China and India - How is India viewed in China?

[Michael]

That's a good point you're making, that fits the reality within China. But you may not know much about India.

Of course, Indians don't understand China either. Especially since surprisingly there are Indians who think that CCP is blocking the Chinese from being friendly to Indians.

CCP is a left-wing party, while China has always been a right-wing Confucian society. These Indians naively believe that right-wing Han Chinese nationalists are similar to nationalists of ethnic groups such as Russia, and that the demand is for the dismantling of the Soviet Union and Russian independence like the Russians. These Indians are actually answering your question with malice.

Actually, it is we Chinese who realize that Han Chinese nationalists are nothing like other nationalists around the world. The value of Han nationalism is "凡日月所照、江河所至，皆为汉土。"“普天之下，莫非王土，率土之滨，莫非王臣。”“犯我大汉天威者，虽远必诛。”. If a right wing nationalist government replaces the CCP, Indians are in for a rude awakening.

I don't feel the need to explain too much to a bunch of losers who don't know you well but are full of malice.

Yes, I really don't know much about India. At the same time, we see that many Indians do not know much about China. So, we need some communication.

We have to admit it. Between India and China, most people have very limited knowledge of each other. After all, most people don't go to each other's homes to touch them in person. When we are in real contact with each other, many of our inherent traditional perceptions change. Just as @Nilgiri's impression of China is completely different from the impression of many India people on the PDF about China, because he has personally experienced the real Chinese, not India Chinese in the media. The Indians I met in real life were also completely different from the Indians on these networks.

As for the relationship between governments, we can try to think about it from the perspective of academic research. At least at the moment there is no war between us, and we can try to relax the conversation. Although I study the military, I don't want to see it happen, and I don't want the weapons that excite me to actually fall on human heads one day. I know it's contradictory.

If one day, the Sino-Indian war begins. When the country needs me, I will not hesitate to become a soldier. Even if it's @Nilgiri or @Joe Shearer on the other side, I don't hesitate to pull the trigger, that's what a soldier does. I am sure they will do the same. But before the war, when we still have the opportunity to communicate amicably, I will do my best to communicate amicably. We are human beings first, then Chinese or Indian. We can't just open fire without trying to communicate. We should try peaceful means before resorting to force.

I don't give a fixed label (left/right) to a person, a group, a country. I think they are a manifestation of certain periods, certain circumstances. This is a dynamic property rather than a static property. When we look back at the history of the CCP, there have been times when it has behaved like the left, and at other times it has behaved like the right. Even during the same period, some of the CCP's groups were skewed to the left and others to the right. The same is true in Chinese history. The same is true for the governments or peoples of other countries.

Dynamic properties are affected by many factors. Of course, war is a very important factor, and it is also the most cruel factor. In the history of human warfare, most of the causes of wars are due to information asymmetry between them. I didn't want to hit him, but I thought he wanted to hit me and I had to strike first. However, the other party also thinks so...... Thus, the war broke out. When the two sides communicated after the end of the war and found that the other side did not have this idea, both sides were already covered in bruises.

========================================================

是的，我确实对印度了解不多。同时，我们看到很多印度人对中国的了解也不多。所以，我们需要一些沟通。

我们必须承认。在印度和中国之间，大多数人对对方的了解都非常有限。毕竟，大多数人都没有亲自去对方家里亲自接触他们。当我们彼此真实接触时，我们很多固有的传统认知会发生变化。正如@Nilgiri对中国印象与PDF上很多印度人对中国的印象完全不同，因为他亲自感受过真实的中国人，而不是印度媒体上的中国人。我在现实生活中接触到的印度人，也与这些网络上的印度人完全不同。

至于政府之间的关系，我们可以尝试以学术研究的角度来思考问题。至少当前我们之间并没有开启战争，我们还可以尝试适度放松的展开交流。虽然我研究军事，但我并不想看到它真实发生，那些让我兴奋的武器，我并不想让它们在某一天真实的落在人类的头上。我知道这很矛盾。

如果某一天，中印战争开启。在国家需要我的时候，我会毫不犹豫的成为一名军人。即使对面是@Nilgiri或@Joe Shearer，我也会毫不犹豫的扣下扳机，这是军人的本职。我相信，他们也会如此。但在战争发生之前，当我们还有机会进行友好的沟通时，我会尽力进行友好的沟通。我们首先是人类，然后才是中国人或印度人。我们不能在没有进行努力沟通之前就直接开火。先礼后兵是中国人的传统。

我不会给某个人、某个群体、某个国家确定一个固定的标签（左翼/右翼）。我认为，他们是在某些时期、某些环境下的一种表现。这是一种动态属性而不是静态属性。我们回顾CCP的历史，某些时候表现得像左翼，某些时候又表现得像右翼。即使在同一时期，CCP的群体中，一些人的表现偏向左翼，而另一些的表现偏向右翼。中国历史上也是如此。其他国家的政府或人民，也是如此。

动态属性受到很多因素影响。当然，战争是一个很重要的因素，也是最残忍的因素。人类战争历史中，大部分诱发战争的原因都是因为彼此之间的信息不对称。我不想打他，但我认为他想打我，我必须先发制人。然而，对方也是这么想的......于是，战争爆发了。当双方在战争结束之后进行沟通，发现对方并没有这个想法时，双方已经遍体鳞伤。

 

[MH.Yang]

Yes, I really don't know much about India. At the same time, we see that many Indians do not know much about China. So, we need some communication.

We have to admit it. Between India and China, most people have very limited knowledge of each other. After all, most people don't go to each other's homes to touch them in person. When we are in real contact with each other, many of our inherent traditional perceptions change. Just as @Nilgiri's impression of China is completely different from the impression of many India people on the PDF about China, because he has personally experienced the real Chinese, not India Chinese in the media. The Indians I met in real life were also completely different from the Indians on these networks.

As for the relationship between governments, we can try to think about it from the perspective of academic research. At least at the moment there is no war between us, and we can try to relax the conversation. Although I study the military, I don't want to see it happen, and I don't want the weapons that excite me to actually fall on human heads one day. I know it's contradictory.

If one day, the Sino-Indian war begins. When the country needs me, I will not hesitate to become a soldier. Even if it's @Nilgiri or @Joe Shearer on the other side, I don't hesitate to pull the trigger, that's what a soldier does. I am sure they will do the same. But before the war, when we still have the opportunity to communicate amicably, I will do my best to communicate amicably. We are human beings first, then Chinese or Indian. We can't just open fire without trying to communicate. We should try peaceful means before resorting to force.

I don't give a fixed label (left/right) to a person, a group, a country. I think they are a manifestation of certain periods, certain circumstances. This is a dynamic property rather than a static property. When we look back at the history of the CCP, there have been times when it has behaved like the left, and at other times it has behaved like the right. Even during the same period, some of the CCP's groups were skewed to the left and others to the right. The same is true in Chinese history. The same is true for the governments or peoples of other countries.

Dynamic properties are affected by many factors. Of course, war is a very important factor, and it is also the most cruel factor. In the history of human warfare, most of the causes of wars are due to information asymmetry between them. I didn't want to hit him, but I thought he wanted to hit me and I had to strike first. However, the other party also thinks so...... Thus, the war broke out. When the two sides communicated after the end of the war and found that the other side did not have this idea, both sides were already covered in bruises.

========================================================

是的，我确实对印度了解不多。同时，我们看到很多印度人对中国的了解也不多。所以，我们需要一些沟通。

我们必须承认。在印度和中国之间，大多数人对对方的了解都非常有限。毕竟，大多数人都没有亲自去对方家里亲自接触他们。当我们彼此真实接触时，我们很多固有的传统认知会发生变化。正如@Nilgiri对中国印象与PDF上很多印度人对中国的印象完全不同，因为他亲自感受过真实的中国人，而不是印度媒体上的中国人。我在现实生活中接触到的印度人，也与这些网络上的印度人完全不同。

至于政府之间的关系，我们可以尝试以学术研究的角度来思考问题。至少当前我们之间并没有开启战争，我们还可以尝试适度放松的展开交流。虽然我研究军事，但我并不想看到它真实发生，那些让我兴奋的武器，我并不想让它们在某一天真实的落在人类的头上。我知道这很矛盾。

如果某一天，中印战争开启。在国家需要我的时候，我会毫不犹豫的成为一名军人。即使对面是@Nilgiri或@Joe Shearer，我也会毫不犹豫的扣下扳机，这是军人的本职。我相信，他们也会如此。但在战争发生之前，当我们还有机会进行友好的沟通时，我会尽力进行友好的沟通。我们首先是人类，然后才是中国人或印度人。我们不能在没有进行努力沟通之前就直接开火。先礼后兵是中国人的传统。

我不会给某个人、某个群体、某个国家确定一个固定的标签（左翼/右翼）。我认为，他们是在某些时期、某些环境下的一种表现。这是一种动态属性而不是静态属性。我们回顾CCP的历史，某些时候表现得像左翼，某些时候又表现得像右翼。即使在同一时期，CCP的群体中，一些人的表现偏向左翼，而另一些的表现偏向右翼。中国历史上也是如此。其他国家的政府或人民，也是如此。

动态属性受到很多因素影响。当然，战争是一个很重要的因素，也是最残忍的因素。人类战争历史中，大部分诱发战争的原因都是因为彼此之间的信息不对称。我不想打他，但我认为他想打我，我必须先发制人。然而，对方也是这么想的......于是，战争爆发了。当双方在战争结束之后进行沟通，发现对方并没有这个想法时，双方已经遍体鳞伤。

Just as the Russian nationalists of the Soviet era pursued Russian independence and eventually destroyed the Soviet Union, most of the nationalists of this world pursue territorial independence. These Indians believed that Han Chinese nationalists were the same and would pursue the independence of traditional Han Chinese territories(汉地十八省) and then abandon areas such as Tibet.

So what they believe when they say that CCP prevents friendship between Han Chinese and Indians is that the Han nationalist government will give up Tibet. Of course, as Chinese you and I know this is a superb joke. The values of Han nationalists are very unique and when a Han nationalist government comes into existence, not only will this government not give up Tibet, but it will be the end of India.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

Chinese probably does not view Indians in a good light, since India is an enemy of China.

Chinese view Pakistanis much better than Indians. This is what I have heard.

Since Pakistan is an ally of China.

 

[MH.Yang]

Chinese probably does not view Indians in a good light, since India is an enemy of China.

Chinese view Pakistanis much better than Indians. This is what I have heard.

Since Pakistan is an ally of China.

The Chinese are not unfriendly to India, they don't care.

After all, it's just a country that can't even afford to send any goods to China to compete.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

The Chinese are not unfriendly to India, they don't care.

After all, it's just a country that can't even afford to send any goods to China to compete.

Perhaps you could be right.

But when Chinese people hear about South Tibet and Aksai Chin territorial disputes with India, then Chinese people will see India in a negative light.

 

[MH.Yang]

Perhaps you could be right.

But when Chinese people hear about South Tibet and Aksai Chin territorial disputes with India, then Chinese people will see India in a negative light.

If the Chinese are to hate the Indians, it would require the Indians to be capable of threatening the core interests of the Chinese.

A border conflict cannot hold the attention of the Chinese for long, after all we are the victors, just like Chinese history textbooks don't even mention the 1962 Sino-Indian border conflict.

If you can't threaten the core interests of the Chinese, then your name has to appear at least frequently enough to be noticed by them. Yet, India exports even less than Bangladesh. At least the Chinese get to see clothes and ceramic tableware produced in Bangladesh.

 

[dabbu]

I have never had hate or even dislike for any of the paid or unpaid Chinese shills - more of annoyance at worst

It's not hate for them, they are the tool of the commies used to drown out any meaningful conversation with the real Chinese, anything online from China is filtered to only show CCP confirmatory content, anything that escapes that great wall is then drowned out by these paid shills.

Frustrating really, to see these online Chinese and then meeting real world Chinese, opposite worlds...

 

[Michael]

@MH.Yang ​

There is something radical about your views. This view has a certain breadth in China. That's why I'm inviting you to join. Since it is communication, of course there will be different points of view.

It is human nature to conquer others. In other words, it is the instinct of animals and the basic law of nature. The biggest difference between humans and animals is that humans can use and accept methods of conquest that are more beneficial to the race, not just war. Of course, many times humans also use the most primitive method of conquest - war.

In the past, people usually preferred to conquer their opponents' bodies by means of war, and then conquer their hearts by means of compulsory cultural education, until these people forgot what they had and were proud to have the culture of conquerors. This is the reason and process why and how English has become the mainstream language of the world today.

Now, people are finding that this method is not as applicable as it used to be. The Middle East War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War.......... and even ethnic groups within many countries. Power politics can gain land, but it cannot win the hearts and minds of the people. When these powerful men obtained the nominal land, the people of these lands did not approve of it, and they used all means to resist. As a result, these places are locked in a never-ending strife.

Just like the Tibet issue. When the PLA entered Tibet, we only got Tibet in name, and many Tibetans did not recognize the PRC. As a result, a lot of bad things have happened in Tibet for a long time. After China's economic situation improved, the state invested a lot of efforts in building Tibet and took the initiative to help Tibetans improve their lives, so that Tibetans could feel enough goodwill and sincerity. Therefore, Tibet is very peaceful now.

We are human beings first, and then we are human beings of a certain country or a certain nation. The human instinct is to yearn for a better life. Recently, a large number of Burmese have been pouring into China from the border in various ways; Large numbers of Palestinians have poured into neighbouring countries from the border in various ways. During China's era of extreme poverty, a large number of Chinese were smuggled out; Now China is developing very well, and a large number of foreign Chinese are returning to China.....................

Communication is necessary for all purposes. Even if a major war breaks out between China and India one day, and China or India occupies all of each other's territory, it will cause great harm to itself in the face of a very large territory and ethnic group that is completely in a state of confrontation. Or, if the defeated country disintegrates because of the war, because the two countries are next to each other, the victorious country will also suffer huge losses because of the great national antagonism.

Therefore, we would like to see a cultural or economic collision between China and India, rather than a war. A modest military collision cannot be avoided, but it needs to be kept within a small range. China and India are both countries with a very long history and culture, and each other has sufficient confidence in their own cultures.

So, let's have a cultural collision

======================================================

​

你的观点有一些激进。这种观点观点在中国拥有一定的广泛性。这也是我邀请你加入的原因。既然是沟通，当然会存在不同的观点。

征服他人是人类的本性。或者说，这是动物的本能，也是自然界的基本法则。人类与动物的最大区别在于，人类能使用和接受更有益于族群的征服方式，而不仅仅是战争。当然，人类很多时候也使用最原始的征服方式-战争。

过去，人们通常喜欢先用战争的方式征服对手的身体，然后再用强制文化教育的方式征服他们的内心，直至这些人遗忘自己原有的东西，并以拥有征服者文化而骄傲。这就是今天英语成为世界主流语言的原因和过程。

现在，人们发现这种方法不如以前那么适用。中东战争、海湾战争、阿富汗战争..........甚至很多国家内部各个族群。强权政治可以获得土地，无法获得民心。当这些武力强者获得名义上的土地之后，这些土地上的人并不认可，他们用尽一切手段来抵抗。于是，这些地方陷入永无休止的争斗中。

正如西藏问题。当PLA进入西藏之后，我们只获得了名义上的西藏，很多藏民并不认可PRC。于是，西藏在很长的时间里，发生了很多不好的事情。在中国经济情况好转之后，国家投入很多力量去建设西藏，主动帮助藏民改善生活，让藏民感受到足够的善意和诚意。所以，现在的西藏非常祥和。

我们首先是人，然后才是某个国家或某个民族的人。人类的本能是向往更加美好的生活。最近，大量缅甸人从边境用各种方式涌入中国；大量巴勒斯坦人从边境用各种方式涌入周边国家。在中国极度贫穷的年代，大量中国人偷渡出去；现在中国发展很好，大量在外国的中国人回到中国.....................

无论出于什么目的，沟通都是必要的。即使某一天，中印之间爆发大型战争，中国或印度占领了对方的全部领土，面对一个完全处于对抗状态的非常庞大的领土和族群，都将对自身造成巨大的伤害。或者，如果战败国因为战争而解体，因为两国相邻，胜利国也会因为巨大的民族对抗性而遭到巨大的损失。

所以，我们更希望看到，中印之间是文化或经济的碰撞，而不是战争。适度的军事碰撞是无法避免的，但需要控制在一个较小的范围。中印两国都是历史文化非常久远的国家，彼此对自己的文化拥有足够的自信。

那么，我们就来文化碰撞吧

 

[MH.Yang]

@MH.Yang ​

There is something radical about your views. This view has a certain breadth in China. That's why I'm inviting you to join. Since it is communication, of course there will be different points of view.

It is human nature to conquer others. In other words, it is the instinct of animals and the basic law of nature. The biggest difference between humans and animals is that humans can use and accept methods of conquest that are more beneficial to the race, not just war. Of course, many times humans also use the most primitive method of conquest - war.

In the past, people usually preferred to conquer their opponents' bodies by means of war, and then conquer their hearts by means of compulsory cultural education, until these people forgot what they had and were proud to have the culture of conquerors. This is the reason and process why and how English has become the mainstream language of the world today.

Now, people are finding that this method is not as applicable as it used to be. The Middle East War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War.......... and even ethnic groups within many countries. Power politics can gain land, but it cannot win the hearts and minds of the people. When these powerful men obtained the nominal land, the people of these lands did not approve of it, and they used all means to resist. As a result, these places are locked in a never-ending strife.

Just like the Tibet issue. When the PLA entered Tibet, we only got Tibet in name, and many Tibetans did not recognize the PRC. As a result, a lot of bad things have happened in Tibet for a long time. After China's economic situation improved, the state invested a lot of efforts in building Tibet and took the initiative to help Tibetans improve their lives, so that Tibetans could feel enough goodwill and sincerity. Therefore, Tibet is very peaceful now.

We are human beings first, and then we are human beings of a certain country or a certain nation. The human instinct is to yearn for a better life. Recently, a large number of Burmese have been pouring into China from the border in various ways; Large numbers of Palestinians have poured into neighbouring countries from the border in various ways. During China's era of extreme poverty, a large number of Chinese were smuggled out; Now China is developing very well, and a large number of foreign Chinese are returning to China.....................

Communication is necessary for all purposes. Even if a major war breaks out between China and India one day, and China or India occupies all of each other's territory, it will cause great harm to itself in the face of a very large territory and ethnic group that is completely in a state of confrontation. Or, if the defeated country disintegrates because of the war, because the two countries are next to each other, the victorious country will also suffer huge losses because of the great national antagonism.

Therefore, we would like to see a cultural or economic collision between China and India, rather than a war. A modest military collision cannot be avoided, but it needs to be kept within a small range. China and India are both countries with a very long history and culture, and each other has sufficient confidence in their own cultures.

So, let's have a cultural collision

======================================================

​

你的观点有一些激进。这种观点观点在中国拥有一定的广泛性。这也是我邀请你加入的原因。既然是沟通，当然会存在不同的观点。

征服他人是人类的本性。或者说，这是动物的本能，也是自然界的基本法则。人类与动物的最大区别在于，人类能使用和接受更有益于族群的征服方式，而不仅仅是战争。当然，人类很多时候也使用最原始的征服方式-战争。

过去，人们通常喜欢先用战争的方式征服对手的身体，然后再用强制文化教育的方式征服他们的内心，直至这些人遗忘自己原有的东西，并以拥有征服者文化而骄傲。这就是今天英语成为世界主流语言的原因和过程。

现在，人们发现这种方法不如以前那么适用。中东战争、海湾战争、阿富汗战争..........甚至很多国家内部各个族群。强权政治可以获得土地，无法获得民心。当这些武力强者获得名义上的土地之后，这些土地上的人并不认可，他们用尽一切手段来抵抗。于是，这些地方陷入永无休止的争斗中。

正如西藏问题。当PLA进入西藏之后，我们只获得了名义上的西藏，很多藏民并不认可PRC。于是，西藏在很长的时间里，发生了很多不好的事情。在中国经济情况好转之后，国家投入很多力量去建设西藏，主动帮助藏民改善生活，让藏民感受到足够的善意和诚意。所以，现在的西藏非常祥和。

我们首先是人，然后才是某个国家或某个民族的人。人类的本能是向往更加美好的生活。最近，大量缅甸人从边境用各种方式涌入中国；大量巴勒斯坦人从边境用各种方式涌入周边国家。在中国极度贫穷的年代，大量中国人偷渡出去；现在中国发展很好，大量在外国的中国人回到中国.....................

无论出于什么目的，沟通都是必要的。即使某一天，中印之间爆发大型战争，中国或印度占领了对方的全部领土，面对一个完全处于对抗状态的非常庞大的领土和族群，都将对自身造成巨大的伤害。或者，如果战败国因为战争而解体，因为两国相邻，胜利国也会因为巨大的民族对抗性而遭到巨大的损失。

所以，我们更希望看到，中印之间是文化或经济的碰撞，而不是战争。适度的军事碰撞是无法避免的，但需要控制在一个较小的范围。中印两国都是历史文化非常久远的国家，彼此对自己的文化拥有足够的自信。

那么，我们就来文化碰撞吧

I like to think about things from the government's point of view so that I can judge how things are going. I have always believed that the first aim of the Government in everything it does is to maintain order and stability in society, rather than pursuing justice, fairness and economic development. The pursuit of justice and fairness is only a means used to achieve an end, but not an end in itself. Economic development is the inevitable development brought about by the maintenance of social order and stability, and it is not an end in itself.

By the same token, politics, diplomacy, war, and trade are necessary means to an end. So I don't think it's human nature to conquer others, but rather a nation goes to war when it needs external conquest to satisfy its internal order and stability.

For example, why does the Chinese Government always want to settle international disputes by peaceful means? It is because order and stability in China need a good economy to be maintained, and China's economy is largely influenced by foreign trade. So China needs a peaceful world to maintain the stability of foreign trade(和气生财). By the same token, the U.S. needs economic development, but the U.S. is a country where domestic demand is the guide to economic growth. And war is the greatest domestic demand, so the United States always needs war, especially when facing economic crisis.

That is why we should first consider what kind of Sino-Indian relationship the governments of these two countries need to maintain domestic order and stability when discussing China-India relations. And considering India's domestic situation, their government needs a hostile China.

As for what these average Indians think, does it matter? These Indians simply do not have the ability to think independently, much less influence government decisions. They are just a bunch of populists who like to watch godi media. whatever godi media says, they believe. Why would you waste your time engaging with them?

As for China and India going to war. Don't worry, the Indian government just needs an enemy country that it can use to terrorize its internal citizens, not one that will actually destroy it. The Indian government is more afraid of a war with China than any Indian because it knows the real China better than godi Indians.

 

[nahtanbob]

I like to think about things from the government's point of view so that I can judge how things are going. I have always believed that the first aim of the Government in everything it does is to maintain order and stability in society, rather than pursuing justice, fairness and economic development. The pursuit of justice and fairness is only a means used to achieve an end, but not an end in itself. Economic development is the inevitable development brought about by the maintenance of social order and stability, and it is not an end in itself.

By the same token, politics, diplomacy, war, and trade are necessary means to an end. So I don't think it's human nature to conquer others, but rather a nation goes to war when it needs external conquest to satisfy its internal order and stability.

For example, why does the Chinese Government always want to settle international disputes by peaceful means? It is because order and stability in China need a good economy to be maintained, and China's economy is largely influenced by foreign trade. So China needs a peaceful world to maintain the stability of foreign trade(和气生财). By the same token, the U.S. needs economic development, but the U.S. is a country where domestic demand is the guide to economic growth. And war is the greatest domestic demand, so the United States always needs war, especially when facing economic crisis.

That is why we should first consider what kind of Sino-Indian relationship the governments of these two countries need to maintain domestic order and stability when discussing China-India relations. And considering India's domestic situation, their government needs a hostile China.

As for what these average Indians think, does it matter? These Indians simply do not have the ability to think independently, much less influence government decisions. They are just a bunch of populists who like to watch godi media. whatever godi media says, they believe. Why would you waste your time engaging with them?

As for China and India going to war. Don't worry, the Indian government just needs an enemy country that it can use to terrorize its internal citizens, not one that will actually destroy it. The Indian government is more afraid of a war with China than any Indian because it knows the real China better than godi Indians.

It is a matter of time China does everything USA is accused of

 

[Michael]

@MH.Yang
I agree with some of your points. Fairness and justice are just a means of management.

The concept of state and nation has only been for a short time in the long history of mankind. Will they still exist in the future? This is a variable. But war and communication, from the birth of mankind to the present, have never stopped.

The desire for conquest between human beings has never disappeared, it is only manifested in different forms at different times and in different goals. When talking to each other, trying to get the other person to agree with your own point of view is also a sign of the desire to conquer. The various rankings in human life are also a manifestation of the desire to conquer. Even, the dialogue between you and me is a manifestation of the desire to conquer.

Each nation or individual chooses the means of competition/conquest according to the situation of the opponent and its own situation. Between China and the United States, we see that both the economic war and the technological war are going on, but the decision-makers on both sides are managing the military war. The same is true between China and India. But this does not affect the communication between each other.

As for the Indians, you need to reacquaint yourself with them. Just as Indians need to reacquaint themselves with the Chinese. Hostility is never one-sided. You think they accepted evil thoughts, and they also think that the Chinese accepted evil ideas. When you think they are being used by their government, they don't think so. When they think you're being used by your government, you don't think so either. This is not an effective way to communicate.

When we really get in touch with each other, we find that we are very kind to each other.

If my presumptuous invitation has disturbed you, I apologize. If you are unwilling to engage, you may choose to exit this topic. Of course, I sincerely hope you will continue the effective dialogue.

 

[MH.Yang]

@MH.Yang
I agree with some of your points. Fairness and justice are just a means of management.

The concept of state and nation has only been for a short time in the long history of mankind. Will they still exist in the future? This is a variable. But war and communication, from the birth of mankind to the present, have never stopped.

The desire for conquest between human beings has never disappeared, it is only manifested in different forms at different times and in different goals. When talking to each other, trying to get the other person to agree with your own point of view is also a sign of the desire to conquer. The various rankings in human life are also a manifestation of the desire to conquer. Even, the dialogue between you and me is a manifestation of the desire to conquer.

Each nation or individual chooses the means of competition/conquest according to the situation of the opponent and its own situation. Between China and the United States, we see that both the economic war and the technological war are going on, but the decision-makers on both sides are managing the military war. The same is true between China and India. But this does not affect the communication between each other.

As for the Indians, you need to reacquaint yourself with them. Just as Indians need to reacquaint themselves with the Chinese. Hostility is never one-sided. You think they accepted evil thoughts, and they also think that the Chinese accepted evil ideas. When you think they are being used by their government, they don't think so. When they think you're being used by your government, you don't think so either. This is not an effective way to communicate.

When we really get in touch with each other, we find that we are very kind to each other.

If my presumptuous invitation has disturbed you, I apologize. If you are unwilling to engage, you may choose to exit this topic. Of course, I sincerely hope you will continue the effective dialogue.

Ideas are free, and there is no right or wrong or high or low in ideas, only different. We don't need to convince each other.

 

[Michael]

How shall we proceed? Maybe we should focus on the state-state analysis over time from 20th century to present years? To maybe give an idea of the context in play that impacts maybe Indian people more than it does the Chinese people from their respective state messaging and decision making.

I'd like to elaborate on a core issue first. I can't represent everyone, but I should be able to represent the views of many ordinary Chinese.

About democracy and centralization

In English media, China is often described as a centralized or even dictatorial country. I think the vast majority of Indians also believe that India is a democratic country and they take pride in it.

We need to carefully analyze this issue:

What is democracy or centralization?

We can understand it as whether various state powers can constrain each other. For example, legislative power, judicial power, administrative power, military power, and so on. We usually judge a country as a democratic or authoritarian state based on the provisions of its constitution regarding these powers.

However, we are humans, not machines. After we have some wishes, we always find ways to break the rules.

When some groups within a democratic country have the ability to simultaneously influence all state powers at certain times, is the country still a democratic country? For example, military industrial complexes in the United States, conglomerates in South Korea, and political families in many democratic countries

China is a one party state, and the CCP has absolute power. However, there are factions with different tendencies within the CCP. Sometimes their opinions are consistent, and other times their opinions are not consistent. They control different national powers and constrain each other. Is China still a centralized state at this time?

So, I believe that democracy or centralization is a manifestation of a country at a certain time, rather than a fixed attribute of that country.

The external manifestations of each country are different, some countries are more direct, some countries are more subtle, and the specific form adopted depends on their own culture. But their ultimate core is completely consistent.

Analyze from the basic logic of management and development:

Democracy is more suitable for stabilizing society; Centralization is more suitable for developing society. For example:

When a country encounters war, it needs a high degree of centralization. This is the only way to react quickly and win the war. If state power is mutually constrained at this time, it will pay a more painful price in war------ Refer to the situation in the United States during World War II.

When a country needs rapid development, centralization is also necessary. If everything requires a lengthy and complex system of constraints to handle, there is no possibility of rapid development------ Compare the development of European countries with that of China.

When a country tends to be stable, power constraints are needed, otherwise various major events will erupt. If these events are not dealt with in a timely manner, they will lead to internal strife and even disintegration of the country------ Refer to the major cases that have occurred in China in recent years.

In recent years, the Modi government has essentially controlled all state power in India, which is why India has experienced rapid development.

By carefully observing different countries, we can prove this logic.

Of course, don't look at political parties alone. We try to describe it using the concept of political groups (groups with consistent political orientations). Some political parties have different political groups within them; Some countries have multiple political parties forming a common political group; Some countries' armies are a separate political group; Some companies in certain countries can be viewed as a separate political group

When these political groups have different opinions, the development of this country is very difficult, and some countries directly erupt into civil wars.

====================================================
我想先就一个核心问题阐述一下我的观点，我不能代表所有人，但应该能代表很多普通中国人的观点。
关于民主与集权
在英文媒体上的中国，经常被描述为集权国家，甚至独裁国家。我想，绝大多数印度人也是这么认为的，印度人以印度是民主国家为骄傲。
这个问题，我们需要认真分析一下：
什么是民主或集权？
我们可以理解为各种国家权力是否能够相互制约。比如立法权、司法权、行政权、军权等等。我们通常是以国家宪法对这些权力的规定来判断这个国家是民主国家或集权国家。
然而，我们是人类而不是机器。当我们有了一些愿望之后，总会找到一些方法去突破规则。
当民主国家内部一些团体在某些时间的能力足以同时影响所有国家权力时，这个国家是否还是民主国家？比如美国的军工复合体、韩国的财团，以及很多民主国家的政治家族..........
中国是一党制国家，CCP拥有绝对权力。但是，CCP内部有不同倾向的派系。某些时候他们的意见是一致的，某些时候他们的意见并不一致。他们掌控不同的国家权力，彼此制约。这时的中国，是否还是集权国家？
所以，我认为，民主或集权，是国家在某个时间的表现，而不是这个国家的固定属性。
每个国家的外在表现不同，有的国家直接一些，有的国家隐晦一些，具体采用的形式根据自己国家的文化来决定。但他们的最终核心完全一致。

从管理与发展的基本逻辑来分析：
民主更适合稳定社会；集权更适合发展社会。比如：
当国家遇到战争时，就需要高度集权。这样才能快速反应，赢得战争。如果国家权力在这个时候互相制约，就会在战争中付出更加惨痛的代价。------参考美国在二战时的情况。
当国家需要高速发展时，同样需要集权。如果每一件事都需要漫长而复杂的制约体系来处理，没有任何高速发展的可能性。------参考欧洲国家的发展和中国的发展对比。
当国家趋于平稳时，就需要权力制约，否则就会爆发各种重大事件，这些事件如果不及时处理，就会导致国家内乱甚至解体。------参考中国最近这些年发生的重大案件。
印度最近这些年，莫迪政府实质上掌控了所有国家权力，所以才会出现印度高速发展。

我们仔细观察不同的国家，就会证明这个逻辑。
当然，不要单独看政党。我们试着用政治群体(政治倾向一致的群体)这个概念来描述。有些政党内部有不同的政治群体；有些国家是多个政党组建一个共同的政治群体；有些国家的军队是一个单独的政治群体；有些国家的某些企业可以单独看作为一个政治群体...................
当这些政治群体意见不一致时，这个国家的发展非常艰难，有些国家直接爆发内战。

 

[VCheng]

The issue to comprehend first is the state-state vector and why it may be disjointed to degree it is with nation-nation one as obviously there is a power and authority differential.

Agreed. The state-state relationship according to geopolitical principles takes precedence, and indeed serves as a foundation for nation-nation dynamics to be built upon it later.

How public perception works into this is as much a factor of the directions laid by geopolitical alignments of national interests or lack thereof as it is by media coverage, which quite often can be channeled into preferred directions according to policy decisions.

 

[Nilgiri]

I'd like to elaborate on a core issue first. I can't represent everyone, but I should be able to represent the views of many ordinary Chinese.

About democracy and centralization

In English media, China is often described as a centralized or even dictatorial country. I think the vast majority of Indians also believe that India is a democratic country and they take pride in it.

We need to carefully analyze this issue:

What is democracy or centralization?

We can understand it as whether various state powers can constrain each other. For example, legislative power, judicial power, administrative power, military power, and so on. We usually judge a country as a democratic or authoritarian state based on the provisions of its constitution regarding these powers.

However, we are humans, not machines. After we have some wishes, we always find ways to break the rules.

When some groups within a democratic country have the ability to simultaneously influence all state powers at certain times, is the country still a democratic country? For example, military industrial complexes in the United States, conglomerates in South Korea, and political families in many democratic countries

China is a one party state, and the CCP has absolute power. However, there are factions with different tendencies within the CCP. Sometimes their opinions are consistent, and other times their opinions are not consistent. They control different national powers and constrain each other. Is China still a centralized state at this time?

So, I believe that democracy or centralization is a manifestation of a country at a certain time, rather than a fixed attribute of that country.

The external manifestations of each country are different, some countries are more direct, some countries are more subtle, and the specific form adopted depends on their own culture. But their ultimate core is completely consistent.

Analyze from the basic logic of management and development:

Democracy is more suitable for stabilizing society; Centralization is more suitable for developing society. For example:

When a country encounters war, it needs a high degree of centralization. This is the only way to react quickly and win the war. If state power is mutually constrained at this time, it will pay a more painful price in war------ Refer to the situation in the United States during World War II.

When a country needs rapid development, centralization is also necessary. If everything requires a lengthy and complex system of constraints to handle, there is no possibility of rapid development------ Compare the development of European countries with that of China.

When a country tends to be stable, power constraints are needed, otherwise various major events will erupt. If these events are not dealt with in a timely manner, they will lead to internal strife and even disintegration of the country------ Refer to the major cases that have occurred in China in recent years.

In recent years, the Modi government has essentially controlled all state power in India, which is why India has experienced rapid development.

By carefully observing different countries, we can prove this logic.

Of course, don't look at political parties alone. We try to describe it using the concept of political groups (groups with consistent political orientations). Some political parties have different political groups within them; Some countries have multiple political parties forming a common political group; Some countries' armies are a separate political group; Some companies in certain countries can be viewed as a separate political group

When these political groups have different opinions, the development of this country is very difficult, and some countries directly erupt into civil wars.

====================================================
我想先就一个核心问题阐述一下我的观点，我不能代表所有人，但应该能代表很多普通中国人的观点。
关于民主与集权
在英文媒体上的中国，经常被描述为集权国家，甚至独裁国家。我想，绝大多数印度人也是这么认为的，印度人以印度是民主国家为骄傲。
这个问题，我们需要认真分析一下：
什么是民主或集权？
我们可以理解为各种国家权力是否能够相互制约。比如立法权、司法权、行政权、军权等等。我们通常是以国家宪法对这些权力的规定来判断这个国家是民主国家或集权国家。
然而，我们是人类而不是机器。当我们有了一些愿望之后，总会找到一些方法去突破规则。
当民主国家内部一些团体在某些时间的能力足以同时影响所有国家权力时，这个国家是否还是民主国家？比如美国的军工复合体、韩国的财团，以及很多民主国家的政治家族..........
中国是一党制国家，CCP拥有绝对权力。但是，CCP内部有不同倾向的派系。某些时候他们的意见是一致的，某些时候他们的意见并不一致。他们掌控不同的国家权力，彼此制约。这时的中国，是否还是集权国家？
所以，我认为，民主或集权，是国家在某个时间的表现，而不是这个国家的固定属性。
每个国家的外在表现不同，有的国家直接一些，有的国家隐晦一些，具体采用的形式根据自己国家的文化来决定。但他们的最终核心完全一致。

从管理与发展的基本逻辑来分析：
民主更适合稳定社会；集权更适合发展社会。比如：
当国家遇到战争时，就需要高度集权。这样才能快速反应，赢得战争。如果国家权力在这个时候互相制约，就会在战争中付出更加惨痛的代价。------参考美国在二战时的情况。
当国家需要高速发展时，同样需要集权。如果每一件事都需要漫长而复杂的制约体系来处理，没有任何高速发展的可能性。------参考欧洲国家的发展和中国的发展对比。
当国家趋于平稳时，就需要权力制约，否则就会爆发各种重大事件，这些事件如果不及时处理，就会导致国家内乱甚至解体。------参考中国最近这些年发生的重大案件。
印度最近这些年，莫迪政府实质上掌控了所有国家权力，所以才会出现印度高速发展。

我们仔细观察不同的国家，就会证明这个逻辑。
当然，不要单独看政党。我们试着用政治群体(政治倾向一致的群体)这个概念来描述。有些政党内部有不同的政治群体；有些国家是多个政党组建一个共同的政治群体；有些国家的军队是一个单独的政治群体；有些国家的某些企业可以单独看作为一个政治群体...................
当这些政治群体意见不一致时，这个国家的发展非常艰难，有些国家直接爆发内战。

There are parts I agree with, other parts I disagree with.

Centralisation for centralisation sake is bad.

Same as decentralisation for decentralisation sake is bad.

Be it the central govt vs regional.

Or the role of the citizenry compared to say one legal "central" political party in the staffing of the govt for its decision making and law and order.

They (centralised vs decentralised) are not ends to themselves, rather they are means to a greater end.

How do we find the right balance, the right amount of salt to add to a soup.

To me this requires analysis of:

A) The constitution (highest authority) principles (and why)

B) The checks and balances within this constitution (and why)

C) The faithful implementation of the constitution, its amendment process and/or re-convening for replacement (and why)

To me there are clear qualitative differences between every nationstate, even with their context and circumstances accounted for (at the time of nationstate formation and then the course of it afterwards).

Rest is really time and interest invested into deep study of this subject in all the varieties the human species has produced, current time, near-current and historical/archaic.

In China's case the summary of note, is why the Sun-Yat-Sen constitutional drafting commenced under the principles it did (after Qing dynasty was disestablished). Then the long subject of what happened to that (regd compromises KMT made with the CCP, each parties various factions and the turbulence of that time), his relatively early unfortunate demise, the civil war that followed, the nasty invader that entered into China and the impacts these would have regd the 1949 establishment of the PRC with CCP as sole legal political party....with 4 constitutions to follow.

This is ultimately a very different state of events and deep contexts to India across same time period....and India's one sole constitution from 1950.

But we can even start at this midway point in the century (1950) when the nationstates have both established to compare and contrast purely the state-state....and then the state-state for the other axis vectors for China (I listed in previous post) that are very useful to do in my opinion.

You are open minded and want a honest exchange of views, so it will be fruitful....it will just take time to do as it is all about ultimately understanding reality as best as possible. A reality we all share in end, whatever delusions some of us may have inserted to substitute, to act as a personal emotional crutch or otherwise.

Those with less (or little) understanding of reality in this subject, tend to have formed primitive, prejudicial, ignorant conclusions. I only hope its specific to this domain and not a general character trait of theirs.

Sometimes protracted participation with skirmishing posters have made them worse for wear too upon this when it comes to a forum that has existed quite some time with its various bad-faith agents outnumbering good-faith ones.

I generally take a dim view when some post contains terms like "these Indians" or "these Chinese" or "these Pakistanis" etc.. to begin with.

It is an emotional basis first, that forms its various delusions and self-referenced narratives..... and that colours any intake and processing of objective reality from the start.

So it is not surprising if they get stuck running in circles and are unable to comprehend for example, exactly why the USSR broke up (as you will notice in my axis directions earlier w.r.t PRC) with its power/wealth levels attained and 3 constitutions... and India has not with its power/wealth levels and single 1950 constitution.

i.e Was the USSR a case of centralised for centralised sake to some degree and how much?....compared to say India. What is the problem if a political party within India tries to generate sufficient contravention of the balance India found in its constitution that has stood test of time compared to far mightier USSR (that from the other's point of view had utterly no business breaking up like it did with their flawed reductive emotionally biased "logic").

It needs that analysis of A) B) and C) I gave earlier....and maybe especially B (in my opinion).

i.e what are checks and balances, what are their key role w.r.t power and the long term toughness of the state (and nation it accounts for) so it is neither too soft/exposed or too brittle. With optimal balance of the metal's toughness, it can do the most good and most work with best transmission of reality and truth (governing the top-down and bottom-up processes and their respective best roles and qualities).

In my opinon, PRC could have done a lot better job than it has (on A, B and C), but its a really long subject in end to explore well. India has done about as well as it can have done with the 1950 constitution with what it inherited and could learn from the successful nationstate snapshot it had at the time to process.

i.e What's the best reading on it one ought to have done several times over to be competent on it (or whats a basic place to start even).