But then who gets to decide what 'China' is in this context? The CCP did a lot of good but how can we accept that they essentially took the Qing Empire's borders and made it a singular nation? Even under the Qing, Tibet etc were not regarded as the same as the 'neidi' (mainland, internal provinces of China). Imo surely the Party could have just propped up local figures and let Tibet conduct its own revolution ie the Soviet model. Do we excuse India for squashing separatism in the name of unity against imperialism either? That was certainly the excuse for Indian troops smashing down militias in Hyderabad and the northeast. This idea that you need a singular polity no matter the cost is a foolish notion.
That was certainly the excuse for Indian troops smashing down militias in Hyderaba
What's not there to support military action in Hyderabad (South India)? Don't confuse this with Kashmir.. in Hyderabad only the ruler didn't want to join in india, majority of population actively rebelled against the Nizam rule and had no reservations joining india. In Kashmir it's reverse, ruler accepted to join but majority population didn't which is why its considered imperialism
Ah I am not referring to take out the Nizam, rather I am referring to the Indian troops massacring the communist and peasant rebels that made up the Telangana movement under the pretenses that they wanted an independent Hyderabad state.
But then who gets to decide what 'China' is in this context? The CCP did a lot of good but how can we accept that they essentially took the Qing Empire's borders and made it a singular nation? Even under the Qing, Tibet etc were not regarded as the same as the 'neidi' (mainland, internal provinces of China). Imo surely the Party could have just propped up local figures and let Tibet conduct its own revolution ie the Soviet model. Do we excuse India for squashing separatism in the name of unity against imperialism either? That was certainly the excuse for Indian troops smashing down militias in Hyderabad and the northeast. This idea that you need a singular polity no matter the cost is a foolish notion.
What's not there to support military action in Hyderabad (South India)? Don't confuse this with Kashmir.. in Hyderabad only the ruler didn't want to join in india, majority of population actively rebelled against the Nizam rule and had no reservations joining india. In Kashmir it's reverse, ruler accepted to join but majority population didn't which is why its considered imperialism
Ah I am not referring to take out the Nizam, rather I am referring to the Indian troops massacring the communist and peasant rebels that made up the Telangana movement under the pretenses that they wanted an independent Hyderabad state.