I come from india, and even though i hate how india is treating people nowadays, I just can't help but feel a sense of protectiveness towards it when it comes to border conflicts with china/pakistan. A lot of people here, even those who don't identify strictly with the hindu nationalist movement have a sense of enmity towards china then and now because of how they acted regarding the intial conflict at a Himalayan border.
Maybe this goes beyond the scope of the original question. but do maoists see maoist china as totally perfect, as if they have done/can do no wrong? because whenever i look at events like the border conflict between china and india, and how china acted towards tibet, I can only get the feeling that they've been the initial aggressors.
this is my first post on here, so please be gentle
I lack enough knowledge on the India border conflict to answer that. The liberation of Tibet on the other hand is 100 an improvement in the region, abolishing slavery, raising standards of living in Tibet, owning the Dali Lama and the mountain gusanos. The Myth of Friendly Feudalism is a good resource for life under pre-liberation Tibet. However, the idea that Maoist China did nothing wrong is a childish one that no serious Maoist holds. Self criticism and all that. They may have been in the right during the initial Sino-Soviet split, but backing reactionaries and CIA front groups like UNITA in Angola and Pol Pot in Cambodia was, as the young people say, cringe. But to ignore the legacy of Mao Zedong Thought and how it transformed China from a rural backwater to a world power is worse than blind adulation.
what's so good about "owning the dalai lama"? isn't it bad that china would try to take control over some religion and their practices?
The fact that the Dalai Lama owned slaves is a big one, as is the fact that communists would have the skin stripped from them and left to die in the elements.
source?
The Myth of Friendly Feudalism