Dalai Lama to retire from political life

[tanlixiang28776]

Ditto.

You really want to keep this going?

 

[cross1993]

The rules of Chinese-style democracy defined by the Chinese people, not by the Western. That is our rule.
If you do not want to accept it, get out of our country, for example, Google.
If you know how to respect the Chinese people, we can become friends and partners, for example, Baidu.

Indians do not understand our rules, that is normal. Because you have been accustomed to the Western-rules.
I know the Indians and Chinese are not the same.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

LOL, if that is the way you feel, then you should give the Kashmiri people their land back too.

Since you guys are a democracy, why not let them have a plebiscite? I.e. a referendum.

Indeed plebiscite can be done. It only requires a reading of the UN resolution in detail to realise the issues involved including the removal of traces of the invasion.

Then there is the the Instrument of Accession as deemed legal by the British Parliament Act. I am sure it will be recalled that India and Pakistan are the legatees of the British India governance.

If I may say that there is a slight difference in the question of Tibet.

China invaded Tibet causing Tibet's legitimate Govt to flee!!

Tibet is an invasion where the Tibetan did not invite China to invade.

Kashmir is a fallout of legal accession based on an invitation and not an invasion.

There is another difference., if you will. Tibet is subject to a demographic invasion where the Han Chinese are swamping Tibet and will make them a minority as has been the practice of the Hans throughout history (you may refer to the scholarly tome of Olsen, the link of which is given at Post# 85) where minority were swamped and forcibly assimilated. The same is happening in XInjiang or East Turkmenistan where the Uyghurs have already become the minority in their own capital Urumchi, the Hans having swamped it!

We think that Mao was a dictator, Deng Xiaoping also is. But CPC is not a dictator.

Does Hu Jintao have term limits ? Yes, 10 Years.
Does China's rights by one person to master it? No, nine people rule the country together. Hu Jintao's State Rights a lot less than Obama.

The Chinese never felt Mao is a dictator. If they did, then they would have overthrown him as they did in the case of Chiang Kai Shek! That the Chinese patiently bore the economic downturn and shortages of the Great Leap Forward and the horrors of the Cultural Revolution, bears witness to the fact that the Chinese loved Mao, their Great Helmsman.

To deride Mao now would be a trifle ungrateful for, no matter how with an iron fist he ruled China, but for him a poverty stricken state would not have risen to the heights it has of now had he not laid the foundation.

The CCP and the Peoples National Congress are, as per the media, a mere rubber stamp to the Leader.

Again, lest I am misunderstood, may I append a link?

The Peoples National Congress is constitutionally the highest state organ of power in China. The first Congress was elected in 1954 in accordance with the constitution of that year. Thereafter, it met every year, and was newly elected every five years. Between its sessions, its business was run by a permanent committee.

In theory, the government was responsible to the People's Congress, whose legislative powers were confirmed in the 1982 constitution. In line with other Communist assemblies, however, in practice it remained principally a body of affirmation, not of criticism.

Read more: topic: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

Dalai Lama is the terrorist.
2008-03-25, he created a riot in Lhasa, that is a terrorist act.

I thought he was a toothless Tiger and no influence in Tibet and that the Tibetans were happy to learn Mandarin, were liberated from serfdom and were immensely happy and that the economic resurgence made them hate the Dalai Lama and his 'dictatorship'!

To now state that he is a terrorist is incongruous. The Chinese have always claimed that the Dalai Lama is irrelevant because Paradise has visited Tibetans under the Chinese and none likes him in Tibet!!!!

Dalai Lama is a demi-god to many, if not most, tibetans.
Even as today his photos and portraits are being openly worshiped in temples and common households in Tibet and a large part of Qinghai, there's no way the exile gov. in India could be remotely as relevant after his demise.
With the beloved son-of-India long gone, I wont be surprised if one day some radicals in Dharamsala would want a sweet little piece of land of their own, out of India that is.

Dalai Lama was born in Tibet. He has Tibetan nationality. Hence, it is surprising that you have called him a 'son of India'.

It is true that the Dalai Lama and his followers do not recognise China, but that does not make them Indians or sons of India. Even the Tibetans born in India are not Indian citizens.

From what one sees around the world, the modern Tibetans beyond the pale of China are rather keen to keep Tibet relevant to them, the Dalai Lama notwithstanding.

It is interesting to note that you are keen that the Tibetans should rise against India in Dharamshala. Is there such a plan in the offing, hatched in areas where you have some relevance?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It is true that the Dalai Lama and his followers do not recognise China, but that does not make them Indians or sons of India. Even the Tibetans born in India are not Indian citizens.

LOL, what nonsense is this. Even the Dalai Lama himself, does not seek Independence for Tibet. He asks for more autonomy within the PRC.

Just Indian wet dreams.

 

[cross1993]

Indeed plebiscite can be done. It only requires a reading of the UN resolution in detail to realise the issues involved including the removal of traces of the invasion.

Then there is the the Instrument of Accession as deemed legal by the British Parliament Act. I am sure it will be recalled that India and Pakistan are the legatees of the British India governance.

If I may say that there is a slight difference in the question of Tibet.

China invaded Tibet causing Tibet's legitimate Govt to flee!!

Tibet is an invasion where the Tibetan did not invite China to invade.

Kashmir is a fallout of legal accession based on an invitation and not an invasion.

There is another difference., if you will. Tibet is subject to a demographic invasion where the Han Chinese are swamping Tibet and will make them a minority as has been the practice of the Hans throughout history (you may refer to the scholarly tome of Olsen, the link of which is given at Post# 85) where minority were swamped and forcibly assimilated. The same is happening in XInjiang or East Turkmenistan where the Uyghurs have already become the minority in their own capital Urumchi, the Hans having swamped it!




The Chinese never felt Mao is a dictator. If they did, then they would have overthrown him as they did in the case of Chiang Kai Shek! That the Chinese patiently bore the economic downturn and shortages of the Great Leap Forward and the horrors of the Cultural Revolution, bears witness to the fact that the Chinese loved Mao, their Great Helmsman.

To deride Mao now would be a trifle ungrateful for, no matter how with an iron fist he ruled China, but for him a poverty stricken state would not have risen to the heights it has of now had he not laid the foundation.

The CCP and the Peoples National Congress are, as per the media, a mere rubber stamp to the Leader.

Again, lest I am misunderstood, may I append a link?





I thought he was a toothless Tiger and no influence in Tibet and that the Tibetans were happy to learn Mandarin, were liberated from serfdom and were immensely happy and that the economic resurgence made them hate the Dalai Lama and his 'dictatorship'!

To now state that he is a terrorist is incongruous. The Chinese have always claimed that the Dalai Lama is irrelevant because Paradise has visited Tibetans under the Chinese and none likes him in Tibet!!!!



Dalai Lama was born in Tibet. He has Tibetan nationality. Hence, it is surprising that you have called him a 'son of India'.

It is true that the Dalai Lama and his followers do not recognise China, but that does not make them Indians or sons of India. Even the Tibetans born in India are not Indian citizens.

From what one sees around the world, the modern Tibetans beyond the pale of China are rather keen to keep Tibet relevant to them, the Dalai Lama notwithstanding.

It is interesting to note that you are keen that the Tibetans should rise against India in Dharamshala. Is there such a plan in the offing, hatched in areas where you have some relevance?

I am not ungrateful. Yes, Mao did a lot of contribution for China. He was a great man, but he is also a dictator.
Because of his dictatorship, rights are not balanced. Chinese govt made ​​many mistakes, For example, the Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward...
We think that the Maoist CPC is extremism, so we chose the Deng Xiaoping Theory CPC. Now-China and future-China will not have a dictator again.


If you look at history, you will find that Tibet is Chinese territory. Dalai Lama is a separatist. After 2008-3-25, he also was a terrorist.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The rules of Chinese-style democracy defined by the Chinese people, not by the Western. That is our rule.
If you do not want to accept it, get out of our country, for example, Google.
If you know how to respect the Chinese people, we can become friends and partners, for example, Baidu.

Indians do not understand our rules, that is normal. Because you have been accustomed to the Western-rules.
I know the Indians and Chinese are not the same.

Rule Chinese, Chinese rule the Eastern,
Chinese never never never shall be slaves.

A delightful post and well thought out too.

Notwithstanding, as the world understands, the history of democracy -- the history of empowering people by giving them a say in their political entities—traces back to Athens to its re-emergence and rise from the 17th century to the present day. According to one definition, democracy is a political system in which all the members of the society have an equal share of formal political power. In modern representative democracy, this formal equality is embodied primarily in the right to vote.

I would be more than happy to know that the Chinese people vote their representatives to power as every other democracy does. If there is no electing of the peoples representative, one wonders if that could be termed as democracy.

On the other hand, Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) is the standard work on the subject and that indicates that the form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority is totalitarian. The term was coined in the early 1920s by Benito Mussolini, but totalitarianism has existed throughout history throughout the world (e.g., Qin dynasty China). It is distinguished from dictatorship and authoritarianism by its supplanting of all political institutions and all old legal and social traditions with new ones to meet the state's needs, which are usually highly focused. Large-scale, organized violence may be legitimized (Cultural Revolution). The police operate without the constraint of laws and regulations. Where pursuit of the state's goal is the only ideological foundation for such a government, achievement of the goal can never be acknowledged.

So, one is befuddled if China falls under the class of 'democracy'.

Actually, you may dictate that others must respect China, but would it not also be an imperative that China respects others? Can respect be a one way street? It can, if one is the class bully or dictatorial in mindset, bequeathed by heritage.

Not only Indians, but many don't understand China, in the same way China understand none!! QED. Isn't it a unavoidable truism?
If I have your indulgence, may I state that the Chinese themselves don't understand each other and if others don't understand the Chinese, then it would not really be a surprising discovery, if you will.

You may well contest that. So, may I produce another link?

This is particularly true in the case of Chinese ethnohistory. Discussing linguistic groups in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), for example, is particularly difficult because the government insists on maintaining the fiction that there is only one Chinese language, and that it is divided into a series of dialects.To argue otherwise would require government officials to recognize major ethnicdivisions with the dominant Han people, something Chinese officials have been extremely reluctant to do.

Most linguists argue, however, that the definition of ‘‘dialect’’ means that it is mutually intelligible by users of other ‘‘dialects’’ of the same language. The Chinese government claims that eight dialects of the language exist within the national boundaries: Mandarin, Wu, Jin, Gan, Xiang, Hakka, Yue, and Min. The problem with that definition, of course, is that none of these so-called dialects is mutually intelligible with the other. The people who speak them may very well be united by their Han* descent and their shared eclectic mix of Buddhist, Taoist,and Confucian religious beliefs, but they cannot understand one another’s spoken languages, which should render them members of different ethnic groups.

Complicating the issue even more is the fact that each of the Chinese languages possesses many dialects, and some of those dialects are not mutually intelligible to speakers of related dialects.At the same time, however, all Chinese languages share an unusual linguistic similarity. They cannot be mutually understood by different speakers, but they all employ the same written script, which is mutually readable.

Olson - An Ethnohistorical Dictionary China

Note this is not my idea, but that of a scholar!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

LOL, what nonsense is this. Even the Dalai Lama himself, does not seek Independence for Tibet. He asks for more autonomy within the PRC.

Just Indian wet dreams.

He speaks of autonomy i.e. Tibet for Tibetans. Call it by any name, call it by an system, call it by any accommodations that is to be done.

China obviously understand that once the Dalai Lama return, Tibet will no longer be China's.

Hence, His Holiness staying in exile is China's best bet!

And it is hardly a laughing matter for the Chinese Govt.

China is waiting for His Holiness' demise so see if they can tighten the grip.

In anticipation of the Holiness' demise, China has decided to increase its military presence in Tibet and Xinjiang so that there is no Tibetan infiltration en masse feasible from Nepal or India to make Tibet further unstable and act as a fuse for the Uyghurs of East Turkmenistan.

Wet dreams? I have not understood. I find no reason for China to be afflicted with urinary dysfunction over the Dalai Lama.

 

[cross1993]

A delightful post and well thought out too.

Notwithstanding, as the world understands, the history of democracy -- the history of empowering people by giving them a say in their political entities—traces back to Athens to its re-emergence and rise from the 17th century to the present day. According to one definition, democracy is a political system in which all the members of the society have an equal share of formal political power. In modern representative democracy, this formal equality is embodied primarily in the right to vote.

I would be more than happy to know that the Chinese people vote their representatives to power as every other democracy does. If there is no electing of the peoples representative, one wonders if that could be termed as democracy.

On the other hand, Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) is the standard work on the subject and that indicates that the form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority is totalitarian. The term was coined in the early 1920s by Benito Mussolini, but totalitarianism has existed throughout history throughout the world (e.g., Qin dynasty China). It is distinguished from dictatorship and authoritarianism by its supplanting of all political institutions and all old legal and social traditions with new ones to meet the state's needs, which are usually highly focused. Large-scale, organized violence may be legitimized (Cultural Revolution). The police operate without the constraint of laws and regulations. Where pursuit of the state's goal is the only ideological foundation for such a government, achievement of the goal can never be acknowledged.

So, one is befuddled if China falls under the class of 'democracy'.

Actually, you may dictate that others must respect China, but would it not also be an imperative that China respects others? Can respect be a one way street? It can, if one is the class bully or dictatorial in mindset, bequeathed by heritage.

Not only Indians, but many don't understand China, in the same way China understand none!! QED. Isn't it a unavoidable truism?
If I have your indulgence, may I state that the Chinese themselves don't understand each other and if others don't understand the Chinese, then it would not really be a surprising discovery, if you will.

You may well contest that. So, may I produce another link?



Note this is not my idea, but that of a scholar!

We do not say Western-rule is wrong, we respect it in Western. So they should respect the Chinese-rules in China.
Chinese believe that, the world has not wrong rule, just have different rule.

Why democracy? In order to voting games and television show? No, that in order to freedom.
What is freedom? There are two freedom.
One is the Country Freedom, the most important Country Freedom is trade freedom. Embargo destroy the trade freedom. But the Western just love to do. And Marine hegemony also is a threat to trade freedom.
Another is the Individual Freedom, the most important Individual Freedom is thought freedom. Values and rules freedom. But the Western media can not accept different values and rules.

As for your other questions: Please use the Chinese-rules to rethink.

Chinese-rules:
1# Collectivism, 2# Pragmatism, 3# Non-interference in internal affairs of other countries.

 

[cross1993]

He speaks of autonomy i.e. Tibet for Tibetans. Call it by any name, call it by an system, call it by any accommodations that is to be done.

China obviously understand that once the Dalai Lama return, Tibet will no longer be China's.

Hence, His Holiness staying in exile is China's best bet!

And it is hardly a laughing matter for the Chinese Govt.

China is waiting for His Holiness' demise so see if they can tighten the grip.

In anticipation of the Holiness' demise, China has decided to increase its military presence in Tibet and Xinjiang so that there is no Tibetan infiltration en masse feasible from Nepal or India to make Tibet further unstable and act as a fuse for the Uyghurs of East Turkmenistan.

Wet dreams? I have not understood. I find no reason for China to be afflicted with urinary dysfunction over the Dalai Lama.

Seventies of last century, we have asked the Dalai Lama to return to China, but he refused that.
Now he can still come back, but those terrorists can not come to China.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I am not ungrateful. Yes, Mao did a lot of contribution for China. He was a great man, but he is also a dictator.
Because of his dictatorship, rights are not balanced. Chinese govt made ​​many mistakes, For example, the Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward...
We think that the Maoist CPC is extremism, so we chose the Deng Xiaoping Theory CPC. Now-China and future-China will not have a dictator again.


If you look at history, you will find that Tibet is Chinese territory. Dalai Lama is a separatist. After 2008-3-25, he also was a terrorist.

Chou en Lai chose Deng and not the Chinese people.

Chinese people choose nobody. They are just there to respond positively to the CCP and its activities.

Deng was not even the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China.

He was a peasant in Guang'an, Sichuan, China, who did well.

He was purged twice during the Cultural Revolution but regained prominence in 1978 by outmaneuvering Mao's chosen successor, Hua Guofeng.

Poor man that he was, during the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping and his family were targeted by Red Guards. Red Guards imprisoned Deng's son, Deng Pufang. Deng Pufang was tortured and forced out of the window in a four-story building, becoming a paraplegic.

One party rule with one man as the head and a cosmetic advisory committee means dictatorship, take it or leave it! That is how the world sees and that is what totalitarianism means!

 

[cross1993]

Chou en Lai chose Deng and not the Chinese people.

Chinese people choose nobody. They are just there to respond positively to the CCP and its activities.

Deng was not even the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China.

He was a peasant in Guang'an, Sichuan, China, who did well.

He was purged twice during the Cultural Revolution but regained prominence in 1978 by outmaneuvering Mao's chosen successor, Hua Guofeng.

Poor man that he was, during the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping and his family were targeted by Red Guards. Red Guards imprisoned Deng's son, Deng Pufang. Deng Pufang was tortured and forced out of the window in a four-story building, becoming a paraplegic.

One party rule with one man as the head and a cosmetic advisory committee means dictatorship, take it or leave it! That is how the world sees and that is what totalitarianism means!

Yes, Mostly correct, But the Chinese people have chosen Deng Xiaoping.
If there is no Deng Xiaoping's reforms, Chinese people will choose to overthrow the CPC.

And we will not allow the Maoists have the country-right again.
Deng-Xiaoping-factions CPC have proved they are right. We will support them.

As for how the world sees China, it does not matter, take Chinese-rules or leave China.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

We do not say Western-rule is wrong, we respect it in Western. So they should respect the Chinese-rules in China.
Chinese believe that, the world has not wrong rule, just have different rule.

Why democracy? In order to voting games and television show? No, that in order to freedom.
What is freedom? There are two freedom.
One is the Country Freedom, the most important Country Freedom is trade freedom. Embargo destroy the trade freedom. But the Western just love to do. And Marine hegemony also is a threat to trade freedom.
Another is the Individual Freedom, the most important Individual Freedom is thought freedom. Values and rules freedom. But the Western media can not accept different values and rules.

As for your other questions: Please use the Chinese-rules to rethink.

Chinese-rules:
1# Collectivism, 2# Pragmatism, 3# Non-interference in internal affairs of other countries.

You feel that democracies don't believe in the Freedom in governance (the inputs that you have enumerated)?

They do and in addition, they allow Individual Freedom. The right of man to live and choose his own way of life and not be robotic and like Pavlovian Dogs be conditioned to reflexes.

To understand this, Google Pavlov, Pavlovian Dogs and Conditioned Reflexes.

The other point is slogans do not make a programme or a thought or a policy. Slogans are garbage in and garbage out. What matter is action.

Heard of the Chinese and the Japanese standoff over the islands? Non interference indeed!

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

He speaks of autonomy i.e. Tibet for Tibetans. Call it by any name, call it by an system, call it by any accommodations that is to be done.

China obviously understand that once the Dalai Lama return, Tibet will no longer be China's.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the words "autonomy" and "independence".

Ill quote what I said previously:

"Even the Dalai Lama himself, does not seek Independence for Tibet. He asks for more autonomy within the PRC. "

 

[prototype]

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the words "autonomy" and "independence".

Ill quote what I said previously:

"Even the Dalai Lama himself, does not seek Independence for Tibet,so does India. He asks for more autonomy within the PRC."

So whats new about it,he himself had claimed tibet is legally a part of china,its u who everytime jump with the rhetoric of Indian wet dreams and tibetian wet dreams.

The problem is that u people r not even ready to provide the greater autonomy they desire.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Cross,

I am sorry China has never asked the Dalai Lama to return.

Please provide links if you will.

It is not you who decides who runs the Chinese Govt.

It is the CCP!

Isn't it obvious?

If I maybe allowed to remind, do let us know how the Chinese people elect/ select their representatives to the Peoples national Congress which is said to endorse policies of governance.

Now, if the people neither elect/ select their representatives, then how can the people so loudly and proudly proclaim that they will not allow the Maoists to return?

It is the CCP who will decide as they have decided all along!!