http://www.daliyang.com/files/Yang_and_Zhao_The_Rise_of_India-china_s_perspectives_and_reponse.pdf

The Rise of India: Chinas Perspectives and Responses

Yang Dali & Zhao Hong


A interesting long article about the Chinese Perspectives on India's Rise. And the conclusion is that China cannot prevent India's invitable Rise and its better to ensure that its position vis a vis India is strong in the future for economic and strategic reasons !





===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda

-------------------------------------------

It's not really China's perspective....It's just a couple of guys' perspective...

-------------------------------------------------

It's not really China's perspective....It's just a couple of guys' perspective...
--------------

Agree with you there,, and ,, I don't give a damn..... lol

India will rise thats for sure, but how would these two Asian giants intereact with each other is very important. India for the most part is always wary of China, and gives us Chinese an impression that we can never trust each other.

I like how you said "us Chinese". Your government doesn't represent China as a civilization nore you. If they did than the CCP would be more accountable for their actions. Hong Kong wouldn;t have its government and perhaps not even Taiwan.

It's news that my government doesn't represent China because your government certainly talks with my government on all official matters...Or are you just another stupid hindu?

-------------------------------------------------

^^ its not your govt. You dont stay in China moron.

Secondly Chinese govt is not accountable to its ppl.




colours of Kaziranga

\\India will rise thats for sure, but how would these two Asian giants intereact with each other is very important. India for the most part is always wary of China, and gives us Chinese an impression that we can never trust each other.\\


Dude, The distrust is on the other side.India until the 60s had no issues with China.India is the first Non-Communist country to recognize PRC.It is the one which championed PRC's case in UN when most of world was against it.Nehru even rebuffed a US offer to take Nationalist China's place in UNSC.Then came Mao's and Zhou Enlai's utterances to Nehru shortly after Bandung Conferance - 'Two tigers cannot live in one mountain'.

Unless and Until, China reconciles to India's Rise and stop its futile India containment strategy, trust wont develop.India wont have any issues with China as long as China wont impede India's rise !

===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda

-------------------------------------------

lol, who first took on the Tibetans, hum? right, how was it that tried to steal our land by falling back on the imperial McMahon line as the border....I remember it's india and we kicked your sorry arse...

yes, as long as india stops to support Tibet and stop stealing our land, we have no issues with you. Maybe you can also tone down a little on your jealousy because our economy is now 4 times yours and we live 10 years longer. lol

-------------------------------------------------

Tibet like Xinjiang has nothing to do with Hans what so ever ! Only the Mongols and Manchus had tributary relations with them.Tibet was always a independent country, hence tributary relations.Even that tributary relationship was premised on the Patron-Saint relationship of the Mongol and Manchu Emperors with the Lamas of Tibet when both Tibet and China were colonised by them.Even that Tributary relationship status ended with the demise of Qing Empire.The Han have no basis to claim Tibet .Tibet is as much as Chinese as South Vietnam was American.All this talk of 'Indians stealing your land' will always be BS because it was never your land in the first place.

===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda

-------------------------------------------

China is a multi-racial society, just like india is. Are you saying india should be carved into 100 pieces since you all speak what 100000 languages...lol Free kashmire, sikkim, kalistan, punjab, lol

them indians....ll1o1l1o1l

-------------------------------------------------

great an increasing number of indians bleach thier skin to be white and now an indin forumer uses a swastika lol

\\China is a multi-racial society, just like india is. Are you saying india should be carved into 100 pieces since you all speak what 100000 languages...lol Free kashmire, sikkim, kalistan, punjab, lol \\


China cannot be compared with India.I dont condone seccessionism but there has to be some historical basis for a country to claim something.Kashmir or punjab or sikkim is not Xinjiang or tibet .Kashmir was part of Indian since centuries.The name xinjiang itself means 'New territory'.Tibet was an independent country.It was never part of china.It had tributary relations with the mongols who occupied china.There is no comparision between Indian situation and chinese situation.



\\great an increasing number of indians bleach thier skin to be white and now an indin forumer uses a swastika lol\\


LOL ! If an Indian wont use Swastika, who will use it ? German ? LOL.

Swastika is a Indian symbol .The name itself is an Indian name.Its a symbol of Indian civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

'The swastika (from Sanskrit sv¨¢stika ) is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles, in either right-facing (e) form or its mirrored left-facing (d) form. Archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates from the Neolithic period. It occurs mainly in the modern day culture of India, sometimes as a geometrical motif and sometimes as a religious symbol. It remains widely used in Eastern religions / Dharmic religion such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.'

'The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit word svastika (in Devanagari, ), meaning any lucky or auspicious object, and in particular a mark made on persons and things to denote good lucl'.









===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda

-------------------------------------------

Of course, there is historical basis, but you are too brainwashed to believe it. There is no historical basis for a unified india, because historically India was made up by a bunch of small city states. So, india should be broken up.....That's your facts.


Them indians....l1o1l1o11l1o1l

-------------------------------------------------

\\Of course, there is historical basis, but you are too brainwashed to believe it. There is no historical basis for a unified india, because historically India was made up by a bunch of small city states. So, india should be broken up.....That's your facts.\\


Dude, why dont you provide that 'historical basis' of yours on Xinjinag and tibet rather than putting BS comments.As far as India is concerned, India is unified much earlier than china did.


Mauryan Dynasty in 265 BC





The Corresponding Han Dynasty in the same period







===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda

-------------------------------------------

Happy?


Han dynasty map








Qing dynasty maps






-------------------------------------------------

Dude, Your own maps tally with what i am saying.

1. Han Empire never had Tibet.Xinjiang was a tributary of Han Empire in their struggle with Xiongnu.

2. The borders of today's china came during the Qing Empire who were Non-Han manchus to begin with.And even they had tributary status with Xinjiang and Tibet.The chinese dont seems to understand the difference between a tributary status and being actually part of your country.


===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda

-------------------------------------------

Neve said Han had tibet. Showing you Xinjiang as a part of China during Han.

Should I believe you or should I believe all the historians that Qing is a Chinese dynasty?

You ran out of argument and are now twisting facts.

BTW, why don't you show me a map of India right before the British took over?

-------------------------------------------------

You are the one that doesn't understand tributory system.

1) Xinjiang and Tibet, Mongolia were part of Qing dynasty
2) Vietnam, Korea, Myanmar, Okinawa are our tributory countries and are not included in those maps.

-------------------------------------------------

\\Neve said Han had tibet. Showing you Xinjiang as a part of China during Han.\\


Xinjiang was not part of China either.The Han dynasty established a military garrison in xinjiang to protect the trade routes from xiongnu and established 'western protectorate region' there.A protectorate does not equals being part of your country.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\Should I believe you or should I believe all the historians that Qing is a Chinese dynasty? \


Dude, Qing is a chinese dynasty, but not a Han dynasty.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\BTW, why don't you show me a map of India right before the British took over? \\


Dude, you said that there was no unified India before british. I gave you a map showing that India was one of the first politically unified countries in the world and it was unified long before the chinese did.As the western powers rose, India's power declined and it effected its ability to resist the western powers.

British took India through divide and rule (they never conquered India by military force) when the Maratha Empire was at its weakest position.

Maratha Empire and its dependencies at the start of British imperialism.






===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda

-------------------------------------------

No, Xinjiang was under Han dynasty rule and there were administrations set up their. Too bad you seem to know very little about our history.

As long as Qing is a chinese dynasty, it's a part of Chinese history.


I never said India was NEVER unified. I am just saying India was seldomly unified under a single political enity, unlike China which was mostly united with some disruptions.

Yeah, was pre-british india under one rule, Mughal, right? Did Mughal control most of india? If not, how many political entities were there?

-------------------------------------------------

\\No, Xinjiang was under Han dynasty rule and there were administrations set up their. Too bad you seem to know very little about our history. \\


Dude, the han dynasty considered xinjiang in the same way the Mauryan Dynasty considered Persia or the Cholan dynasty considered most of south east asia -which is as vassals and tributary states .


From your own chinese website :

http://china.chinaa2z.com/china/html/history%20and%20culture/2008/20081106/20081106163026891216/20081106163146401383.html

'At the beginning of the Han Dynasty (206 BC - AD 220), the region was subservient to the Xiongnu, a powerful nomadic people based in modern Mongolia. In the 2nd century BC, Han China sent Zhang Qian as an envoy to the states in the region, beginning several decades of struggle between the Xiongnu and Han China over dominance of the region, eventually ending in Chinese success. In 60 BC Han China established the Protectorate of the Western Regions at Wulei to oversee the entire region as far west as the Pamir.'

The hans sent envoys(you send envoys only to foreign countries) to xinjiang(literally means new territory) and after their success against the xiongnu, they established the 'protectorate of western regions'.you dont establish protectorates in your own soil, but in strategically important outside countries.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\I never said India was NEVER unified. I am just saying India was seldomly unified under a single political enity, unlike China which was mostly united with some disruptions. \\


Dude, this is what you said before - 'There is no historical basis for a unified india, because historically India was made up by a bunch of small city states. So, india should be broken up...'


Even your modified statement is incorrect.India has always been unified under national empires for most of the time.From the establishment of Aryavarta (the land of Aryans) under emperor Bharata (from whose name the name of the country Bharat (the sanskrit name of India) derives, India has always been united under single rule.The Bharatas were followed by the Mauryans, then the Guptas, then the Cholans, then the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals, the Marathas then the British. There has been instances where this line of succession broke, but those are exceptions rather than rule.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\Yeah, was pre-british india under one rule, Mughal, right? Did Mughal control most of india? If not, how many political entities were there?


Pre British India was under the control of Marathas, not under the Mughals.The Mughals were succeeded by the Marathas.But by 18th century, the Marathas were weakened by successive wars with the Portugese, Dutch, French and British who all carved out their respective spheres of influence.But 1800s, as the Marathas lost the border provinces to the persian and afghan warlords and the naval control of Indian Ocean to the British, the British succeded in further penetrating the mainland.


===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda

-------------------------------------------

"Dude, the han dynasty considered xinjiang in the same way the Mauryan Dynasty considered Persia or the Cholan dynasty considered most of south east asia -which is as vassals and tributary states . "


No. I don't know anything about Mauryan. But, we established administrations in Xinjiang, just like the rest of China. Again, if were like a protectorate, it won't be a part of the map. Don't try to twist Chinese histoiry which you know very little about (I don't know much about indian history either), just like you were twisting the facts on Xinjiang and Tibet as our tributaory states (when you really have zero idea what you are talking about)


LoL, the reason why people say Indian had mostly been divided is a historical facts. Just because India was unified for a few short decades doesn't mean that's the norm. Whereas, the norm for China is unification mixed in with some division.

One major distinction is language, while we Chinese have unified our language in 211 BC, India has several major languages. At least, that's a sign of the weakness of your "unification".

-------------------------------------------------

I remember a decade ago, I had to educate this brown guy Bharat or something on China`s tribute system. I remember Dragon having to join in and confirm to that uneducated. The guy then denied such a thing ever existed, now we got this other brownie who thinks Xinjiang and Tibet are far out tributary states. This other brown guy thinks both are independent states. hmm.

Man how I love revisionists and people that do fine research and education on complex topics and historical facts by skimming a few pages on the net to see a few sentences that might support their arguments. Fook actually going to university and getting a real education. Some brownies on the net lecturing Chinese on their own freakin history and falling on their faces. Unfreakbeleivable.

^^ another non residential chicom talkin on the virtues of communist china.




colours of Kaziranga

He is just pointing out facts to brainwashed indians, who refuse to face facts, which are Chinese on average are 4 times richer, live 10 years longer, much better educated and have much higher standard of living than indians.... More importantly, we are growing faster....


them indians....l1o1l1o1l1o1l11ol

-------------------------------------------------

Just thought I'd post some interesting data for some brainwashed indians to see.....l1o1l1o1l1o1l



Global Patent Application from the World Intellectual Property Organization

http://www.domain-b.com/technology/2008/20080225_world_patent_filings.html


PCT international applications by residence of first applicant Country of origin 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (estimate) Growth %
USA 41,030 43,350 46,804 50,941 52,280 2.63
Japan 17,414 20,264 24,869 27,033 27,731 2.58
Germany 14,662 15,214 15,984 16,732 18,134 8.38
Rep. of Korea 2,949 3,558 4,688 5,944 7,061 18.79
France 5,171 5,184 5,748 6,242 6,370 2.05
UK 5,206 5,027 5,084 5,090 5,553 9.10
China 1,295 1,706 2,503 3,951 5,456 38.09
.
.
.
.
.
India 764 724 679 831 686 -17.45

Source: WIPO


-------------------------------------------------

\\No. I don't know anything about Mauryan.\\


The Mauryan Empire is an ancient Indian empire which extracted tributes from persia (then ruled by the Greeks) and central asia.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\\But, we established administrations in Xinjiang, just like the rest of China. Again, if were like a protectorate, it won't be a part of the map. Don't try to twist Chinese histoiry which you know very little about (I don't know much about indian history either), just like you were twisting the facts on Xinjiang and Tibet as our tributaory states (when you really have zero idea what you are talking about) \\


The Han dynasty stationed troops what is now called xinjiang(which means new territories) and established a protectorate there to safe gaurd its trade route to central asia from the xiongnu.It never considered it as an integral part of china nor as part of chinese culture.The original inhabitants of xinjiang are the tocharians, a mixed scythian-Indian breed (both Indo-Europeans and none mongolic).The anceint greeks called what is now xinjiang as 'serica'.Anceint xinjiang was under Indian influence.The tocharians used to speak a language which closely resembled Indian sanskrit and wrote in a script similar to Indian Brahmi script.The tocharians were historical rivals of Hans with whom they fought many battles and they migrated from what is now xinjiang to India which they considered as their home.It is the decendents of these tocharians who established the Kushan Empire in India which included all the way from India to Central Asia to what is now xinjing and eastern tibet.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\\LoL, the reason why people say Indian had mostly been divided is a historical facts. Just because India was unified for a few short decades doesn't mean that's the norm. Whereas, the norm for China is unification mixed in with some division.\\


This 'India mostly been divided' thing is a myth propogated by the British to justify their colonialism similar to the myth propogated by certain Anglo-Saxon writers that Australia and North America were 'mostly barren' lands before the europeans set their foot.If you look at the time scale of some of the Indian Empires, you will realise how hollow that claim is. The Magadha Empire (which included Nanda, Maurya,Sunga Dynasties) lasted from 650 BC - 70 BC. The Palas and The Cholas rose from the ashes of the Magadha Empire and lasted upto 1200 AD.It was succeeded by the Delhi Sultanate which lasted upto 1500 AD followed by the Mughals whose power lasted upto 1700s.The Power shifted to the Marathas who were the last Indian Empire to hold power upto 1820s at which point the British politically became active.There are other smaller kingdoms present along with these Empires but they were mostly either the dependencies of these big ones or were in a confederation with these ones.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\One major distinction is language, while we Chinese have unified our language in 211 BC, India has several major languages. At least, that's a sign of the weakness of your "unification".\\

Many people mistakenly beleive that India has many languages.But those 'languages' infact are regional variations of one language -Sanskrit.No wonder, India inspite of having many "languages" never had any significant language riots.While the Chinese language appears as homogenous from outside, thats not true.Apart from the Mandarin, they do have the Hakka,Gan,Wu,Xiang,Yue,Pinghua,Northern/Southern Min etc.These languages are excluding the languages spoken in minority homelands.India's diversity like China's homogeneity is often exaggerated.





===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda

-------------------------------------------

Whatever....

-------------------------------------------------

tuck tail and run

or maybe it's getting no where and no one can convince the other so you spend your time more elsewhere....

does that ever enter your tiny brain?

-------------------------------------------------