Tibetan Declaration of Independence

[Muloghonto]

16 minutes ago, zen said:

Once again:

And once again, that is not declaration of independence. Show us the Tibetan declaration of independence. Till then, you have zero case of what India could've done.

FYI, China successfully argued in the UN (with no opposition mind you), that this Dalai Llama's letter was regarding 'independence of Tibet in its internal matters', aka autonomy. Not sovereign issue. Again, nobody challenged. Because nobody has this mythical declaration of independence from Tibet.

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

And once again, that is not declaration of independence. Show us the Tibetan declaration of independence. Till then, you have zero case of what India could've done.

If you claim to be familiar with the issue of Tibet, you should know what Feb 13, 1931 stands for .... if not it is laughable  

 

Tibetan Declaration of Independence

Proclamation Issued by His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama in 1913

PROCLAMATION ISSUED BY H.H. THE DALAI LAMA XIII, ON THE EIGHTH DAY OF THE FIRST MONTH OF THE WATER-OX YEAR (1913)

Translation of the Tibetan Text

I, the Dalai Lama, most omniscient possessor of the Buddhist faith, whose title was conferred by the Lord Buddha’s command from the glorious land of India, speak to you as follows:

I am speaking to all classes of Tibetan people. Lord Buddha, from the glorious country of India, prophesied that the reincarnations of Avalokitesvara, through successive rulers from the early religious kings to the present day, would look after the welfare of Tibet.

During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty of the Chinese, and the Ch’ing Dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China cooperated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship. A few years ago, the Chinese authorities in Szechuan and Yunnan endeavored to colonize our territory. They brought large numbers of troops into central Tibet on the pretext of policing the trade marts. I, therefore, left Lhasa with my ministers for the Indo-Tibetan border, hoping to clarify to the Manchu emperor by wire that the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other. There was no other choice for me but to cross the border, because Chinese troops were following with the intention of taking me alive or dead.

On my arrival in India, I dispatched several telegrams to the Emperor; but his reply to my demands was delayed by corrupt officials at Peking. Meanwhile, the Manchu empire collapsed. The Tibetans were encouraged to expel the Chinese from central Tibet. I, too, returned safely to my rightful and sacred country, and I am now in the course of driving out the remnants of Chinese troops from DoKham in Eastern Tibet. Now, the Chinese intention of colonizing Tibet under the patron-priest relationship has faded like a rainbow in the sky. Having once again achieved for ourselves a period of happiness and peace, I have now allotted to all of you the following duties to be carried out without negligence:

1. Peace and happiness in this world can only be maintained by preserving the faith of Buddhism. It is, therefore, essential to preserve all Buddhist institutions in Tibet, such as the Jokhang temple and Ramoche in Lhasa, Samye, and Traduk in southern Tibet, and the three great monasteries, etc.

2. The various Buddhist sects in Tibet should be kept in a distinct and pure form. Buddhism should be taught, learned, and meditated upon properly. Except for special persons, the administrators of monasteries are forbidden to trade, loan money, deal in any kind of livestock, and/or subjugate another’s subjects.

3. The Tibetan government’s civil and military officials, when collecting taxes or dealing with their subject citizens, should carry out their duties with fair and honest judgment so as to benefit the government without hurting the interests of the subject citizens. Some of the central government officials posted at Ngari Korsum in western Tibet, and Do Kham in eastern Tibet, are coercing their subject citizens to purchase commercial goods at high prices and have imposed transportation rights exceeding the limit permitted by the government. Houses, properties and lands belonging to subject citizens have been confiscated on the pretext of minor breaches of the law. Furthermore, the amputation of citizens’ limbs has been carried out as a form of punishment. Henceforth, such severe punishments are forbidden.

4. Tibet is a country with rich natural resources; but it is not scientifically advanced like other lands. We are a small, religious, and independent nation. To keep up with the rest of the world, we must defend our country. In view of past invasions by foreigners, our people may have to face certain difficulties, which they must disregard. To safeguard and maintain the independence of our country, one and all should voluntarily work hard. Our subject citizens residing near the borders should be alert and keep the government informed by special messenger of any suspicious developments. Our subjects must not create major clashes between two nations because of minor incidents.

5. Tibet, although thinly populated, is an extensive country. Some local officials and landholders are jealously obstructing other people from developing vacant lands, even though they are not doing so themselves. People with such intentions are enemies of the State and our progress. From now on, no one is allowed to obstruct anyone else from cultivating whatever vacant lands are available. Land taxes will not be collected until three years have passed; after that the land cultivator will have to pay taxes to the government and to the landlord every year, proportionate to the rent. The land will belong to the cultivator.

Your duties to the government and to the people will have been achieved when you have executed all that I have said here. This letter must be posted and proclaimed in every district of Tibet, and a copy kept in the records of the offices in every district.

From the Potala Palace.

(Seal of the Dalai Lama)

Source (and further reading):

Tibet: A Political History, Tsepon W.D. Shagapda, New Haven, 1967, pp. 246-248.

 

http://www.declarationproject.org/?p=1389 

 

 

This is an exercise in seeing how much you can humiliate yourself 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

If you claim to be familiar with the issue of Tibet, you should know what Feb 13, 1931 stands for .... if not it is laughable  

 

This is an exercise in seeing how much you can humiliate yourself 

Speaking of humiliation, i asked you for a declaration of independence. Show me where in the document, the Dalai Llama claims Tibet is a sovereign nation, independent from ANY other nation.

All you show, is the Dalai Llama acknowledging China as the sovereign and clarifying with his boss (China) that he doesnt appreciate the autonomy being threatened. 

That is not declaring Tibet as independent. Nowhere does he say Tibet is declaring independence.

 

so keep humiliating yourself further.....

[zen]

10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Speaking of humiliation, i asked you for a declaration of independence. Show me where in the document, the Dalai Llama claims Tibet is a sovereign nation, independent from ANY other nation.

All you show, is the Dalai Llama acknowledging China as the sovereign and clarifying with his boss (China) that he doesnt appreciate the autonomy being threatened. 

That is not declaring Tibet as independent. Nowhere does he say Tibet is declaring independence.

 

so keep humiliating yourself further.....

After humiliation, now to reconfirm your status as a fraud:

 

4. Tibet is a country with rich natural resources; but it is not scientifically advanced like other lands. We are a small, religious, and independent nation. To keep up with the rest of the world, we must defend our country. In view of past invasions by foreigners, our people may have to face certain difficulties, which they must disregard. To safeguard and maintain the independence of our country, one and all should voluntarily work hard. Our subject citizens residing near the borders should be alert and keep the government informed by special messenger of any suspicious developments. Our subjects must not create major clashes between two nations because of minor incidents.

 

Even a 13 year old could understand the above ....  Nehru's love sunk you big time .... Now run away with the tail b/w your legs  

 

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by zen

[vayuu1]

That Hindus are ONE of the most tolerant communities in the world, is not going to prevent people looking to 'fight fire with fire' and incite hinduvta suppression of freedoms. 

The name of the country does not matter. The constitution & laws matter. And that means, India is a country for freedom of the individual, preservation of individual rights and rule of law. 

When hinduvta groups are getting into assault & criminal behaviour, while not facing any real consequence from their parties, it makes it a hinduvta political problem. Pointing out 'OO evil commies, evil jihadis' is not going to make the threat posed by the chaddis any less. 

 

Indians are experts at pointing fingers on every other crime that goes unpunished to protect 'their favourite parties/organizations'. All the while the system is broken. 

Your freedom cannot be a threat to the very structure of this country, I am sorry, freedom of expression doesn't mean to say "Bharat ki barbadi tak jang rahegi ",it doesn't say Bharat tere tukde honge Inshallah,you don't lure girls and trick them to convert in the name of jihad, u don't convert people by throwing money at them,u don't celebrate mahishasur divas, beat Former soldiers who protest anti India seminars, freedom doesn't mean to pollute the mind of young with dangerous Ideas, if that is ur Idea of freedom than sorry, u can shove it behind urs melons.

 

Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, zen said:

After humiliation, now to reconfirm your status as a fraud:

 

4. Tibet is a country with rich natural resources; but it is not scientifically advanced like other lands. We are a small, religious, and independent nation. To keep up with the rest of the world, we must defend our country. In view of past invasions by foreigners, our people may have to face certain difficulties, which they must disregard. To safeguard and maintain the independence of our country, one and all should voluntarily work hard. Our subject citizens residing near the borders should be alert and keep the government informed by special messenger of any suspicious developments. Our subjects must not create major clashes between two nations because of minor incidents.

 

Even a 13 year old could understand the above ....  Nehru's love sunk you big time .... Now run away with the tail b/w your legs  

 

 

That is a statement. NOT declaration of independence. 

A declaration of independence is what Nehru's speech in 1947, US declaration of independence from 1700s etc are like. Ie, a document or speech that says 'on this day, of this year, i/we declare independence'. 

 

Making random statements going ' w are independent' is not a declaration of independence. Otherwise,kashmir has declared its independence too.

 

Its funny arguing with fools like yourself who have no clue about what basic definitions are or what a declaration of independence is. 

 

PS:I am a bengali, who is 40+. To say that there is a Nehruvite in that demographic, is funny. We are all 'Bose was shafted and Nehru was an idiot' people.

Trouble for you is, i am not a binary simpleton like you, who cannot see the positives & negatives in somebody or something. I think Nehru botched it with China big time re: Ladakh. But nobody in their right mind thinks Nehru could've done something for Tibet without Tibet officially declaring independence atleast.

 

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, vayuu1 said:

Your freedom cannot be a threat to the very structure of this country, I am sorry, freedom of expression doesn't mean to say "Bharat ki barbadi tak jang rahegi ",it doesn't say Bharat tere tukde honge Inshallah,you don't lure girls and trick them to convert in the name of jihad, u don't convert people by throwing money at them,u don't celebrate mahishasur divas, beat Former soldiers who protest anti India seminars, freedom doesn't mean to pollute the mind of young with dangerous Ideas, if that is ur Idea of freedom than sorry, u can shove it behind urs melons.

 

Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk

 

 

I don't see what you are trying to say. 

My freedom of speech doesnt obviously mean i get to commit assault (beat former soldiers). 

Freedom means you get to say whatever you want, as long as its not libel. 

As a lot of people are waking up and realizing with Trump's election, you don't want to suppress opposition voices about what you don't like. In todays world, all it means is it goes underground, creates an echo chamber and come back into limelight with full force when its right moment for them. 

This means its better to have the opposition voices out in the open- where you can address them, than suppress them.

 

As our motto goes 'Satyameva Jayate'. Not 'suppress what you don't wanna hear'.

 

[Muloghonto]

23 minutes ago, vayuu1 said:

That's exactly what I want to say, you can have ur freedom of speech, but point is, as a citizen of this country ,does ur freedom of speech allows you to raise anti India sentiments in ur very own country, also one of our motto is "janani janambhumishcha svargadapi giryasi "taken from Valmiki Ramayana ,so ur freedom of speech cannot be bigger than ,honor of this country, nobody can disrespect and raise such slogans, which hurt sentiments of the people.

 

Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk

 

 

I disagree. As i said, there is nothing wrong in saying 'i want independence' or saying something so long as it is not libel. If you look around the world, most developed countries have freedom of speech.

As i said, its much easier to deal with free speech, than to deal with suppressed speech & sentiments. Why would you want anti-India sentiments to be shut out of mainstream and let them fester underground, over decades and explode to the top ? If India indeed is a worthwhile nation to be part of, it shouldn't take too much effort to address someone making anti-india statement.

But when you don't allow these people to make such statements, what will they do ? they won't shut up- instead, they will go underground and create an echo chamber. Much more dangerous that way.

 

'hurting the sentiments of the people' sounds like muslim-talk regarding how nobody can say anything bad about their religion or prophet. It is that type of censorship over the ages that has gotten them to this sorry stage.

 

[zen]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

That is a statement. NOT declaration of independence. 

A declaration of independence is what Nehru's speech in 1947, US declaration of independence from 1700s etc are like. Ie, a document or speech that says 'on this day, of this year, i/we declare independence'. 

 

Making random statements going ' w are independent' is not a declaration of independence. Otherwise,kashmir has declared its independence too.

 

Its funny arguing with fools like yourself who have no clue about what basic definitions are or what a declaration of independence is. 

 

PS:I am a bengali, who is 40+. To say that there is a Nehruvite in that demographic, is funny. We are all 'Bose was shafted and Nehru was an idiot' people.

Trouble for you is, i am not a binary simpleton like you, who cannot see the positives & negatives in somebody or something. I think Nehru botched it with China big time re: Ladakh. But nobody in their right mind thinks Nehru could've done something for Tibet without Tibet officially declaring independence atleast.

 

Again you are resorting to childish pranks 

 

Only a fool would believe that every country will make declaration in one particular way and has access to standard platforms 

 

So what is next? Before Declaration of Independence is announced, the person announcing it has to have an orange drink otherwise it is not counted as one. So ppl have to show that the person had that drink  

 

The document itself says "Declaration of Independence". Tibetians celebrate Feb 13th as such. And in the early 19th century, many countries have seen Tibet as an independent state and kept embassies in Tibet. So instead of accepting that like a genuine person, you had in you to ask - "Show me where in the document, the Dalai Llama claims Tibet is a sovereign nation, independent from ANY other nation." 

 

And as expected, after showing that too in that document,  you continue to act like a fraud 

 

You have already humiliated yourself enough and proven yourself to be a fraud .... Stop playing childish pranks, making noise like an empty vessel, and grow up! 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

42 minutes ago, zen said:

Again you are resorting to childish pranks 

 

Only a fool would believe that every country will make declaration in one particular way and has access to standard platforms 

Bhai, in the 20th century, every single country that has become independent, has a declaration of independence. That is no 'childish pranks', that is what standard knowledge of diplomacy & international law states. You have zero idea, what even a declaration of independence is.

 

And now you want to muddy the definition, by saying 'not everyone has the same platform'. Well, actually, in the 20th century, they *DO*.

 

And no, no country saw Tibet as an independent state in the 19th century. They saw tibet as an autonomous state, fully free to conduct its own trade deals and as such,sent delegations directly to Tibet, by-passing China. Which is still fine, because they all accepted China as the sovereign. All the actual documents, say that.

 

This document is *NOT* official document recognized by the Dalai Llama government or the Tibet government or any such government. Its a website, presenting an article. As i said, continue exposing yourself to childish nonsense instead of educating yourself. 

And as i said, by the same standard, i suppose Kashmir has already declared independence, because some Tom -Dick and Harry politician said the word free here or there in a speech.

 

Now, be a good boy and do some homework. I got a few for you : Go read what is a declaration of independence and find me 1 nation in 20th & 21st century that has been recognized as independent by a third party without : a) declaration of independence  b) previous sovereign declaring it independent.

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

12 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Bhai, in the 20th century, every single country that has become independent, has a declaration of independence. That is no 'childish pranks', that is what standard knowledge of diplomacy & international law states. You have zero idea, what even a declaration of independence is.

And now you want to muddy the definition, by saying 'not everyone has the same platform'. Well, actually, in the 20th century, they *DO*.

 

And no, no country saw Tibet as an independent state in the 19th century. They saw tibet as an autonomous state, fully free to conduct its own trade deals and as such,sent delegations directly to Tibet, by-passing China. Which is still fine, because they all accepted China as the sovereign. All the actual documents, say that.

 

This document is *NOT* official document recognized by the Dalai Llama government or the Tibet government or any such government. Its a website, presenting an article. As i said, continue exposing yourself to childish nonsense instead of educating yourself. 

And as i said, by the same standard, i suppose Kashmir has already declared independence, because some Tom politician said the word free here or there in a speech.

^That is extremely bad logic, why? Because:

 

1st - In Ind's case, Kashmir willingly signed the "instrument of accession", while in case of China, it marched in to Tibet, forcing Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. If you want to compare Kashmir, it would be like Pak marching in to Kashmir and forcing the Maharaja to join Pak .... So the next question is if Tibet was a part of China like what China believes, there would be no need to sign the 17-point agreement and forcing it in to Chinese control 

 

2nd - Even if you believe that Tibet was an autonomous region, Nehru still needed to support Tibet to maintain its autonomy for both Tibet and Ind's interest! 

 

Thank you! 

 

 

 

 

•  

Edited February 28, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

28 minutes ago, zen said:

^That is extremely bad logic, why? Because:

 

1st - In Ind's case, Kashmir willingly signed the "instrument of accession", while in case of China, it marched in to Tibet, forcing Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. If you want to compare Kashmir, it would be like Pak marching in to Kashmir and forcing the Maharaja to join Pak .... So the next question is if Tibet was a part of China like what China believes, there would be no need to sign the 17-point agreement and forcing it in to Chinese control 

 

2nd - Even if you believe that Tibet was an autonomous region, Nehru still needed to support Tibet to maintain its autonomy for both Tibet and Ind's interest! 

 

Thank you! 

 

 

 

 

•  

1. Kashmir was sovereign free nation in 1947. Tibet was NOT a sovereign free nation. That requires either being granted independence from previous sovereign (Qing China, it never did) or declaration of independence (Tibet never did either). 

As i said, this is about pure facts. Fact is, Tibet never declared independence. 

 

2. 17-point agreement is 're-negotiation between Sovereign & autonomous province'. As i said, that is the status quo of Tibet-China for 100s of years. Go check the documents of the 19th century western powers too- nobody addressed Tibet as sovereign, everyone negotiated right to deal with Tibet (sovereign decision) from China,before sending embassy to Tibet to deal with them directly (autonomy).

 

 

3. Nehru cannot do squat about Tibet if Tibet is autonomous. That is illegal according to international law. India cannot tell Canada how to run BC. Or Pakistan on how to run Sindh. You cannot meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation legally. You can deal with autonomous parts independently, only if sovereign allows you to. That is what sovereign-autonomy relationships fundamentally are, in every case. And when it is refuted, there is usually war.

 

You have no idea what you are talking of, which is why you its so funny. 
Comparing sovereign Kashmir to autonomous Tibet.

[zen]

14 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Kashmir was sovereign free nation in 1947. Tibet was NOT a sovereign free nation. That requires either being granted independence from previous sovereign (Qing China, it never did) or declaration of independence (Tibet never did either). 

As i said, this is about pure facts. Fact is, Tibet never declared independence. 

 

2. 17-point agreement is 're-negotiation between Sovereign & autonomous province'. As i said, that is the status quo of Tibet-China for 100s of years. Go check the documents of the 19th century western powers too- nobody addressed Tibet as sovereign, everyone negotiated right to deal with Tibet (sovereign decision) from China,before sending embassy to Tibet to deal with them directly (autonomy).

 

 

3. Nehru cannot do squat about Tibet if Tibet is autonomous. That is illegal according to international law. India cannot tell Canada how to run BC. Or Pakistan on how to run Sindh. You cannot meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation legally. You can deal with autonomous parts independently, only if sovereign allows you to. That is what sovereign-autonomy relationships fundamentally are, in every case. And when it is refuted, there is usually war.

 

You have no idea what you are talking of, which is why you its so funny. 
Comparing sovereign Kashmir to autonomous Tibet.

1st - So now you think Kashmir cannot be compared. Let's refresh your memory, it was you who brought in Kashmir in your last post to me - " And as i said, by the same standard, i suppose Kashmir has already declared independence, because some Tom politician said the word free here or there in a speech. " When I reply to you on that, you think Kashmir should not be compared. OK, we get it, Mr. Fraud, that your aim is to stay in debate by hook or crook

 

2nd - The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done? Please explain

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

34 minutes ago, zen said:

1st - So now you think Kashmir cannot be compared. Let's refresh your memory, it was you who brought in Kashmir in your last post to me - " And as i said, by the same standard, i suppose Kashmir has already declared independence, because some Tom politician said the word free here or there in a speech. " When I reply to you on that, you think Kashmir should not be compared. OK, we get it, Mr. Fraud, that your aim is to stay in debate by hook or crook

Bhai, attend some comprehension classes. One is a comparison, another is a hypothetical analogy. I have said from the beginning that Kashmir and Tibet cannot be compared in their reality. One was a sovereign nation that merged with another, another is a autonomous province for hundreds of years that never declared independence and has no sovereign rights till it does so!

 

Quote

 

2nd - The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done? Please explain

What does that have to do with sovereignty ? As i said, nations have sent troops into autonomous provinces before. 

Ottomans did it in Egypt too.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

45 minutes ago, Austin 3:!6 said:

Seems like Muloghonto is an ardent mamta supporter

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

 

Er no. 

Last time i voted, i voted BJP. And this was before it was cool to vote BJP. I consider them the least crappy of a very crappy choice option to Indian politics. 

But they have not always won my vote either. Even in Canadian politics, i am not a party loyalist, i am one who votes for whatever party is doing well and has the better plan for the election cycle.

The few times I've voted in US elections, i've voted for Rep/Dem congressmen alike. Btw, i voted Bush the 2nd time and Democrat ever since. Wasn't eligible till Bush's first election to vote in the US. 

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Bhai, attend some comprehension classes. One is a comparison, another is a hypothetical analogy. I have said from the beginning that Kashmir and Tibet cannot be compared in their reality. One was a sovereign nation that merged with another, another is a autonomous province for hundreds of years that never declared independence and has no sovereign rights till it does so!

 

What does that have to do with sovereignty ? As i said, nations have sent troops into autonomous provinces before. 

Ottomans did it in Egypt too.

 

 

I understand that rules keep changing for you depending up on where the argument goes - red becomes blue, blue turns green, green transforms in to violet, etc. .... As far as I am concerned, everything has been proved to you and can easily be understood by connecting the dots .... The point of the exercise after we passed that "threshold" is to see how many times the "colors" change

 

 

It does not matter what Ottomans did (though there would be reasons for that too) or what your uncle did or what other nations did in 20th century. The focus is Tibet, which has its "own" case before us

 

 

Now let's focus on the question below: 

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?" 

Edited February 28, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, zen said:

I understand that rules keep changing for you depending up on where the argument goes - red becomes blue, blue turns green, green transforms in to violet, etc. .... As far as I am concerned, everything has been proved to you and can easily be understood by connecting the dots .... The point of the exercise after we passed that "threshold" is to see how many times the "colors" change

No, you clearly demostrated that you do not understand the difference between a comparison and a hypothetical analogy and what a declaration of independence is. 

 

Quote

 

 

It does not matter what Ottomans did (though there would be reasons for that too) or what your uncle did or what other nations did in 20th century. The focus is Tibet, which has its "own" case before us

 

Ofcourse it does. Its called precedent. You know, a concept rather strongly taken in legal and diplomatic circles. 

As i said, there is no precedent to what you are suggesting and if you were to actually present your views to someone who is in international law or diplomacy, they will laugh on your face.

 

Recognize/help an autonomous province before they even declare indepdendence.

And your question has already been answered.

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, vayuu1 said:

Wrong, these were hidden sentiments, which are showing their true colours, since modi has come to power, the evangelists,jamaat's,commies,bhadralok's,dhimmi's were all going smoothly before him, and now since they are exposed ,they are rattled and are showing their true colours as and why is it is OK to ask for independence ,do you think these were not festered underground these anti India sentiments were their before and hidden, it's just that they have been exposed, and are fighting for survival.

 

Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk

 

 

If you can unite the Jamaat, the evangelists, the commies and the Bhadralok, then you must be doing something wrong.

Regardless, yes, these have been underground sentiments in the past. You act as if Modi is the first time BJP came to power. And what is wrong in asking for independence ? You'd prefer people didnt ask, just straight away went to insurgency ?  So basically according to you, Scots shouldn't be asking for independence or had their referendum, they should've straightaway declared independence and fought for it !?

 

[zen]

21 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No, you clearly demostrated that you do not understand the difference between a comparison and a hypothetical analogy and what a declaration of independence is. 

 

Ofcourse it does. Its called precedent. You know, a concept rather strongly taken in legal and diplomatic circles. 

As i said, there is no precedent to what you are suggesting and if you were to actually present your views to someone who is in international law or diplomacy, they will laugh on your face.

 

Recognize/help an autonomous province before they even declare indepdendence.

And your question has already been answered.

 

Please no childish points and answer the question below with relevant details: 

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?" 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Please no childish points and answer the question below with relevant details: 

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?" 

 

 

 

None of them are childish points. Infact your points are childish, when you think that a random statement is a declaration of independence. It is not. As i said, i gave you some homework, go complete your homework like a good boy instead of trying to pretend you know what I am trying to say. 

Your question has been answered before, as i said, look and read- something you are failing at, given you cannot differentiate between a comparison and a hypothetical analogy.