South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh) is NOT an integral part of India

[Joe Shearer]

@mazeto

As you will appreciate, this is a discussion forum, and nothing that is discussed here, or even stated here, however authentic and well-researched, will affect the real-world discussions and negotiations between authorised organs of state that is going on.

wud like Chinese here to tell what r ur plans for arunachal/south tibet? do u really want it or using only to get aksai cin?

Indians shud tell why they r more intrested in putting more n more army in my state n not roads n development? we want roads not military man

i live there thats y

On the Chinese side, the clearest definitions that have emerged (I am not quoting actual documents because these have not themselves been published, they have only been referred to by authorised persons in passing) seem to be that

• China claims the whole of South Tibet;
• China's definition of South Tibet is not the same as India's definition of Arunachal Pradesh;
• China's maximal position is that portion of Arunachal Pradesh which is hilly country, right down to the plains;
• It is likely that this is an exaggerated claim and that China has no desire to secure the full extent of their claim;
• A more realistic, better grounded claim is of the monastery of Tawang and certain areas around and about it, consisting mainly of the territory occupied by the Monpas;
• Even on this, there does not seem to be a written-in-stone Chinese position;
• What does seem to be written in stone is their insistence that the McMahon Line should be reviewed without any further loss of time, and that if anything, it should immediately be aligned to the watershed, and not a metre to the north;
• In this lies the non-negotiable Chinese position, and it is a position which agrees with the principles on which the discussions at Simla in 1914 went, so India will be happy to embrace this reviewed, re-aligned McMahon Line;
• The claims and counter-claims regarding Aksai Chin are left out in considering all this, but their position is essentially different.

Your last sentence, about development rather than militarisation, is an example of the great harm caused by ongoing uncertainty about the intentions of our neighbours. I completely support your sentiments.

China is not going to take arunachal/south tibet by force. What China wants eventuall is a negotiated settlement that China and India can live with.

This is probably the most accurate summation of not only the Chinese side, but both sides' positions.

The only difference is that there is no political consensus on the Indian side to agree to this. There are precedents; the re-alignment of the frontiers with Bangladesh, to exchange enclaves created by the ownership of land by Cooch Behar state in areas now in Bangladesh, and by estates of zamindars whose territories are now in Bangladesh lying in India, is such a precedent. The cession of Mullaitivu, for the sake of a resolution of border difficulties, in spite of the annual carnage caused by a trigger-happy and racist neighbour's navy, is another.

do i understand correcly u said tht to china AP/south tibet is negotiable? in other words u will b satisfied if india give u a piece right? meaning u r saying ap/south tibet is not really cihina right?

This is such an impossible thing to ask on a discussion forum. Nothing that an individual member states is binding on his country; why should we ask each other to confirm this, that or the other? And if it is intended to restrict debating positions, any constructive statement by CardSharp seeking to calm angry passions on the Indian side may create major affront and a renewed set of attacks by others who feel that he has given away what was not his to give, that he can state only what is his personal opinion, and that such personal opinion cannot restrict others.

Let us understand what is being conveyed and leave it at that, without pressing the matter to these lengths.

I think the aborigines lived in AP are genetically close to Southeast Asians, even many Indians don't feel any affiliation with them. They were perhaps treating as low caste by the Hindu caste system.

YouTube - Arunachalee marriage party

I think these people are Tibeto-Burman which are the brothers to Burmese people, and cousins to the Chinese people.

This is a mixture difficult to handle.

The caste system applies to Hindus, not to those outside Hinduism, however we define it (there are those on this forum who will inform you that Hindu is not a religious category, Hinduism is not a religion, Sanatan Dharma is the correct term and so on; others who will earnestly educate you on the three main categories that observant Hindus fall into, and so on).

Animists, Christians, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Brahmo Samaji are all outside the caste system.

Regarding genetics, there is a shading off from the eastern frontiers of Bengal onwards, as we go east, north-east and south-east. This is Bengal in the original form, 3/5 - 60% - of which is now Bangladesh. People in the Chittagong area, for instance, speak a patois barely intelligible to other Bengalis, and are heavily influenced by their proximity to the Arakan; the Chittagong Hill tracts contain a different genetic mixture from the plainsmen, Tripura and Manipur, even, mentioned in ancient Indian epics dating back to 800 BC or more, are also genetically border areas, but quite recognisably within the boundaries of the Brahmaputra Valley and lower Ganges Valley cultural complexes.

In this case, the dominant culture - not genetically differentiated group, but culture - is the Ahom culture of the Brahmaputra Valley, of older Indian elements from the older Brahmaputra Valley culture overlaid by the conquering tribe of the Ahoms who entered the valley in the 13th century, and set up the oldest state in the sub-continent. They are, however, apparently not identical to the other, differentiated genetic groups of the southern catchment area of the Brahmaputra, which is the general genetic grouping to which most of the Arunachal Tribes belong, other than the Monpas (of Bhutanese affiliation).

In conclusion, if ethnicity were to be the touchstone, 50% of the land mass of powerful neighbouring countries of India might be considered alien. Culture is a more acceptable yard-stick; that 50% lies well within our neighbour's cultural penumbra, and is rightly considered by those neighbours to be well-integrated with them. By such yard-sticks, it is not necessary to differentiate unnecessarily between Indian and south-east Asian just because of their genetic differences. Such yard-sticks would demand, in another cardinal direction, a merger of other neighbouring countries with India - an eminently bad idea, considering the considerable nation-building effort that has gone on in those areas, and the considerable fruits that are evident.

So, considering those aspects, it is unnecessary and mischievous to dwell on them to make any kind of point that is not constructive.

They are not low caste. But in your history Manchus looks down on the Hans, Hans at one point looks down on the nomads up north. Mongols did the the same to Hans. And know they are all in your nation. It doesn't matter know,.



And we are all the same species in the end. Like this matter.




I think Aghans and Indians should work together and get Pashtunistan and others, in a way Pakistan understands.

A comparison of apples with apples and oranges with oranges would be better for our case. That is my personal opinion, and of course each of us is free to take our own course, and disregard free advice.

China has resolved all but six territorial disputes, South Tibet with India and those uninhibited islands off of Taiwan with Japan amongst them. The others all done very peacefully and in every case China conceded the bigger portion of the territory. Many to much smaller countries that China could easily sequester in one manner or another if chosen to do so. Just 3.5% of disputed area from Tajikistan, 22% from Kazakhstan and 32% from Kyrgyzstan. Some of these have been going on for well over 100 years before the PRC. In 17 out of 23 disputes China offered substantial compromises to resolve the disputes. China’s stance has been very liberal in reaching resolution as shown. Many of these countries were formal suzerainties of China that had had longstanding relationships in peace, as is the case with India.

I am not sure how the word 'suzerainty is being used here; in my personal experience, this is a much misunderstood word among those of Chinese origin who post here. There have been sharp differences of opinion, and complete lack of understanding of each other's points of view. A recent exchange, incomplete, regrettably, with ephone is an example of this lack of knowledge.

Assuming that this word is being used in the correct technical sense, it is a strange sentence construction to say Many of these countries were formal suzerainties of China that had had longstanding relationships in peace, as is the case with India. Grammatically this implies that India was under the suzertainty of China, and had a long-standing relationship in peace. Nothing can be more incorrect than this. Instead, the more reasonable interpretation is that the reference is to other territories and sovereign states, which were under Chinese suzertainty for sure, and between which and India there was a long-standing peaceful relationship. That makes much more sense, although relative to the last millennium or so.


Having said that, I agree with the major thrust of the comment, that a mutually agreeable settlement was possible in all cases with no great difficulty. In my opinion, a settlement between india and China has unfortunately got entangled in extraneous factors, and until India can go into the talks with a readiness to settle, also with the enforceable political mandate to settle, there will be no progress. You cannot clap with one hand.

As far as the ’62 War, India’s legacy includes 300+ years of Colonialism where India lost sovereignty as a nation and Indians were “Subjects” of a much smaller and belligerent ruler; if 1962 was the only time India had ever lost a war then one might understand the grudge; so get over it. India should take heed and sit down with China in earnest as the other countries have done and reach a peaceful agreement. Both countries have much greater challenges ahead to deal with, hopefully in cooperation together.

This is not historically correct. I don't even begin to understand the dates and the terminology. That is as far as the facts go; the sentiments are unexceptionable, and quite in the same league as Mom's apple pie; everybody will salute it, with reverence. The kindest way to put things is that in that paragraph, each sentence was better than the one preceding, and it ended with the best.

 

[Joe Shearer]

no matter whether the people speak Chinese or hindu, believe in Chinese religion or hindu, want to be part of China or hindusatan, the land called South Tibet belongs to China and thats the point.

Perhaps you have not had an opportunity to read other posts in this thread; they might have corrected your notions.

A simple statement that things are as you wish them to be is quite pointless in the course of a discussion, just as pointless as those on the other side of the argument who replace 'South Tibet' with 'Arunachal Pradesh' and 'China' with 'India'.

 

[Joe Shearer]

if one can have a glance at your ancient hindu Sanskrit scriptures which refer to the country called Mahachina in ancient period even before the birth of Buddha, he will see that not only South Tibet but also entire eastern part of today's india belongs to China.

<sigh>

Complete rubbish. These were clearly listed as Kamarup and Pragjyotishpur. Try again, and better luck next time.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What is this?

What is the difference between "Chinas", "Chini" and "Chinki"?

The last one is apparently supposed to be non-offensive, but I have my doubts.

Dont Hindi speakers still call China, Chin, Cina?

Chini, Punjabi, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Nepali, Manipuri, Bihari, Bharati, etc, etc, etc..

Could be that..

Chinky is a racist slag Indians I think copied from the west.. It is offensive. "Chinas" is the old Sanskrit name for East Asians, said to come from the early Qin state.

Hmm, "jayron" was quite adamant that "chinki" was not offensive, if you add an extra "i" at the end.

I never really bought that explanation.

IDK about that. I am an Indian-American raised in America. Best bet is to ask an Indian raised in India, they know the slangs. In America and the west, Chinky, Chink is like n*gger to Asians. There is no reason for Jaryron to lie about what he said, but Idk..

AFAIK chinki is indeed offensive. Chini however is just the hindi term for chinese, nothing offensive about it unless someone decides to screw with you.

u r right we look like chinese/mongolian n is true we r diffrent from indians.we r not hindu ok.we r called Chinky by indians meaning look-like chinese

In general, the word in most Indian languages for east Asians is 'china', pronounced 'cheena', sometimes in adjectival form 'cheeni', although that brings it close to the word used for sugar, also 'chini'. Not only is it not offfensive, it is historically and etymologically proper, probably derived from the Qin dynasty. At Santiniketan, in Viswabharati, Rabindranath Tagore's university, Cheena Bhavan, written China Bhavan in English, but pronounced the Bengali way, is famous. Tagore, who was fascinated and quite in love with Chinese culture, like very many Indians, set this up; it still exists and teaches Chinese language to interested graduates. BTW, Viswabharati also educated Indira Gandhi, Satyajit Ray and Amartya Sen, among others; Amartya Sen still has his paternal house there, and stays here whenever in India.

I deplore the word 'chinki'; while it has not been put to abusive use, its use is deplorable, and its context racist. It should not be used, in my opinion, in any civilised company, as it may easily become offensive; it is already discriminatory.

 

[hembo]

if one can have a glance at your ancient hindu Sanskrit scriptures which refer to the country called Mahachina in ancient period even before the birth of Buddha, he will see that not only South Tibet but also entire eastern part of today's india belongs to China.

Seriously dude!!

:Facepalm:

Ever heard of Kamatpur. Kamrup, Pragjyotishpur, Chutiya Kingdom, Kachari Kingdoms?

Or Danava dynasty, Naraka dynasty, Varman dynasty (Bhaskaravarmana's court was visited by Xuanzang from China in the 7th Century and left behind a significant written account of the era), Mlechchha dynasty, Pala dynasty, Khen dynasty, Koch dynasty, Ahom dynasty??

I guess not.

 

[Ammyy]

South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh) is NOT an integral part of India

Forget about Arunachal Pradesh even Tibet in not a internal part of China

 

[hembo]

^^^
I do not want to poke my nose in the business of China or Tibet for that matter.

However, since we are talking about Arunachal Pradesh, I would like bring the following into the knowledge of the debaters here (again):

1. First and foremost, the south Tibet controversy does not include the entire Arunachal Pradesh. Only part of it in the north-west Arunachal (Tawang district and some adjoining area). Rest of Arunacha including has no controversy whatsoever.

2. For the historically challenged ones, blabering south tibet, south tibet.., the area under discussion was historically under Monpa kingdom of Monyul, which flourished between 500 B.C. and 600 A.D.

3. The region came under the loose control of Tibet and Bhutan, especially in the Northern areas after 600 AD.

4. The region then moved to the hands of Ahom Kingdom and then the Assamese until the annexation of India by the British in 1858.

5. After India got her independence in 1947, the region was known by the name of North Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA) and was constitutionally a part of Assam.

6. On 21 June, 1972, it was conferred the status of a Union Territory and renamed Arunachal Pradesh. On 20th February, 1987, it got the status of a state and became the 25th state of the Indian Union.

 

[casual]

fight it out

 

[HongWu]

if one can have a glance at your ancient hindu Sanskrit scriptures which refer to the country called Mahachina in ancient period even before the birth of Buddha, he will see that not only South Tibet but also entire eastern part of today's india belongs to China.

It looks like large parts of eastern India was once inhabited by people close to present day Burmese / Tibetan / Mongoloids. But as Bharat expanded, they pushed these Mongoloids people into present day Tibet and Burma. Some stragglers left over in Assam and Nepal were "assimilated" into India.

China only extends down to Southern Tibet, not to Assam. But you can make an argument these Mongoloid people should have their own country (Western Burma?) instead of being dominated by Hindus.

If only they had some ethnic identity left (wiped out by high caste Hindus?) they would gain independence from people who call them derogatory terms. China can help them by arming them with advanced weapons. Like a cross between Burma and Pakistan.

 

[Roybot]

Here we go again. Different ethnicity doesn't mean different country. If it was the case free Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia first, after that we ll create western Burma for you.

I really doubt this super troll is even Chinese. Mods could you please check this guys IP location?

 

[HongWu]

Here we go again. Different ethnicity doesn't mean different country. If it was the case free Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia first, after that we ll create western Burma for you.

I really doubt this super troll is even Chinese. Mods could you please check this guys IP location?

But all of China's ethnic minorities are Mongoloid except possibly Uighurs. Take Mongol minority. If they dress like a Han Chinese, nobody would really be able to tell a difference.

On the other hand, there is a large population of Burmese / Tibetan / Mongoloids people in India. This could serve to give majority Hindus a sense of superiority by discriminating against them. We Chinese forum members already noticed that Indians seem to pick up really quickly on terms derogatory against Chinese. Now it's clear where Indians get that anti-China attitude from. A sense of racial superiority over minority Burmese / Tibetan / Mongoloids is already present in Indian psyche.

The analogy would be if China discriminates against Uighurs and then forms a sense of superiority over Turkic people and that affects our dealings with countries that are majority Turkic like Turkey and Turkmenistan.

 

[Roybot]

But all of China's ethnic minorities are Mongoloid except possibly Uighurs. Take Mongol minority. If they dress like a Han Chinese, nobody would really be able to tell a difference.

Its not about looks only. Language and culture makes people different too. So yeah Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongols are very different from the Chinese. Theres a stereotype in the western world that all the Asians look the same. You are only justifying the stereotype.

On the other hand, there is a large population of Burmese / Tibetan / Mongoloids people in India. This could serve to give majority Hindus a sense of superiority by discriminating against them. We Chinese forum members already noticed that Indians seem to pick up really quickly on terms derogatory against Chinese. Now it's clear where Indians get that anti-China attitude from. A sense of racial superiority over minority Burmese / Tibetan / Mongoloids is already present in Indian psyche.

Just cause YOU say that happens, doesn't mean it happens. Look at the percentage of North East Indians in our armed forces. And even if there is any discrimination its no more than the discrimination that rural Chinese people face in cities like Shanghai.

The analogy would be if China discriminates against Uighurs and then forms a sense of superiority over Turkic people and that affects our dealings with countries that are majority Turkic like Turkey and Turkmenistan.

No too long ago there were deadly riots in both Tibet and Xinjiang. So i don't know, but seems like China must have done something to piss em off?

 

[6642.CN]

It looks like large parts of eastern India was once inhabited by people close to present day Burmese / Tibetan / Mongoloids. But as Bharat expanded, they pushed these Mongoloids people into present day Tibet and Burma. Some stragglers left over in Assam and Nepal were "assimilated" into India.

China only extends down to Southern Tibet, not to Assam. But you can make an argument these Mongoloid people should have their own country (Western Burma?) instead of being dominated by Hindus.

If only they had some ethnic identity left (wiped out by high caste Hindus?) they would gain independence from people who call them derogatory terms. China can help them by arming them with advanced weapons. Like a cross between Burma and Pakistan.

you got it. actually ancient Sanskrit scriptures say that hindus themselves are alien invaders of South Asia, who from outside the continent. one hindu scholar Rahul Sankrityayan, a traveler, wrote a controversial fictional history book From Volga to Ganga where he himself assumed that South Asia was once inhabited by Chinese people who due to their weaker defense were later wiped off by the invading hindus. my study allows me to add another factor. I think since the Mongoloid society was matriarchal the society was weaker in defense as any matriarchal society is vulnerable to external threats and it was therefore easy for the hindus to kill all the impotent males and make the females as slaves to produce bastardized children. in my opinion, as I studied the world history including all societies from the ancient period up to the present era, patriarchal society is the best society and if you look at European civilizations which are patriarchal, you will agree with my point. one ancient hindu brahman Vishwamitra is said to have killed all the Kshatriya castes, interestingly this sanskrit name Kshatriya comes from the sansrkit word Kshetra which literally means cultivable field. that points out that kshatriyas were attached to the land who were later wiped off by the brahmans who never worked in the fields. some Sanskrit scriptures say these Kshatriyas were non-hindus which is mysterious to me. a demi hindu god Shiva once married a girl whose name is Parvati, this Sanskrit name parvati derived from the sanskrit term Parvat which literally means mountains. this indicates that Parvati was a girl from a hill tribe and all sanskrit scriptures say that all the hills and mountains in the southern periphery of China were inhabited by Sino-Tibetan people having matriarchal society. now, the whole picture seems to be like the original Sino-Tibetans of South Asia, except the Dravidians of the farthest South, were conquered and bastardized by the invading hindu aliens. in satapatha brahmana, a later vedic sanskrit scripture, there is a reference to human sacrifices conducted by the brahmans, which is called purushamedha and it is said that the aboriginal males, Sino-Tibetans perhaps, were captured from newly occupied lands and were burned alive in the name of sacrificing them to the hindu prime god brahmha by the brahmans. interestingly the women were used as devadasis who were forced to perform erotic vulgar nude dances in temples to please the gods and since the brahmans themselves believed that they are the gods, they were the consumer of these sexual commodities. this is why hindu temples are full of erotic vulgar statues and sculptures. these are documented facts.

this is why many north indian ladies as we see their photos on internet, particularly those from bihar and bengal still have Mongoloid shape of eyes and skin color is yellowish, rather than reddish brown. still unscientific hindus don't have respect for their maternal lineage as they are genetically patriarchal and in their view father's ancestral identity is their identity forgetting the fact thet both mt-DNA and Y-Chromosome contribute 50-50. but how those aboriginal Sino-Tibetan people were later absorbed into the hindu fold of life in modern times is explained by a hindu author M Srinivas in his book Sanskritization or hinduization.

I suggest you to study hindu sanskrit scriptures, many of them are available on net, to know more about the hindus. mysteries will be resolved. I am also studying Aarbic scriptures to know more about the birth place of the Prophet of Islam.

 

[hembo]

you got it. actually ancient Sanskrit scriptures say that hindus themselves are alien invaders of South Asia, who from outside the continent. one hindu scholar Rahul Sankrityayan, a traveler, wrote a controversial fictional history book From Volga to Ganga where he himself assumed that South Asia was once inhabited by Chinese people who due to their weaker defense were later wiped off by the invading hindus.
~~~snipped due to BS~~

Well.. I give up..

People who cannot engage themselves in a debate but keeps on giving one sided baseless false statement, which no one in the earth can back up with an iota of an evidence are... kinda... hard to talk to.. so ciao folk.. enjoy internet..

It looks like large parts of eastern India was once inhabited by people close to present day Burmese / Tibetan / Mongoloids. But as Bharat expanded, they pushed these Mongoloids people into present day Tibet and Burma. Some stragglers left over in Assam and Nepal were "assimilated" into India.

China only extends down to Southern Tibet, not to Assam. But you can make an argument these Mongoloid people should have their own country (Western Burma?) instead of being dominated by Hindus.

If only they had some ethnic identity left (wiped out by high caste Hindus?) they would gain independence from people who call them derogatory terms. China can help them by arming them with advanced weapons. Like a cross between Burma and Pakistan.

Looks like an advocator of extremism/ terrorism... Look out mods...

 

[Joe Shearer]

More History 101.

It looks like large parts of eastern India was once inhabited by people close to present day Burmese / Tibetan / Mongoloids. But as Bharat expanded, they pushed these Mongoloids people into present day Tibet and Burma. Some stragglers left over in Assam and Nepal were "assimilated" into India.

From all accounts, it happened precisely in reverse. But that depends on which segment of time is selected. For your convenience, I am presenting a time-line which follows events as they happened to the best of my knowledge. I do this because quite apparently, your views are in evolution and you are absorbing all the information that you can. Which is good, excellent in fact. I hope that you take note of this information as well.

Scholars posit two separate settlements of the sub-continent, one at 40,000 BC one nearer 15,000 to 10,000 BC. It is not known clearly what language these early settlers spoke, and there is no remaining 'sub-stratum' of language to establish this point, but genetic evidence is quite clear about this. From linguistic evidence, it seems that sometime around 5000 to 3000 BC, there was a phase of Dravidian language propagation and spread. These Dravidian languages still remain in trace form throughout their earlier area of use, including spots in the north-west of Pakistan, and in Bangladesh, not to mention in the forests and remote rural areas of northern India.

It is subsequent to 1500 BC that languages allied to Indo-Aryan begin to spread, and it is very important to note that this propagation of the new languages was without genetic admixture. In other words, there were not sufficient people originally speaking the Indo-Aryan languages at the beginning to influence the genetic make-up in any way. The language spread down the Indus Valley, and went east on the Ganges Valley, and further east on the Brahmaputra Valley, replacing the earlier Dravidian languages spoke by the existing population. There was not much genetic trace of this spread, and the only evidence is from linguistics. These 'replaced' north Indian languages may have been Kolari, Munda, Oraon and the like, still spoken by residual segments in these areas. From the Narmada Valley southwards, and south of a line extended eastward from the Narmada, even today, it is Dravidian languages which are spoken: Telugu, Kannada, Tamizh and Malayalam, and Tulu.

The information presented by Hembo in posts no 170 and 172 are to be read along with this. These kingdoms, dynasties and political entities belong to this period, long after 1500 BC, probably in the timeframe between 800 BC to 200/300 AD. Subsequent to this, on the expansion of the Tibetan kingdom, some effects of which were felt as far away as Chang'an, capital of the T'ang Dynasty. For fifteen days, Tibetan troops occupied this capital, installed a puppet empire and had to be driven out by force by the T'ang troops. During this period of Tibetan ascendancy, there were no fewer than six different treaties between the King/Emperor of Tibet and the Emperor of China.

Simultaneously, during this period, in the 7th and 8th centuries, Tibet had occupied some of the hill country north of the Brahmaputra. It was only during the 13th century and onwards that the Ahom, a war-like Tibeto-Burman tribe of the Ahom, not allied with the Tibetan kingdom in any way, won domination over these tracts. The Ahom were among the very few states in India that managed to fight off the Mughals. It was the British conquest of the Ahom kingdom that led to British claims on the Ahom-ruled northern hills. As I have reported in other threads, there is a detailed record of administrative and trading arrangements set up by the Ahoms in their territories.

I hope that helps you to understand the present background. If you wish, we can go through some of your speculations in detail, to explain the reality in each case.


China only extends down to Southern Tibet, not to Assam. But you can make an argument these Mongoloid people should have their own country (Western Burma?) instead of being dominated by Hindus.

This is a confusing statement. Hindu is a religion, not an ethnic category. The people of Assam are aggressively Hindu.

If only they had some ethnic identity left (wiped out by high caste Hindus?) they would gain independence from people who call them derogatory terms.

As it happens, the Ahoms have a very strong ethnic identity. They are not wimps to give up their culture and their identity with every passing breeze. And you may be assured that nobody uses derogatory terms about them, without knowing all about it.

China can help them by arming them with advanced weapons. Like a cross between Burma and Pakistan.

Perhaps you may have overestimated the value of this advertisement of the kind of help you are advocating. It is not clear that anybody wishes to be in the state that either Burma or Pakistan is today. Just a thought.