h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi, just back from London, to find my computer totally knackered by virus infestation, and taken off by my computer adept son for deep cleansing. So, at present using Recumbentman's, so must be brief, ( and not able to reply instantly...)

Yes, the border with India is an important element, which comes under the general heading of the strategic/military aspect. Recently India and China have been having a bit of a political schmooze, India being very concerned about China's supply of nuclear military technology to Pakistan. The McMahon line, Tibet's/"China's" border with India is still officially disputed, and they went to war over this in 1963. A war the Chinese "won" but then withdrew from. It is generally accepted that China was involved in stirring up trouble for India in both Assam and Kashmir. In India three years ago I spoke to an Indian Army major who said they'd seized Chinese weaponry from Pakistani "insurgents" in Kashmir. But of course this doesn't necessarily mean that the Chinese were supplying the weapons directly. India has also been on a diplomatic cooling-out mission with Pakistan, so maybe the border issue will become less significant as a sparking-point for the three countries.

However, it is ominous for the Tibetans as China and India getting pally puts pressure on the Tibetan exiled community to behave and not make political waves within India. Nepal also is pall-ing up to China, and recently there have been several cases of the Nepali police handing Tibetan refugees back to the Chinese border guards, which means certain imprisonment, and probable torture, beatings etc., for the crime of trying to leave the "Motherland." In some cases the Nepalis have imprisoned escaping Tibetans as illegal immigrants, and used their situation to impose fines which may or may not be paid for by Western refugee/aid organisations.

The environmental question of trans-border river intervention by the Chinese is a much trickier question. It will be interesting to see how India, and particularly Bangladesh respond to China's plans to dam and divert the Brahmaputra northwards, ( using nuclear devices to blast through the mountains!)

Thanks for that.

Since yesterday I've been talking to an Irish woman who lived in Nepal for two years, and married a Tibetan from the high Himalayan border country, west of Mustang. She witnessed Nepalese police attempts to prevent the Tibetan refugees in Kathmandu from celebrating Losar, the New Year prayer festival, under pressure from the Chinese, two years running. Basically the Tibetans were forbidden to assemble in public during the New Year period, forbidden to perform any public religious ceremonies, such as circumambulating the great Baudnath Stupa, burning incense, offering ceremonial white scarves etc. All things which the Chinese find deeply threatening!

Have you read the ICT report describing the treatment received by Tibetan refugees who were handed back to Chinese custody? It's pretty grim. I've added the lead to Tibet News.

JTG

Chai has reworked his Entry as A2231344 "Tibet - Why the Chinese are there". I've put it into GuideML and posted it for him, but haven't submitted it for review until he gets a chance to read it through (putting things into GuideML involves a certain editorial input you know; at least when I do it). He'll have a look at it tomorrow and submit it then, I expect. In the meantime, see for yourself . . .

My piece on why the Chinese are in Tibet has now been finished and posted to Peer Review. Meantime, because it seemed appropriate (and because I hadn't read this thread and seen that you, JtG, had already posted the link) I added the entire ICT report on the treatment of repatriated Tibetan refugees to the Bon thread.

Oh, and thanks, Recumbentman, for putting it all into Guide etc. Your editorial touch is very light.

Hadn't seen the Bon thread; the report is at

F25357?thread=143524?thread=&skip=101

OK, I'm confused! Is the new entry supplanting this one, which would mean this would need to be moved out of PR, or is it supplementing it?

Are you stil having problems with your computer, Chai?

There is some really uncomfortable stuff in the Bon thread - needs to be known, though.

Hi Zarquon,

Not surprising if you're confused, because I have been posting a lot of Tibetan material, having discovered that people, well some people, seem to want to know about it. The report on the re-patriation of refugees by the Nepali police has not been intended as a Guide Entry, merely as a topic of discussion which came up on the Bon thread.

I put the case of the US imprisoning a Tibetan refugee nun up as a Guide Entry because not only was it an appalling case of post 9/11 paranoia going way off-limits, but it also shows that the Nepali police are not the only ones capable of unfair treatment of refugees.

However, last night the news came through that the nun, Ani Sonam, has been released from prison in Virginia, so I will either remove it as an entry altogether, or at least edit in the happy ending.

Does that help to make things a bit clearer?

If not, tell me what needs doing.



Chaiwallah<>artist>

Hi Chai!

I think that you're right in taking the entry about the Tibetan nun out of PR. Stuff like that is often current only for a short time, and it's only later that you find out whether it has any historical significance.

As far as the two entries about what China is doing in Tibet and it's claim to rule, you could leave these as two entries, although I would suggest that you make slightly less overlap and link them together. They could then be recommended at the same time and given to the same <./>Sub-Editor</.> to work on, or you could combine them into a longer entry. Personally, I'd favour two shorter entries - the likelihood is that more people will read the material then. Your call.

I hope that's helpful. Let us know what you decide to do.

Hi Zarq,

Definitely the two China-Tibet entries should remain separate. It would be too huge and indigestible as one entry.

While Ani Sonam's case is still running, and therefore, as you say, likely to go out of date, maybe it should come out of Peer Review (how do I do that?) However, as an example of what happens to people who fall between the wheels of bureaucracy, or fall foul of USA post 9/11 paranoia, it is worthy of remaining as a Guide Entry, don't you think?

I confess that I haven't read the entry in PR, although I did read the journal entry, so I can't comment until I've read it, Chai .

To take out an entry from PeerReview, go to PR, find your entry and simply click on the 'remove' button - or the 'x' depending on which skin you are using.

I think having two separate entries on the claim to rule and why the Chinese are there would be the best route. I'm not sure how much you may need to take out of the earlier entry so that there is not too much duplication.

Do put links in, one to the other, though (or a note at the bottom to the sub requesting a link).

Let us know when you have made the amendments. As you say, this should be interesting to a fair few of us on h2g2.

Are you moving this out of PR, or working on it, or what?

Probably "or what!"

I've been very busy with Tibet Support stuff lately, and haven't had time to keep up with h2g2. Added to which I seem to have some kind of very elusive virus or something which is interfering with h2g2 functioning. The small print is very hard to read, all broken up as though inadequately resolved/focussed. Also, the scroll bars and tab butons all seem to have a time delay. But it's only on h2g2, not other sites such as Google. But it makes working on h2g2 very slow, despite being on broadband.

How much work do you need to do on this, Chai? Sorry to hear you're having problems with your 'puter. Let us know when it's ready to go.

Hi Zarq,

I've just added a bit to one of the sections. It's not intended to be a huge, in-depth examination of all the considerations in international law regarding Tibet's legal status, and China's spurious claims to a right to rule, more of a brief skip through the usual Chinese arguments. So I haven't added loads of references or links.

So, if stylistically acceptable, it's ready to go.

Cheers,

Chaiwallah

Like to put some GuideML on it?

I find this unclear: "Rejecting the need for trade with Britain, the Emperor considered this an act of 'submission' . . . "

-- considered what?

"This" refers to Lord Macartney's visit in the hopes of generating trade with China. What else? I'll make it more obvious if you find that unclear.

Offending item re-written.