i would just reply to think tank part rest your comment about one child policy of China is mere trolling.
Chinese website denies being govt think-tank
BEIJING:
The Chinese website, which published the controversial article about splitting India into 20-30 parts, today claimed it did not represent
the views of any government think-tank. The site’s owner-editor said he ran the Internet publication on his own without any government backing.
Kang Lingyi, the founding editor of the
ÖйúÕ½ÂÔÍø_´ÓÓ°ÏìÖйú¿ªÊ¼£¬¸Ä±äÊÀ½ç, said the article was actually a web posting by an anonymous Internet user. He did not think it necessary to verify the identity and credential of the author before publishing the article, Kang said.
"It is simply a piece written by an ordinary netizen. The Indian scholar said it is a study by a government-run think-tank. This is ridiculous," Kang told TNN in an exclusive interview. The website today published a clafirication saying it represented no government body. Kang said he has also sent a fax with the clarification to the Indian embassy.
D S Rajan, the head of Chennai Centre for Chinese Studies, who circulated an English translation of the article, wrote that the Chinese article, was published in
ÖйúÕ½ÂÔÍø_´ÓÓ°ÏìÖйú¿ªÊ¼£¬¸Ä±äÊÀ½ç. "The authoritative host site is located in Beijing and is the new edition of one, which so far represented the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (www.chinaiiss.org)," he wrote. Rajan's views were interpreted in the Indian media to mean that the two sites were linked to each other.
But Kang claimed he runs a separate research body, which has a similar name in Chinese as the CIISS, but has no relationship with the official think-tank.
Rajan told TNN the site, which published the article, must be enjoying some sort of government backing.
"This website must have some sort of official blessing. Otherwise, it would not be possible for it to publish such an article," he said.
Kang confirmed he has not been questioned by the foreign ministry or the government censors for publishing the article on August 8. Chinese censors routinely block Internet sites and investigate their writers and editors whenever an article is not liked by the government. This has not happened in the case of Kang’s since the piece was published on August 8. Beijing's silence even after Indian foreign ministry reacted to the article is significant.
The article caused a lot of surprise among Chinese foreign policy experts as well.
"No responsible scholar in China will say such things," Wang Chungui, vice president of the Association of Foreign Diplomats of China, told this reporter. Zhou Gang, a former Chinese ambassador to India and a special consultant to the ministry of foreign affairs in Beijing, reacted with surprise.
"This is nonsense. This is not the thinking in China," Zhou said when told about the content of the article.
"Everyone has a right to publish his post on website. We cannot possibly get to know the details of each netizen," Kang said. He said the article, which talked about China involving Pakistan and Bangladesh in a grand plan to split up India, was first circulated over the Internet in 2006.
The article has since been refined by different Internet users and it now sounds like a study by a research organization instead of being the opinion of an individual, Kang said. Phrases like "I think" and "I believe" that appeared in the 2006 article has been removed in the new version that he published, he said.
Kang said he was running his website, ÖйúÕ½ÂÔÍø_´ÓÓ°ÏìÖйú¿ªÊ¼£¬¸Ä±äÊÀ½ç without any government funding since 2002. "It is a coincidence that the Chinese name of my website is similar to the official think-tank, the China International Institute for Strategic Studies. He recently changed the English name of his organization to China Center for International and Strategic Studies to avoid confusion, Kang said.
His website is registered with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and bears the registration number ICP09053180, he said.
Chinese website denies being govt think-tank - China - World - NEWS - The Times of India
Life is tough, the other choice is to let mother nature take care of over-population. To see 2 of your 5 children die of hunger & disease before the age of five is not pleasant experience.....
And good luck, we are all in this together. I'll tell you the truth: On average the "1st world" versus "3rd world" standard of living is 2.3:1 only. The factor of difference from the RICHEST NATION versus POOREST NATION is only about 6:1 at most. This is what I see. Look around, there's so many homeless people in UK, US, Canada, Europe. There is no nation on earth that is "superior" either in (1) wealth, (2) technology, (3) military to everyone else.
Indian figure of having disputes with ALL its neighbours is more than that.
