[History of Buddhism in India]
Nobody is disputing the history of Buddhism in India or its influence on Hinduism. The point under discussion is how much of that is relevant
today. We are not living in the 12th century, this is the 21st century and the
fact is that Buddhism is all but non-existant in modern day India, except for some historical sites.
An average Chinese or Japanese Buddhist would find precious little in common if he went to a Hindu temple.
Finally, measuring culture by percentage points of a population is strange practice.
In a thread full of vague assertions and irrelevant ancient history, this is one of the few
contemporary facts to disprove the patently false assertion of 'common culture'.
We have already looked at the cultural factor, so sadly misunderstood by your lack of knowledge of the religions involved, and their overlap.
Not misunderstood, exposed.
If you want to dress up ancient history as indicative of modern day shared culture, keep trying. But it will be an uphill battle against the facts.
Like I said, your entire premise is analogous to saying that the USA has 'common culture' with Iraq because they still use the ancient Babylonian system of base-60. (60 seconds, 60 minutes, 360 degrees, ...)
What about economic cooperation?
What about economics? Like I said, bilateral trade is insignificant in terms of total GDP for either country.
And, in any case, it is irrelevant. China's trade with the West is far greater but both side are well aware of the two-way threat-perception.
Why on Earth would China want to build up India as a regional competitor?
Second, quoting a chest-thumping thread on this very forum is not a substitute for authentic information
The chest-thumping thread quoted an official statement by the Indian military chief.
That's the point, and one which you have already acknowledged. India is building up militarily against China. Point closed.
At least you did not seek to defend the indefensible. We must be thankful for small mercies.
Actually, I already demolished your lame argument of a 'shared culture' between India and China, so there was nothing more to do.
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?
I see the problem.
You are displaying the classic logical fallacy of reverse causation, so let's have a little lesson in logic...
My statement is that shared culture is a
necessary condition for a voluntary shared union, such as the EU, to exist. I never claimed that it, by itself, is a
sufficient condition for such a union.
In logic, there is the concept of "necessary, but not sufficient". For example, oxygen is necessary for (aerobic) life to exist, but it doesn't mean that life will be present everywhere just because there is oxygen.
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.
No they don't. The concept of an India-China union is missing the essential ingredient of shared
anything. India and China do not share culture, religion, language, history, nothing!
It doesn't preclude trade relations and cautious 'friendship' but don't believe for one second that India wouldn't stab China in the back if it got a better deal with the West.
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.
Pakistan/China relations, and the political future of Pakistan, are not the subject of this discussion.
Again, it is necessary to point out that this is a view developed in ignorance of history and historical facts.
You say I am ignorant, then you confirm what I just wrote. Let's review...
I wrote:
it was mostly a geographical accident because of the Himalayas. There were some brief clashes, but neither side followed through
And you wrote:
First, India and China never faced each other across the Himalayas for nearly 1,600 years of recorded history.[...]
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.
So you are saying that Tibetans (whom Indians consider Indians, not Chinese, by the way) penetrated India. Wonderful! But there was no Indian entry into China proper, ever, other than Buddhism.
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.
Here's one of many assertions by Indians about 'ancient India'.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/23654-future-china-india-relations-27.html#post1176703
Maybe you guys can compare notes and figure out which version of the propaganda you want to promote...
Really? How embarrassing. We should perhaps reach for the skies in future, and try to achieve, say, the corresponding Pakistan-China trade figures.
Again, you are resorting to detractions when you can't refute a point.
What does that remark add to the discussion? Besides adding local colour and drama?
It sums up the whole debate. Indian propagandists want to promote a false image of 'friendship' with China, but India's actions and history belie that claim. You yourself are surely sincere in your belief of friendship, but the Indian leadership, and much of Indian media, is not with you.
