India’s meek stance on China / Tibet
Nothing in recent times has made me cringe as much as the Government of India’s suppression of pro-Tibet protests in Delhi and elsewhere in India. It was an act symptomatic of an ever weaker and submissive stance towards China.
Tibet neighbours India, and after the invasion of Tibet by China in 1951 a large number of Tibetans have settled in India. Many are now Indian citizens who have great love for India, their land of refuge.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW REST OF ARTICLE
May 5th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Is it not somewhat hypocritical for British Hindus to blame India for its pragmatic stance towards China given British Hindus’ utter apathy towards the Gurkhas’ campaign for just recognition and acceptance by Britain? British Hindus should be ashamed of themselves and certainly have no right to point the finger at anyone else in this regard.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Satya - an analogous situation would be if British Hindus actively opposed the Gurkhas’ Campaign. That is not the case.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Dangerous, I understand your point. However, surely the message of the Gita demonstrates quite clearly that one who allows injustice to continue is just as guilty as he who commits that injustice. Until and unless British Hindus pull their finger out and stop turning a blind eye to injustice (against their own people, one might add), they have no right to point that finger at anyone else.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
This applies to their non-action & action on Tamils suffering in Sri Lanka. They are going to regret, as the South will certainly think twice towards co-operation with the North’ governance.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I think this article should also be read in conjunction with this one.
Tibetan Dilemma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hinduinfo/message/1135
A small excerpt from the article
China claims that Tibet has always been part of its territory, a claim that is debatable. In pre-industrial times when communication was difficult and China itself was fragmented Tibet had largely been left to itself.
But when the Communists finally came to power in Beijing, one of the first things that the People’s Liberation Army did in 1950 was to occupy Tibet. India had become independent just three years earlier and its government was new to the job.
Nehru had claims to be an expert in international affairs—there was hardly any one in the Congress Party anyway, with any grounding in formation of foreign policy—and Nehru was beguiled.
Despite Sardar Vallabbhai Patel’s stern warnings about China’s possible reneging on promises to his Prime Minister on November 7, 1950, India signed a Border Trade Agreement with the euphemestically called “The Tibet Region of China” on April 29, 1954 which conceded Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.
Nehru’s understanding of China was idealistic, not based on realism. He was too naïve. He permitted himself to be misguided by his own Ambassador to China, Sardar K.M.Panicker who was sold on the new government in Beijing.
Under the Agreement, India agreed to clear out of Lhasa, lock, stock and barrel and to hand over its infrastructure in the Tibetan capital to the new overlords. The argument then was that if it did not do so, it would have been forced to quit anyway. India took the easy way out.
——
On the Tibetan issue, India has to walk warily.
It is sixty years since India willingly accepted China’s sovereignty over Tibet and it cannot go back on the Agreement it signed.
As long as China does not make any demands on Indian territory, we can keep our distance from the current scene in Tibet much as it hurts our sensibilities.
India is not the United States.
According to the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, “if freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China’s oppression in Tibet, we have lost moral authority to speak on Human Rights anywhere in the world”.
Oh, really? The best way for the US to respond to Chinese oppression is for Washington to cut off trade relations with China, freeze American investment and warn Pakistan not to have any dealings with Beijing. Will the US do that?
As for India, it must know its strengths and weaknesses.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:18 am
R. Manoharan, stop thinking in terms of regionalism and some monolithic entity called South, yes the Indian gov’t hasn’t done much about Srilanka but neither has it done anything about ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits, if it can’t even protect its own citizens within its own borders its foolish to expect it to do anything for people abroad or non citizens such as Tamils in Eelam or Hindus in Malaysia.
The Indian gov’t is basically impotent, all these boasts about being a superpower are just empty slogans, India has been hit so many times since UPA came to power, it lost the largest number of victims to terrorist attacks second only to Iraq, and keep in mind Iraq is a wartorn country.
Hindus outside India should never rely on the impotent Indian gov’t protect us, u will be sold down the river to appease Muslim fanatics back home, and end up like the Fijian Indians, note that they were close to 50% but got screwed because they had almost no presence in the Fijian army. If u don’t want that to happen to u then encourage ur kids to be in the army, police, and countless other fields instead of telling them to be doctor and engineer, if u don’t have representation in the army in proportion to ur population or exceeding it then u r screwed if something like Fiji or Uganda happens, that means based solely on merit Hindus have to be at least 1-2% in both the Canadian and UK forces.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Namaste All
As usual, every piece published on Hindu Voice is excellent. I have written a detailed article “Rape of Tibet” which was published in this week’s Asian Voice.
I wonder any one of you have read it. It can also be read on AV website. www.abplgroup.com
Bhupendra