feudal rulers. Has anyone here seen the Brad Pitt movie, Seven years in Tibet? and actually read the Harrer's book? If not, do it. Harrer writes that there was not a single modern hopsital in tibet and tibetans would eat the Dalai Lama's feicies if they needed any medication. Now, atleast the Tibetans don't have to do that. Furthermore, no matter how bad yoiur eye sight was, you weren't allowed to wear glasses! (this is mentioned in harrer's book).
5- Tibet has changed a lot in the last 50 years. And Tibetans are generally happy in Tibet. It is us, people who haven't visited Tibet or know very little about Tibet in the west and everywhere making it a big deal. Although some of the things carried out by the CCP can't be said good, but if yoiu raed history, this has happened in many places. So, why only blame China? Why not start protesting against the British annexation of Ireland, Scotland and or Indian annexation of Sikkim?
6--I don't know the background of the guy ashu dai metioned in his posting but if he preaches FREE TIBET, he is a traechor. He is comminting a crime against the motherland, and the Chinese governmnet is free to do anything according to the Chinese law to such people.
7--And one last thing, even his holiness the dalai lama says he is not for FREE tibet. All he wants is autonomy--automy in true sense meaning that people in Tibet will be able to elect their own legislature. People tend to mis-interpret this. THE DALAI LAMA wants an AUTONOMOUS Tibet, not FREE TIBET.
Trailokya
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 24-May-01 01:22 AM
Hi Trai,
Thanks for the posting.
I posted that message from my friend Lesley (who's a woman, by the way!) to present a perspective (I was/am sympathetic to) and to get some discussions/debates about our very important neighbor going here .
Personally, in all honesty, if you press me for details, I
would have to admit that I really do NOT know the intricacies
of Tibet-China relations, except for the strands of
'sincere-sounding activist talk' that I picked up in
Cambridge, Mass (and not that I regret any of it!).
Still, wanting to learn more, I therefore welcome your and others' thoughts and ideas on this issue to examine/challenge/refine my own assumptions and
knowledge about this matter.
Meantime, if you could refer me to some journal article
and or books that elaborate your arguments, I'd be
most grateful.
oohi
ashu
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 24-May-01 01:57 PM
Dear all:
I don't agree with all that Trailokya says, but I surely think
that Nepal officially should support China's Tibet policy for her
own benefit.
Dalai Lama and his cohorts were running a slavery-ridden country,
and China deserves praise for driving the backward region to
the verge of modernity of today. However, that doesn't
justify the draconian method of persecution China sometimes
practices with dissenting voices in not only Tibet but the whole
China.
People like Trailokya and I who have visited most of the parts of
Tibet and China agree that China had put much effort to modernize
the Tibet. The freedom to practice religion is also not as bad
as what we read/hear in the news. About police persecution in
Tibet, I once had a good talk with the consul of Nepal in
Lhasa(Mr Thapa, in 1995 July). Acc to him, when Chinese and
Tibetans quarrel (needless to say, often Tibetans start such
quarrel because Chinese in Lhasa are rich businessmen, and rich
people doesn't have to fight with others unless they are
Paras-like), Chinese police asks the Chinese to leave the scene
even when Tibetans are wrong.OUR consulate in Tibet thus said to
me Tibetans are favored in Tibet.I believe him, and not other
firebrand antichina activists of Nepal or east or west!
In spite of these facts, the truth is majority of Tibetans love
Dalai Lama and his brand of Buddhism and think Chinese are
aggressors.Dalai Lama is the only person who can solve this
problem now, by accepting the autonomous status for Tibet. Chinese
are employing delay tactics in their talk with Dalai Lama,
because they think there will be no other influential leader in
Tibet after Dalai Lama, so internecine struggle between several
Tibetan quarrelling factions may take the Tibetan freedom movement
nowhere.China recently deems Dalai Lama as a suspicious figure,
because of his hobnobbing with American antiChinese force, and
Taiwanese separatist forces.
I don't agree with Dalai Lama and his principles, but I think
that China needs to respect the will of Tibetan people by
accepting Dalai Lama as a head of Tibetan autonomous region.
Meanwhile, I think while we should give refuge to some Tibetans
who have convincing case of being persecuted back in Tibet, we
shouldn't allow them to act against our good neighbor, China.
In Nepal, Tibetan Nepali are some of those citizen on whom we
all can be proud of. They are one of the best entrepreneurs, and
they have brought variegated hues in increasingly metropolitan
city of KTM and Pokhara. They are free to lend their moral
support to the group they want, but they need to conform to our
national interest and shouldn't be agressive in their pursuit
so as to undermine the collective benefit of their fellow Nepalese
people.
As for other foreigners, if they have guts, they need to go to
Tibet, urge Tibetans to go back to Tibet, and start their
movement there. There is no use of using Nepalese land
and people against Chinese as it was proven in the different
instances of history.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 24-May-01 03:03 PM
Dear Biswoji and ashu dai,
I am yet to read an impartial book solely dedicated to China-Tibet tussle, but any modern Chinese history book by reputed American scholars will have Tibet mentioned as a part of China.
I am quite influenced by Fairbank, who is credited to have started East-Asian Studies, especially Chinese studies as a discipline in the US colleges and Universities. Fairbank was a Harvard scholar (and if I am not mistaken, Harvard has Research center--Fairbank Research center--dedicated to this scholar who knew a lot about China. His books on Chinese history are impartial and are widely read. I don't think any Chinese history student in the US has not read one of his books.
I like his China-A new history and The US and China. In those books he mentions Tibet a couple of times, and writes that Tibet was under the Chinese rule. So, if you have time, please read them.
Jonathan Spence, an Yale scholar who has written more than a dozen books on Chinese history also seem to agree with Fairbank. Although, he hasn't written a book on Tibet, his book on Chinese Taiping rebellion (God's Chinese Son- The Taiping heavenly Kingdom of Hoong XiuQuan) has Tibet mentioned a couple of times, and he too says that Tibet was directly under the Chinese imperial rule.
I remember reading journal articles for a class regarding this issue but, I am having a hard time remembering them. I would definately ask my profs here and send you a list of articles that are easily available and that support my points.
Also try reading The Dragon in the land of snows by Tshering Sakya. Although this book argues for an independent Tibet, it nonetheless has some good unbiased arguments.
And don't forget to read Henerik Harrer's Seven years in Tibet to understand how the feudal rulers treated their surfs.
And a book by a reputed Nepali Shcolar, Prem Raman Uprety, Nepal-A small nation in the vortex of world conflicts,has a chapter on CHina-Tibet. The best thing about this book is, it examines the issue by going through the documents on China-Tibet-Nepal relations which are preserved at the National Archives and Sheetal Niwas (pararastra mantralaya).
I hope this helps.
Trailokya
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 24-May-01 03:22 PM
>Dear all:
>
>I don't agree with all that Trailokya says,
>but I surely think
>that Nepal officially should support China's
>Tibet policy for her
>own benefit.
Namaste bIshwoji,
You don't have to agree with all that I say. This is a democratic forcum and you are free to voice your opinions. What's the fun in discussing if no one voices opposition to your arguments? So, i respect your views beucase it helps me develop a critical undertsanding of issues.
I agree that we should support China's "Zhi you yi ge zhong guo" (there's only one China) policy for our own benifit and for the truth behind this statement.
However,
>that doesn't
>justify the draconian method of persecution
>China sometimes
>practices with dissenting voices in not only
>Tibet but the whole
>China.
Don't you thinbk this happens in coutries like the US. I think we all know about the Mumia Abu jamal case. He is a political prisioner in the US. Plus, don't forget about the domestic Mcarthyscim which ruined the careers of people such as Fairbank and Owen Lattimore for teaching the unbiased history of China.
>People like Trailokya and I who have visited
>most of the parts of
>Tibet and China agree that China had put
>much effort to modernize
>the Tibet. The freedom to practice religion
>is also not as bad
>as what we read/hear in the news. About
>police persecution in
>Tibet, I once had a good talk with the
>consul of Nepal in
>Lhasa(Mr Thapa, in 1995 July). Acc to him,
>when Chinese and
>Tibetans quarrel (needless to say, often
>Tibetans start such
>quarrel because Chinese in Lhasa are rich
>businessmen, and rich
>people doesn't have to fight with others
>unless they are
>Paras-like), Chinese police asks the Chinese
>to leave the scene
>even when Tibetans are wrong.OUR consulate
>in Tibet thus said to
>me Tibetans are favored in Tibet.I believe
>him, and not other
>firebrand antichina activists of Nepal or
>east or west!
I agree. Tibet is also exempt from China's one Child Policy.
>In spite of these facts, the truth is
>majority of Tibetans love
>Dalai Lama and his brand of Buddhism and
>think Chinese are
>aggressors.Dalai Lama is the only person who
>can solve this
>problem now, by accepting the autonomous
>status for Tibet. Chinese
>are employing delay tactics in their talk
>with Dalai Lama,
>because they think there will be no other
>influential leader in
>Tibet after Dalai Lama, so internecine
>struggle between several
>Tibetan quarrelling factions may take the
>Tibetan freedom movement
>nowhere.China recently deems Dalai Lama as a
>suspicious figure,
>because of his hobnobbing with American
>antiChinese force, and
>Taiwanese separatist forces.
I DON"T AGREE. The majority of Tibetans in Tibet don't support the Dalai Lama. Plus, the Dalai Lama has committed many mistakes in the past. I sincerely believe that he is a great religious/spiritual leader but a terrible poliical leader. He sided with the CIA to carry out covert operations in Tibet, this is published in the Newsweek , August 1999 (i don't know eactly which issue, but the AMerican edition of this newsmagazine has an interview of the dalai lama in one of it's auguts 1999 issues).'
And he also violated the diplomatic ettiquettes by relasing the secret date and venue for negotiationss with the Chinese. Furthermore, a dutch lawyer is always appointed by the Tibetan governmnet in exile everytime the Chinese ask for talks. I sometimes think that the Dalai lama is not-very-interested in resolving this issue because once this issue is resolved he will loose his stardom and will be confined to Potala for the rest of his life.
>I don't agree with Dalai Lama and his
>principles, but I think
>that China needs to respect the will of
>Tibetan people by
>accepting Dalai Lama as a head of Tibetan
>autonomous region.
I don't agree. Why should the Chinese accept the Dalai lama who is a very bad political leader as a political head of Tibet. I don't think this makes any sense. If this happens, then that day will be probably the most unfortunate day for the Tibetans after the Lang-Daer-Ma's (infamous) rule.
>Meanwhile, I think while we should give
>refuge to some Tibetans
>who have convincing case of being persecuted
>back in Tibet, we
>shouldn't allow them to act against our good
>neighbor, China.
>In Nepal, Tibetan Nepali are some of those
>citizen on whom we
>all can be proud of. They are one of the
>best entrepreneurs, and
>they have brought variegated hues in
>increasingly metropolitan
>city of KTM and Pokhara. They are free to
>lend their moral
>support to the group they want, but they
>need to conform to our
>national interest and shouldn't be
>agressive in their pursuit
>so as to undermine the collective benefit of
>their fellow Nepalese
>people.
I agree.
>As for other foreigners, if they have guts,
>they need to go to
>Tibet, urge Tibetans to go back to Tibet,
>and start their
>movement there. There is no use of using
>Nepalese land
>and people against Chinese as it was proven
>in the different
>instances of history.
Hhahah I agree with this one too.
Trailokya
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 24-May-01 05:18 PM
< However,
>that doesn't
>justify the draconian method of persecution
>China sometimes
>practices with dissenting voices in not only
>Tibet but the whole
>China.
>Don't you thinbk this happens in coutries like the US. I think we >all know about the Mumia Abu jamal case. He is a political >prisioner in the US. Plus, don't forget about the domestic
>Mcarthyscim which ruined the careers of people such as Fairbank >and Owen Lattimore for teaching the unbiased history of China.
I don't think US is an utopia for practicing free speech. USA has
its own share of attack against democratic norms and personal
freedom. By denouncing a few of Chinese excesses, I am not
supporting US practices.
>I DON"T AGREE. The majority of Tibetans in Tibet don't support
>the Dalai Lama. Plus, the Dalai Lama has committed many mistakes
>in the past. I sincerely believe that he is a great >religious/spiritual leader but a terrible poliical leader. He
>sided with the CIA to carry out covert operations in Tibet, this
>is published in the Newsweek , August 1999 (i don't know eactly
>which issue, but the AMerican edition of this newsmagazine has an
>interview of the dalai lama in one of it's auguts 1999 issues).
I still believe majority of Tibetans are supporter of Dalai Lama.
I was surprised to find that everybody, including state-agency
appointed Tibetan guide who took me to Norbu Linka and Potala and
Summer palace of Dalai Lama to a frail and old lady I met in
Shigatse was fervent supporter of Dalai Lama.
However, the best standard to find out who is popular is surely
a fair and widely participated general election. Until then,
such assertions are just guesses. My point, thus, is probably
just a guess.(so is your point regarding his popularity!)
Mistakes of Dalai Lama is not something I question on. He was
not a good ruler. But, a religious fervour coupled with a feeling
of outsider ruling Tibet has fueled pro-Dalai sentiment among
Tibeta multitudes: that is what I think.
> with Dalai Lama and his
> principles, but I think
> that China needs to respect the will of
> Tibetan people by
> accepting Dalai Lama as a head of Tibetan
> autonomous region.
> I don't agree. Why should the Chinese accept the Dalai lama who
> is a very bad political leader as a
> political head of Tibet. I don't think this makes any sense. If
> this happens, then that day will be
> probably the most unfortunate day for the Tibetans after the
> Lang-Daer-Ma's (infamous) rule.
I believe I may have gone too far in demanding Dalai Lama as a
head of Tibetan Region. I believe in democratic practice, and
China should allow some democratic exercise to determine the
head of Tibet region.
Having said this, I fully believe that such election in Tibet may
yield the same result I projected: Dalai Lama as a leader of
Tibet. At least, right now!
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 24-May-01 07:51 PM
>Having said this, I fully believe that such
>election in Tibet may
>yield the same result I projected: Dalai
>Lama as a leader of
>Tibet. At least, right now!
Biswoji,
I still question this. I am not as confiudent as yoiur good self regarding the popularity of his holiness the dalai lama in Tibet. As far as my sources tell me, Tibetans too are tiored of this whole autonomus-independedent-semi-autonomous crap of the dhramasala people. So, I don't think th dalai lama will make a comeback even if the Chinese government goes for a democratic election there.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 24-May-01 10:40 PM
I have to admit that I'm one of the many Westerners who is vaguely sympathetic to the idea of a Free Tibet without knowing much about it. From my minimal reading, though, I've gathered that Tibet's relationship with China is a bit more complex than Trailokya paints it.
In my mind I tend to make an analogy to Eastern European states. My grandmother always said she was born in Poland--except that, technically, she was born in Russia, because Russia had dominated Poland for two centuries before she was born. It didn't change her sense that she was Polish, though. And, in fact, Poland became free in the 20th century.
Obviously the reason that the Chinese government has been giving incentives to relocate Han Chinese to Tibet is because there is precisely that sense of ethnic separateness in Tibet--and it was that sense of ethnic identity that caused the breakup of the former Soviet Union. So if Trailokya is right, and the Dalai Lama would not necessarily win a democratic election, it just might be because the Tibetans are becoming a minority in their own country.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of China's historic claims to Tibet, the planned population shift in Tibet, the supression of religious freedom, and the general cultural destruction seem just plain wrong to me.
Also, I was troubled by what Biswo said: "Dalai Lama and his cohorts were running a slavery-ridden country, and China deserves praise for driving the backward region to the verge of modernity of today."
Wasn't that basically true of Nepal pre-1950 as well? By that logic, if China (or India) had taken over Nepal, then--assuming that Nepal, like every other country on earth between 1950 and 2001, had modernized to some degree--would China (or India) then deserve praise for "driving the backward region to the verge of modernity"? Tibet modernized, at least in part, because 1950 changed to 2001. If the Dalai Lama were still the ruler, I suspect it wouldn't still be a "slavery-ridden" country--not because he's some kind of saint, but because the world has changed.
Unfortunately, the Tibetans don't have the freedom to make their own choices--good or bad--about how they want to "modernize" and who they want to rule them. If they were able to be truly autonomous, even within China, that would be great. But it looks like China is doing its best to make that impossible.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 24-May-01 11:16 PM
>I have to admit that I'm one of the many
>Westerners who is vaguely sympathetic to the
>idea of a Free Tibet without knowing much
>about it. From my minimal reading, though, I'
>ve gathered that Tibet's relationship with
>China is a bit more complex than Trailokya
>paints it.
Dear Sally,
The relationship between China and Tibet is indeed a complex one. I am not a scholar of Chinese/Tibetan history, nor claim to be one and it is up to you people to help me understand things better. I sincerely appreciate you taking some time off your work to post this message.
>In my mind I tend to make an analogy to
>Eastern European states. My grandmother
>always said she was born in Poland--except
>that, technically, she was born in Russia,
>because Russia had dominated Poland for two
>centuries before she was born. It didn't
>change her sense that she was Polish, though.
> And, in fact, Poland became free in the 20
>th century.
I don't know much of the East European history, so I don't know. Was Poland a colony/part of Russia? Was there a seperate nation state of Poland?
I don't know this, but having studied Chinese history I can tell that Tibet was a part of China as early as the seventh century
>Obviously the reason that the Chinese
>government has been giving incentives to
>relocate Han Chinese to Tibet is because
>there is precisely that sense of ethnic
>separateness in Tibet--and it was that sense
>of ethnic identity that caused the breakup
>of the former Soviet Union.
I admit that the Chinese government has tried relocating Han(s) to Tibet and many Han(s) moved to Tibet during the 60s, 70s and the 80s. Now, this has stopped. No body wants to move to Tibet unless you have some vested business interest. People love to move to big cities such as Beijing and Shanghai instead. Even in Tibet, the Han population faces more restrictions than the Tibetan population. Han Chinese in Tiben can't have two children but Tibetans can have two or even three children.
I admit that during the Mao regime, the notion of unity in diversity was seen as a threat, however, exactly the opposite is happening in the Deng/Post-Deng era China. Minorities are encoraged to retain their ethnic culture/language/traditions etc.
So if Trailokya
>is right, and the Dalai Lama would not
>necessarily win a democratic election, it
>just might be because the Tibetans are
>becoming a minority in their own country.
Well, the figures show that Tibetans still are the majority group in Tibet autonomous region of China.
>Regardless of where one stands on the issue
>of China's historic claims to Tibet, the
>planned population shift in Tibet, the
>supression of religious freedom, and the
>general cultural destruction seem just plain
>wrong to me.
I agree. Not everything that the CCP carried out between 1950-1970 can be considered good. But, this has happened in many countries, so why alone blame China? And it wans't only in Tibet where the Red Guards destroyed cultural/religious monuments, it was everywhere in China. Even the sacred temples of Huangzhou, Putuo Shan, beijing were destroyed or changed into hostels for workers during the Cultural Revolution era China. So, the Chinese action of destroying temples etc. wasn't solely limited to Tibet. The whole of China suffered because of the madness of the Red Guards during the cultural revolution.
>Also, I was troubled by what Biswo said: "
>Dalai Lama and his cohorts were running a
>slavery-ridden country, and China deserves
>praise for driving the backward region to
>the verge of modernity of today."
Biswo is 100% right.
>Wasn't that basically true of Nepal pre-1950
>as well? By that logic, if China (or India)
>had taken over Nepal, then--assuming that
>Nepal, like every other country on earth
>between 1950 and 2001, had modernized to
>some degree--would China (or India) then
>deserve praise for "driving the backward
>region to the verge of modernity"? Tibet
>modernized, at least in part, because 1950
>changed to 2001. If the Dalai Lama were
>still the ruler, I suspect it wouldn't still
>be a "slavery-ridden" country--not because
>he's some kind of saint, but because the
>world has changed.
Well, I don't quite agree with you on using Nepal as an example. The Rana regime in nepal until 1950 was a terrible one but it wasn't as terrible as the Dalai Lama's religious government of Tibet. Atleast, we had schools and hospitals, Tibetans were deprived of that. Furthermore, the Rana rulers didn't force their feasies as medicines upon us. So, I don't think using Nepal as an example is very helpful.
And yes, if the Dalai Lama was still a ruler of Tibet, then Tibet would still be a slavery ridden country. The Chinese indeed deserve praises for liberating the surfs from their feudal rulers, who for the most part kept them in the dark.
>Unfortunately, the Tibetans don't have the
>freedom to make their own choices--good or
>bad--about how they want to "modernize" and
>who they want to rule them. If they were
>able to be truly autonomous, even within
>China, that would be great. But it looks
>like China is doing its best to make that
>impossible.
I don't agree, Sally. I respect your sentiments and I understand what you are hinting at but no matter how sympathetic I am towards the Tibetan cause, I can't misinterpret history? Can I?
To me it seems like the Tibetans are making it "impossible". The Tibetans have from time to time violated the diplomatic etiquettes by releasing the venues and the dates for the negotiations between China and Tibet. Furthermore, they demand the presence of a Dutch lawyer who is in the sumemr I am a nudist, in the winter I am Buddhist type, and the Tibetan governmnet in Exile always voices its strong oppositin of any venue selected by the Chinese governmnet for negotiations. Now, you tell me, who is making it impossible? The Chinese side or the Tibetan side? As I already mentioned in my last posting, I have started to think that his holiness the Dalai lama or his aides don't want this to resolve because once this issue is resolved, they will loose all the stardom and fanfare they are getting now.
Feel Free to disagree.
Trailokya Aryal
|
| sally |
Posted
on 25-May-01 01:16 AM
My impression is that, yes, Tibet had been identified as a part of China as early as the 7th century or so. I believe Vietnam was also considered a part of China at that time. I think it was an off-and-on situation.
History shows us that national borders are often quite fluid. If Turkey chose to do so, I suppose it could claim that much of the Middle East and North Africa rightfully belonged to it, thanks to the Ottoman Empire--which lasted some 700 years, up to World War I. The Nazis used German historical borders as a justification for many of their annexations of neighboring states. And based on sheer historical claims, I suppose Mexico--or maybe Spain--would have a reasonable claim on California.
I'm just pointing out that if a country with a desire for regional dominance wants to make a claim that its neighbors' territory is its own, it can generally find an excuse.
But as I said, I don't know much about the specifics on Tibet. Maybe this thread will give me an incentive to learn more. (PS, I'm not taking time off from work ... just sitting around the house, with the kid asleep! If this is work time for you, we may be on different time zones.)
Anyway, I did want to respond to the following point:
"Well, I don't quite agree with you on using Nepal as an example. The Rana regime in nepal until 1950 was a terrible one but it wasn't as terrible as the Dalai Lama's religious government of Tibet. Atleast, we had schools and hospitals, Tibetans were deprived of that."
Schools and hospital in Nepal before 1950? The 1951 literacy rate was 5 percent, and that was probably an extremely loose definition of literacy. Who, in the Nepal of 1950, went to school or ever saw a hospital? I expect the biggest difference between Tibet and Nepal in 1950 was that Nepal was super-remote with extremely limited opportunities, while Tibet was super-super-remote with extremely limited opportunities.
Anyway, I don't think it's really possible to imagine seriously that any Asian country in 2001 would still be "slavery-dominated." For one thing, although this is just hypothetical, a free Tibet of the last part of the 20th century would probably have been pumped full of development agency money, Peace Corps, etc, etc, if only because of its strategic location.
Well, the little guy just woke up ... see ya later!
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-May-01 01:04 PM
>My impression is that, yes, Tibet had been
>identified as a part of China as early as
>the 7th century or so. I believe Vietnam was
>also considered a part of China at that time.
> I think it was an off-and-on situation.
Dear Sally,
I am in the west coast and yes, I post messages from my work :-)
Now getting to the points you raised:
>History shows us that national borders are
>often quite fluid. If Turkey chose to do so,
>I suppose it could claim that much of the
>Middle East and North Africa rightfully
>belonged to it, thanks to the Ottoman Empire-
>-which lasted some 700 years, up to World
>War I. The Nazis used German historical
>borders as a justification for many of their
>annexations of neighboring states. And based
>on sheer historical claims, I suppose Mexico-
>-or maybe Spain--would have a reasonable
>claim on California.
Tibet was never on and off of Chinese rule. Tibet was a part of China from the very early on. So, I stand firm by my statement that no matter what, Tibet was never EVER an independent country. I don't know much of California's past (although I went to a school here). But, Tibet was and is a part of China.
>I'm just pointing out that if a country with
>a desire for regional dominance wants to
>make a claim that its neighbors' territory
>is its own, it can generally find an excuse.
Its not the case. Tibet was a part of the Chinese empire and based on what I learened in college and as far as my own understanding of the issue goes, Tibet never formally considered it as a seperate nation. It was a part of China but often neglected by the Chinese rulers because of it's remoteness from the center.
>
>Anyway, I did want to respond to the
>following point:
>
>"Well, I don't quite agree with you on using
>Nepal as an example. The Rana regime in
>nepal until 1950 was a terrible one but it
>wasn't as terrible as the Dalai Lama's
>religious government of Tibet. Atleast, we
>had schools and hospitals, Tibetans were
>deprived of that."
I still don't agree. If you knonw how to read Nepali, I suggest you read Hamro Samaj Ek adhyayan by Janak lal Sharma and look under the chapter "abhi-char janya samsarga" (abnormal contacts). He writes that a bill was passed banning everyone to let or force someone eat his/her feasies.
Furthermore, a school to was built and later a hospital was built. And Tri-CHandra college was established.
I agree that the Ranas didn't do much, but they did something. Plus, one important thing : I don't think anyone was forced or coereced to work for the Rana families' homes or land.
>Anyway, I don't think it's really possible
>to imagine seriously that any Asian country
>in 2001 would still be "slavery-dominated."
>For one thing, although this is just
>hypothetical, a free Tibet of the last part
>of the 20th century would probably have been
>pumped full of development agency money,
>Peace Corps, etc, etc, if only because of
>its strategic location.
If Tibet was still under the Dalai Lama's religious rule, then it still would be a slavery ridden country. The Dalai Lama and his coherts were exploiting the religious sentiments of the people and they would have continued to do so.
>Well, the little guy just woke up ... see ya
>later!
hahah see yoiu have something more important to do now.
Trailokya
|
