[…] “How Sick Is the Dalai Lama?”. […]

One of the very first English proverb I learned was,
People who live in glass house shouldnt throw stones !

Modi should stop playing the Tibet card cuz he is staying in a gigantic glass house. India’s ethnic conflicts make Tibet looks like child’s play.

Two can play at this game.
If Beijing decides to reciprocates, it has so many cards to play on
Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripuna, …..the Naxats, the Dalits etc etc.

For the time being Beijing seem not interested to stoop to Delhi’s level
, but if Modi goes too far in in its Tibet./Xinjiang destabilisation, then he shouldnt complains when Beijing decides to return the favor !

Reminds me of the old one about the hungover guy phoning his boss on a Monday morning asking for sick leave…

Boss: Come on, man, we’re short staffed here. We need you! How sick can you be?

Employee: I’m lying here naked in my bed with my granny…

Pop carries all the previous “Vicars of Christ” prestige and authority because he was elected through the due process. The next Dalai Lama can carry previous Dalai Lama’ prestige and authority if he is elected through the due process. Mind you the due process of electing a Dalai Lama has to be approved and supervised by the Beijing authority as well as the elected candidate has be blessed by the Beijing authority in order to become a Dala Lama, this due process is hundreds years old ritual and as sacred as Jesus and Cross.

Tibet has always captured the popular imagination of many people, probably because of its distant isolation (both in culture and its difficult access) from the rest of the world. And I know that some Chinese hasbara will counter this by saying that Tibet had slavery, child abuse, etc, and thus had to be conquered by Mao.

From your geographical knowledge, I can tell you don’t know much about the Puritans.

The Dalai Lama has declared he’s going to live to 90 (he’s now 82)

Man I thought he was older, he seems to have been around for ever!

Dali Lama goes into pizza shop and says:
“Can you make me one with everything?”

Why does he get so much attention? He’s not the Buddhist Pope, he’s the ethnarch of a state that will likely never be independent, who adopts a monk persona.

Buddhism has no hierarchy.

He means Tibetan diaspora young men are encouraged to join the Indian army at 17 or 18, the same minimum ages for enlistment in every army in the world including ours. US 17 year olds can sign up but must wait until their 18th birthday to actually enter the military.

England accepts 16 year olds in the army.

Chinese Hasbala? I thought only Japanese and Korean Hasbala post in Engrish?

From your English I can tell you are a ‘God-fearing’ morally defunct evil ‘puritan’ who has been committing war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity since they can sail out of the Mediterranean Sea.

Obviously, you need to redefine “great”. You’re safe with “very very big”. Any further is tricky.

Rather silly non-comparison. The DL, a CIA asset for 60 yrs, ruled a medieval fiefdom that condoned slavery, sodomy, pedophilia. Mao freed Tibet of this beast, though his own excesses cannot be excused. Still, I’d have thought that anyone the CIA endorsed had to be rotten – when did they ever back a good guy? Is the DL suffering from guilt?

Prostate cancer is no big deal nowadays, the treatment is a bit of radiotherapy and then androgen blockers

I’m at the point where I believe that all great men are also terrible men.

Great comment

BUT not…

So he’s the most mentally sick– quiet man i ever seen, 😉

Go for it. But, first I think you should read your links. The first goes to a site that has links about the Dalai Lama’s consent going to another site that is in Spanish. The second really doesn’t have anything that links the Dalai Lama to these actions. It is usually someone else that is quoted, often the DL’s brother. Plus, it is from the CIA. They are notorious for evil.

Claiming the DL is “morally degenerate” requires a series of acts that are well documented. Others have tried to point out that Nelson Mandela and MLK were “morally degenerate” as well. And there is more convincing proof for them, by the way.

WikiLeak has revealed the DL has for years been sending orphans under his care to go to war against Pakistan for India. These are underage kids made into child soldiers who do not have choice of not going.

http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-dark-side-of-dalai-lama/

https://followersofdorjeshugden.com/wikileaks/

There are other morally degenerate things too. If you are interested I can tell you more.

“I doubt the successor will carry anywhere near the current Dalai Lama’s prestige and authority.”

And yet, every time a Pope is elected, he does carry all the previous “Vicars of Christ”‘ prestige and authority, doesn’t he? Organized, structured religious belief is a strong delusion among large populations. I don’t think the Tibetans are any different in this.

Well, how is he “morally degenerate”? Declaring an opinion is not the same as truth.

Typical nonsense response. What does this have to do with Mao? Can they be both bad in a different way? Don’t try to distract the issue.

Doesn’t “sick” mean good?

No doubt you are now going to explain how Mao was a very moral man, nothing like that morally degenerate Dalai Lama.

From your Engrish I can tell you Chinese Hasbala.

When I read the title I thought the author meant how morally degenerate is the Dalai Lama. Turns out he mean his physical health. I don’t know whether the Dalai Lama is sick or not, but he definitely is a sick man, as in a morally degenerate man.

Yeah, it was Dalai Lama’s gelugpas that sold the country to the Mongols in exchange for the half Tibetan half Mongolian title of Dalai Lama. Everyone knows what happened afterwards with China and Mongolia. And Britain.

British colonial duplicities is nothing new. At the core of the McMahon Line matter is about carving up about a piece of historical homeland from the weak party to the certified expansionist of the time, the British Raj. Assume for the time being that the McMahon Line is all legit. That China did sign away South Tibet in a treaty to Britain a la Hong Kong to Britain in the treaty of Nanking. Note that in the treaty of Nanking the Hong Kong island is ceded to Britain ‘in perpetuity ‘ although the latter land grab that made up the larger part of Hong Kong is a lease that was to be expired in 1997. In 1984 when the issue of the hang over loomed large and Britain and China sit down to talk about the future of Hong Kong, Britain initial stance was to insist on the validity of the three treaties that ceded Hong Kong, meaning part of Hong Kong will be returned to China when the 150 years lease expired in 1997 and the part that was ceded to Britain in perpetuity will be British territory forever. China protested and Britain was diplomatically alone in this matter. Not a single country supports Britain stance, not even Reagan’s United States support Thatcher’s Britain in this matter.

India on the other hand has no qualms in perpetuating its former colonial master colonial injustice. It is still insisting on the validity of the McMahon line even though it is based on forgery, unilaterally drawn up by Britain and no Chinese government has ever recognized it. But this is hardly new given India’s behavior to its other neighbors. Indians like to complain about colonialism when they are at the receiving end of it but when in 1947 when the British quit the subcontinent and the Indians be their own master it continues the land grab just like its former colonial master.

1947 Annexation of Kashmir
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/06/indias-shame/
http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/kashmirs-young-rebels/

1949 Annexation of Manipur
http://www.tehelka.com/manipurs-merger-with-india-was-a-forced-annexation/

1949 Annexation of Tripura
http://www.crescent-online.net/2009/09/the-myths-of-one-nation-and-one-hinduism-in-india-zawahir-siddique-2316-articles.html

1951 Annexation of South Tibet:
http://kanglaonline.com/2011/06/khathing-the-taking-of-tawang/
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2582.html
http://chasfreeman.net/india-pakistan-and-china/

1954 Annexation of Nagaland
http://morungexpress.com/desire-nagas-live-separate-nation-deserved/
http://nagalandmusings.blogspot.com/2013/01/indias-untold-genocide-of-nagas.html

1961 Annexation of Goa:
http://goa-invasion-1961.blogspot.in/2013/09/india-pirated-goa-china-is-regaining_16.html

1962 Annexation of Kalapani, Nepal:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/07032012-indian-hegemony-in-nepal-oped/
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1239348
http://www.sharnoffsglobalviews.com/land-disputes-116/

1962 Aggression against China:
http://gregoryclark.net/redif.html
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/podcasts/renewed-tension-indiachina-border-whos-blame

1971 Annexation of Turtuk, Pakistan:
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/suddenly-indian

1972 Annexation of Tin Bigha, Bangladesh
http://www.dhakatribune.com/op-ed/2014/feb/20/killing-fields

1975 Annexation of Sikkim (the whole country):
http://nepalitimes.com/issue/35/Nation/9621#.UohjPHQo6LA
http://www.amazon.com/Smash-Grab-Annexation-Sunanda-Datta-Ray/dp/9383260386
http://asiahouse.org/sikkim-tale-love-intrigue-cold-war-asia/
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/annexation-of-sikkim-by-india-was-not-legal-wangchuk-namgyal/1/391498.html

1983 (Aborted) Attempted invasion of Mauritius
http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/when-india-almost-invaded-mauritius/

1990 (Failed) Attempted annexation of Bhutan:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/07/world/india-based-groups-seek-to-disrupt-bhutan.html

2006 Annexation of Duars, Bhutan:
http://wangchasangey.blogspot.in/2015/11/different-kind-of-anxieties-on.html#comment-form

2013 Annexation of Moreh, Myanmar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nehginpao-kipgen/easing-indiamyanmar-borde_b_4633040.html

Today thanks to the McMahon line the South Tibetans living under Indian occupation are seething with anger and India knows it. India reacts by imposing the notorious AFSPA (Armed Force Special Power Act) on the South Tibetans. A law that allows the Indian state to detain or kill anyone with impunity. It is a law that dates back to the colonial era and is meant to intimidate the locals and suppress dissent. It is imposed on area the Indian government deemed ‘disturbed’, such as South Tibet, the northeast and Kashmir. South Tibet will eventually blows up just like Kashmir and India has no one to blame but itself.

Anglos gonna Anglo.

I have an Indian Railways map from 1909 as my screensaver.
It is obvious that the British did not consider Tawang and parts eastward to be part of British India at that time.

http://mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com/post/115368678614/extent-of-the-indian-railway-network-in-1909

Facts Behind China-India Border Dispute
http://tinyurl.com/27fm9u

the only thing that matters is what the residents of this “disputed”region want. I’m willing to bet they don’t want to be citizens of China.

Frankly, the world is getting tired of China throwing its weight around irresponsibly and interfering in other peoples matters.

6. I would think India would NOT openly support the independence of Tibet. In particular, the Pakistan factor should not relate to such a decision since India has other thing to worry about, viz. China’s counter to such move would be to support Assam separatism Tit-for-Tat.

you have made a lot of polemic conclusion and statement, but not really any convincing evidence leading to your speculation/theory.

a few notes:

1. the key and overwhelming reason for Mao’s strike (back) in 1962 was that Nehru was pushing too much (70-80% of his outposts in East (NEFA) were north of McMahon line — crossing even what the Indian claim was) as he misjudge the ability of China’s military over such a harsh terrain and supply line. Mao decided Indian encroachment would not stop unless he acted.

2. Indian’s defeat was simply bad leadership and bad training. PLA was as inexperienced in fighting in such terrain as India was. PLA leadership had the experiences of the civil war and the Korean war. You have simply taken the Indian official excuse for the defeat.

3. Nepal factor is peripheral to the whole Indian-China dispute. If anything, the relationship between the Maoist and current PRC is not amicable, since China effectively denounced Mao for 30 years.

4. Pakistan-China relationship was A RESULT of the 1962 war. You made it seems like a decisive factor for Sino-Indian dispute, which really isn’t. Even if Pakistan collapses, kashmir will still be a hot spot, it is geopolitic, and religion, irrespective of who rules Pakistan

5. Aksai Chin was not really part of Kashimir. the West side of the disputed problem include other part of Jammu-Kashmir other than Aksai Chin.

To sum up such an important war (1962）in a psychological explanation is too misleading, and suggests wrong things. India obviously has its own stragetical considerations in supporting Dalai Lama, and playing the Tibet card. China (or Mao) would be extremely stupid if it failed to recognize this. Mao’s temper may add some salt on this tension. But it is completely wrong and disingenous to suggest that the war is mostly out of Communist China’s intention to punish Nehru over its frustration on the latter’s accommodation of Dalai Lama. This kind of explanation runs counter to the solution of the crisis on the Chinese side–the victor lost the disputed territory. It is understandable from this perspective that why you ommitted mentioning it.