Developereo said:
Joe Shearer said:
This makes astonishing reading.
Do you have any further basis for this strange assertion?
Buddhism is not the basis of a shared culture between India and China. Certainly, there may be ancient historical sites of interest to Buddhists, as a sort of pilgrimage destination, but that's about it.
India has 0.8% Buddhists. USA has 1.7% Buddhists.
By that logic, USA shares more 'culture' with China than India does.
Nonsense.
Regrettably, that merely shows that your understanding of Indian culture is limited to the dictates of the two nation theory and some light reading from Wikipedia, and a complete lack of knowledge of the different waves and stages in which Buddhism was propagated and spread in the world.
The entire history of the religious development of Hinduism from 600 BC onwards was first a fierce resistance to Buddhism, leading to a fairly severe defeat in terms of the adherence of people of all walks of life, followed by a painful re-appraisal, which among other things, involved assimilating Buddhist thought and doctrine into mainstream Hinduism. I have already mentioned the Buddha as an avatar; in addition, Tantricism spanned Buddhism and Hinduism alike and its ramifications were deep and significant. The entire revised preaching of Buddhism in Tibet in the 12th and 13th centuries, the basis on which the Dalai Lama was created, and later adopted as spiritual adviser by successive Mongolian and Chinese overlords, leading to a revised preaching of Buddhism in those lands, was entirely an offshoot of Tantric Buddhism.
You may or may not be aware of the re-conversion of Buddhists initiated by Sankaracharya; while he succeeded in converting the philosophers and key intellectuals, Buddhism was alive and well and coexistent with Hinduism, and practised sometimes in parallel by royalty and common people alike, according to Chinese accounts, well into the 13th century. The story of the destruction of Buddhism in India is another story, and you are no doubt already familiar with it.
Finally, measuring culture by percentage points of a population is strange practice.
[Omitted]
Developereo said:
Joe Shearer said:
There is no particular necessity for fraternal feeling to be based on shared (not mutual) enmity for the white man. In fact, this is hardly possible given the widespread occurrence of bananas and coconuts.
The only reason why the white man comes in again and again is because they have been the most recent oppressors in South Asia, and the most recent but one in China.
Except that the threat of the 'evil white man' v/s the Asian brothers is the most oft-quoted reason for India-China friendship. Take away the bogey of the 'evil white man' and the whole premise falls apart.
We have already looked at the cultural factor, so sadly misunderstood by your lack of knowledge of the religions involved, and their overlap. But there are other factors.
What about economic cooperation?
There is an increasing amount of so-called South-South trade and commerce, and of industrial cooperation, compared to the former North-South pattern. This single factor by itself is seen as causing huge changes in world power dispositions; the power of both China and India is seen in terms of the growth of economic power, in turn driven by trade and commerce, in turn increasingly trade and commerce with other Asian, African and South American partners.
This is a major cause for the shift in attention of each of the states concerned, those growing faster than the former leaders, and the former leaders themselves, towards the new economies, towards Asia in general.
Developereo said:
Joe Shearer said:
Finally, don't you feel silly quoting Asian disagreements as a reason for fraternal feeling not to be present, given that the example of the European Union stares you in the face?
Not at all.
This is precisely where the part about 'shared culture' comes in. Clearly you missed the connection between these two points, so I will explain below. Stay tuned...
Developereo said:
Joe Shearer said:
Does this tell you where the focus of the Indian Army is? Does it tell you which potential hostile power it considers more dangerous and unpredictable, above all, unpredictable? Hint: it isn't PRC.
The Indian military, by its own account, has more than enough resources to deal with Pakistan. Its focus now is to handle both fronts simultaneously. This is not just me talking. This is the Indian military's official position, as reported in one of the Indian chest thumping threads on this very forum.
Again, totally mistaken.
You have seen the figures; even when the focus is on fighting a possible two front war, which is indeed current doctrine, there is a clear understanding that much less needs to be done on the frontiers with China than has been done, and will remain in place on the frontiers with Pakistan.
Second, quoting a chest-thumping thread on this very forum is not a substitute for authentic information; we are surely not to take your misgivings as representative of Pakistani opinion, because we have only to travel to PTH, for instance, to find a completely different, far more credible set of Pakistani views.
Developereo said:
Joe Shearer said:
A superb argument. Worthy of your acumen and intellectual grasp of the matter.
Why, thank you.
At least you did not seek to defend the indefensible. We must be thankful for small mercies.
Developereo said:
Joe Shearer said:
Arguing in reverse, therefore, we can re-write sub-continental history, as there is shared culture on the sub-continent, as well as being not only on the same continent, but within the rather narrow confines of the same sub-continent.
No need to go in reverse; let's stay in forward gear.
Why should we abandon an argument because it displays the fallacy of yours? Why should we not pin you down to the fact that
greater cultural compatibility within the sub-continent - shared languages, shared ethnicity, shared religions, shared cultures of private life, food, clothing, the works, does not lead to greater compatibility? Far from your fallacious argument that the EU succeeded because of greater cultural compatibility within itself?
If your argument about the EU is right, then South Asia is destined to unite; not a prospect which is pleasing to Indians, considering what comes into the mix. Do please consider other, more palatable arguments. All will be pleased.
The truth is of course that along with a certain minimal cultural compatibility, as already exists in ample measure among Asian countries, there has to be a readiness to join hands. This is hugely present in Europe, and has found expression; this is nascent but growing in Asia, and has yet to find greater expression than ASEAN and SAARC; and it is unlikely to find expression in South Asia, as long as Pakistan and India exist in their present forms.
Developereo said:
Coming back to your comparison to the EU, yes they fought mortal battles with each other over the centuries, yet they are now joined together. The reason for that union is shared culture. All the countries in the EU share (variants of) a common religion, culture and much history.
There is no such parallel when it comes to India and China. They have almost nothing in common in terms of history, culture, religion, language... Nothing. Zilch. Nada!
Except the bogey of the 'evil white man', of course.
We've just been through this. As was explained already, shared religions, shared culture and all of history shared did not lead to cultural integration in South Asia. There was far greater cohesion of these factors in South Asia than there is even today in Europe.
This is obviously not the only factor. There have to be others. We are not discussing chemicals coming into contact with each other and forming compounds; far more goes into a union.
The factors that drive a union are partly cultural and partly economic, and both factors exist in Asia in general, and between India and China in particular. While there is unlikely to be more than proper and correct relations at the outset, there is little chance that in the medium term, the relationship will not grow, with or without an effect on other relationships. You must remember that a state in dissolution is unlikely to remain a viable member of a partnership, however ardently both sides desire it.
No doubt you will work out the implications by yourself.
Developereo said:
Joe Shearer said:
The only reason that there hasn't been any significant clash of the two nations is because China's trajectory of expansion was by way of Qing Hai, Xijang and Xinjiang. If it continues, it will be through Kazakhstan and Baltistan.
As others have pointed out, it was mostly a geographical accident because of the Himalayas. There were some brief clashes, but neither side followed through.
Again, it is necessary to point out that this is a view developed in ignorance of history and historical facts.
First, India and China never faced each other across the Himalayas for nearly 1,600 years of recorded history. Thereafter, China held her suzerainty over Tibet with a light hand, and there was never any occasion for China and any Indian state to clash, until the 20th century, when the PRC took direct control of Tibet. That was the only reason why there was no conflict across the Himalayas.
Second, it is a myth that there was no military or political activity across the Himalayas. The Tibetans had penetrated across in the West all the way upto the Hindu Shahi kingdom at one stage; directly to the south, the greater Tibetan Empire extended into Bengal and parts of the Gangetic plains.
Developereo said:
Joe Shearer said:
India has always had a defensive and inward-looking mindset
Utter nonsense. Your Akhand Bharat friends will be happy to regale you with tales of Indian conquests spanning from Burma through the Middle East. The only reason India didn't invade China was, again, because of the Himalayas.
You will appreciate that a reference to unnamed Akhand Bharat friends is hardly either a factual or a logical response.
As a student of history, I can assure you that I am not aware of any such conquests, other than Chola domination of parts of South East Asia. None other existed historically.
It is pathetic to cite the hypothetical statements of hypothetical others, when you are confronted with details and dates.
Developereo said:
Joe Shearer said:
Perhaps you should consider a look at the trade figures and the breakdown of those figures. It might help illuminate the matter.
It certainly does. The bilateral trade stands at 60 billion. An insignificant pimple compared to the GDP of either country.
Really? How embarrassing. We should perhaps reach for the skies in future, and try to achieve, say, the corresponding Pakistan-China trade figures.
China set to become 4th biggest trade partner of Pakistan: MOFCOM official
Developereo said:
Joe Shearer said:
No, China doesn't need India as an ally at all. China has a perfectly viable alternative; to lock herself into the same gangrened point of view as other, traditional rivals of India, in spite of the dreadful example of what results thereby. On the whole, she might prefer an alliance, or, properly speaking, friendly relations with mutual self-respect.
China knows exactly what game India is playing. And so does everyone else.
What does that remark add to the discussion? Besides adding local colour and drama?
