Not necessarily, By that logic poorest states of India should seek independence. NE is comparatively better off here.
Yes! the diversity in NE creates greater probability of internal tribal conflict, But at the same time the greater voter turnout shows majority of the population of that region identifies itself with the Indian nationality. In China's case China enjoys the edge over India in bringing development to regions with separatism, even with no clue, how many in that region call themselves Chinese.
I'm suggesting that the sentiments of Indian's NE minorities are linked to their expectations of the Indian government to provide for their welfare and needs, either present or expected. When such benefits fail to materialize for a significant amount of the population, it undermines government authority. The failure to prevent unrest is also another factor to consider.
My logic, just as there is no survey on "The Dalit in India do not mourn the loss of the Caste System in India." same way the since there is no survey done among Tibetians whether they"d choose the serf dome or CCP rule, remains a conjecture.
This is more difficult to ascertain, because I can find positive testimonies of the CPC compared to the Tibetan monks from Chinese sources, and negative articles from pro-Tibetan and Indian sources. Hardly sources you can use.
There is one survey made by the government-in-exile in 2008 after the riots though.
Karma Chophel, speaker of parliament in the government-in-exile, said more than 8,000 of 17,000 Tibetans recently surveyed in Tibet about their view said they would follow any decision by the Dalai Lama. More than 5,000 said they wanted Tibetan independence, more than twice the number who wanted to continue with the current approach, he said.
You would think the exiles would overwhelmingly support Tibetan independence.
But the fact still stands. There's no comparison between serfdom and China. Even compared to China, serfdom is more restrictive and less beneficial to the average Tibetan. China (ironically, if you like) provides the 'serfs' with more freedom, and economic opportunities, with money flooding the Tibetan region to support government expenditure. Living standards have risen significantly.
None of those above mentioned stopped 2008 Tibetan unrest. If what you mentioned above was anyway supposed to impact the opinion of Tibetans, then unrest in Israeli occupied territories of Palestine should be merely solved by providing the above mentioned benefits to Palestinians there.
The unrest was unorganized and spontaneous, it never had the goal of independence or autonomy. As well, it is different from the unrest faced in NE India with different minorities targeting each other, it was the Tibetan rioters unleashing their anger on the Chinese Han and Muslim Huis.
And I don't think the Israelis ever gave economic benefits to the Palestinians except for the checkpoints and constant military patrols and garrisons. The Chinese didn't seize regions of Tibet and replace the Tibetans, with Chinese settlers either as the Chinese see Tibetans as a Chinese minority, not something that needs to be expelled like the Palestinians.
Some more information here:
Transcript: James Miles interview on Tibet - CNN
