• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Indian govt cowers in front of China

    by Sunny
    1st April, 2008 at 4:14 pm    

    Shame on the Indian government. Its foreign minister has said that the Dalai Lama should not engage in any political activity that would damage its relationship with China. Not long ago the Indian govt willingly supported the Dalai Lama and offered political asylum to him and other Tibetan refugees.Now of course the only thing that matters is trade relations with China.

    India has assured China that the Olympic torch will pass safely through the country.

    But the country’s football captain has refused to carry the torch.

    At least India has other principled people.

                  Post to del.icio.us

    Filed in: China,Current affairs

    16 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs

    1. Leon — on 1st April, 2008 at 4:19 pm  

      It’s interesting to see the effect of the Beijing Olympics is forcing everyone to wake up to the realities of the new Chinese superpower…doubt much change will come out of it though.

    2. Ashik — on 1st April, 2008 at 4:58 pm  

      Quid pro quo.

      China has Tibet and India has Kashmir.

    3. Vikrant — on 1st April, 2008 at 5:42 pm  

      Kashmir != Tibet by any measure…

    4. shariq — on 1st April, 2008 at 6:20 pm  

      Heard a good comment today that if you want any change in China, you need to do it in the next few months. China cares about the Olympics and it seems they will be willing to make sacrifices in order to ensure its success.

      Of course if its not a united effort and only 1 or 2 countries take part in a boycott, then they’ll probably lose out on business opportunities in China in the future.

    5. sonia — on 1st April, 2008 at 6:47 pm  

      change or do we mean in the run up to the olympics the chinese government will pretend to change. and then afterwards, back to business as usual.

    6. Sajn — on 1st April, 2008 at 11:09 pm  

      Interesting to note that the footballer is actually from Sikkim which used to be an independent country until it was taken over by India. As it happens, I think that China only recognised Sikkim as Indian territory when India recognised Tibet as Chinese.

      Pot, kettle………

    7. SalmanRush — on 2nd April, 2008 at 12:37 am  

      Why does India care about what China thinks? They are really just competitors.

    8. raz — on 2nd April, 2008 at 1:01 am  

      Tibet is a minor diversion compared to this:

      1000 bodies found in mass graves in Kashmir

    9. Avi Cohen — on 2nd April, 2008 at 2:43 am  

      Why is India which isn’t a Security Council member being asked to do something the Security Council members such as Britian, France and USA won’t do?

      They are in a much more powerful position?

      Also India can hardly not support China given its own lack of commitment to allow a free referendum in Kashmir.

      Also Vikrant - India is imposing its will on many states that no longer want to be part of it. So it is essentially another China. Democracy is about the will of the people so if the biggest democracy in the world won’t listen to the will of states that want no part of it then what is the point of democracy?

    10. Anas — on 2nd April, 2008 at 5:50 pm  

      Anyone see the Dispatches doc on Tibet on Monday? Fucking shocking. I don’t understand what China has to do in terms of torturing, murdering and forcibly sterilizing people before it gets any kind of appropriate response from our elected officials.

    11. bananabrain — on 2nd April, 2008 at 5:54 pm  

      if we do anything => “selfish imperialism”
      if we don’t do anything => “brutal indifference”

      you can’t win, really.



    12. digitalcntrl — on 3rd April, 2008 at 3:23 am  

      @ Avi

      “Also India can hardly not support China given its own lack of commitment to allow a free referendum in Kashmir.

      Also Vikrant - India is imposing its will on many states that no longer want to be part of it. So it is essentially another China.”

      Many issues are being conflated here. No one is demanding China give up its claim on Tibet. People are just demanding an end to brutal crackdowns on any form of expression, suppresion of the Buddhist religion, and evisciration of the Tibetan culture by the Chinese authorities.

      As for self-determination I actually disagree with you. Democracy is not about declaring your independence at the drop of a hat. If it was so most nation nates would be in complete anarchy. Heck we here in the US fought a massive civil war to prevent the Southern states from seceding from the United States. If India is another China because of Kashmir, does that make England another China because of Northern Ireland? How about France with respect to Corsica?

    13. Sajn — on 4th April, 2008 at 12:14 am  

      No because Kashmir was never part of India. It has been occupied illegally and India (despite agreeing to a Plebiscite more than 50 years ago) has consistently refused to allow the people of Kashmir to express their views. Your civil war was 150 years ago, a different age.

    14. Dale — on 7th April, 2008 at 2:15 pm  

      oh please, The Indian goverment didn’t cower before China, why would they? India has the 2nd largerst army in the world. Fair enough China has the largest army in the world but china purchases military weopans from Russia who equipment is now dated, and “trying” to create weopans themselves. India on the other hand purchases state of the art equipment from Israel, one of the leading military technologies in the World.

      China would not be in a good position to even try to confront India aggresively…Because America and the EU are already doubting their judgement when they allied themselves closely and even made threats to America that Iran would not go down without a fight. Also they have been stirring up hatred for the americans amongst the African islamic nations.

      This would equal American and EU intervention in a sino-indian war, not to mension the israeli’s and the aussies.

      Indian Govmnt may just be trying to prevent this, but believe me they would not back down as they know right now they definately have the advantage!

    15. sonia — on 7th April, 2008 at 2:29 pm  

      thing is though china doesn’t need to confront india aggressively.
      (And i don’t think china in any case wants the job of trying to discipline a bunch of unruly indians.) look at the position china is in with regards to the USA - did they do that aggressively? No. They don’t need to - they’ve got other ways. (one of which includes working people very hard and not tolerating any dissent)

    16. Ashik — on 7th April, 2008 at 4:55 pm  

      Post cold war most large multi-ethnic states have had to deal with the resurgence of groups seeking autonomy or secession. For example, China (Taiwan & Tibet), Russia (Chechnya & South Caucasus), India (Kashmir, Assam & Goa), Bangladesh (Sylhet & Hill Tracts). Many of these countries are colonial constructs. Even a long established Union such as the UK is facing severe strains from the Scots Nats.

      Therefore sympathy for breakaway movements in the international community tends to be rather limited, from self interest. Unfortunately as in the case of Tibet. Although it does happen. Kosovo shows the alignment of international politics, public outrage and media profile can lead to new countries emerging.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.