Chinese Foreign Minister had the audacity to tell his Indian counterpart that “mere presence” of populated areas would not affect Chinese claims on Arunachal Pradesh. Shouldn’t same apply to the Tibetan Plateau that is onefourth of China?

China Daily of July 1, 2011, revealed after decades of forced bulldozing of dwellings of poor and aged in name of ‘development’, such government activity would be curbed. Over decades, cases of elderly suicides and self-immolations filtered out despite news blackouts, not surprising after China’s Tiananmen fame. It took hundreds of suicides to initiate the draft law followed by 12 years of debating. Tiananmen was small compared to some 30-40 million Chinese killed during the ‘Great Leap’. In 2009, some 10,000 Uighurs vanished overnight in Xinjiang after clashes with Chinese security forces and in July 2011, fourteen were shot dead and four others killed.

Chinese arrogance is demonstrated in the 2005 statement of Lt General Lin Yazhou, Deputy Political Commissar PLAAF, when he said, “When a nation grows stronger, it practises hegemony. The sole purpose of power is to pursue power.” China’s obsession of suppressing collective thoughts was evident from banning even Phalun Gong but that is no guarantee population will always remain silent spectator. China needs to make a distinction from yesteryears to 21st century. Information can hardly be blocked despite curbs. Blogs, micro blogs apart, software is already developed to access blocked websites. Insolence and ruthlessness can build public anger akin to the Arab Uprising and the Jasmine Revolution.

Massive Chinese protests in Wukan that started in September 2011 against forcible acquisitions turned into mass protests due to custodial deaths when villagers forcibly occupied the local party office of the CCP, making Mazu Temple China’s Tahrir Square and sympathetic gatherings elsewhere including Guangzhou. News and pictures of government suppression spreads like wildfire with authorities fight a losing battle to curb news.

This also applies to continued suppression of political, religious and ethnic rights of Tibetans, subjugating their culture, heritage and language, settling seven million Han Chinese in Tibet to outnumber the six million Tibetans, ensuring Lhasa is Chinese majority and deploying a plethora of strategic weaponry in Tibet. In the book Trapped Transition: The Limits of Developmental Autocracy, Minxin Pei writes, “At the mass level, ignorance, stereotyping, and latent hostility characterise the views of India held by a large segment of Chinese society. At the elite level, while interest in India is growing rapidly, the discourse on India is heavily polarised and politicised.” This is obviously pioneered and practised by the CCP.

Chinese Foreign Minister had the audacity to tell his Indian counterpart that “mere presence” of populated areas would not affect Chinese claims on Arunachal Pradesh. Shouldn’t same apply to the Tibetan Plateau that is one-fourth of China – what are seven million Han Chinese occupiers, 70 per cent of whom scurry back to mainland every winter for fear of being frozen? Why should ‘future to back’ be one sided. Tibet was a bigger kingdom than China in sixth century and even captured the then capital of China in seventh century. Why should China’s claims not be restricted within her ancient Great Wall? The unrest in Tibet’s Sichuan Province against Han settlers is snowballing. A number of Tibetan monks have immolated themselves and trouble is spreading to entire Tibet despite Chinese banning religious activities in monasteries and firing at protestors. There have been bomb explosions too preceded by leaflets warning against China’s demographic invasion of Tibet. All told some 11 Tibetans have been killed in police firing and some 40 injured since March last year. There is heavy military deployment against Tibetans.

The dragon appears unmoved with butterflies in her belly but deadly termites may be getting ready to gnaw at her innards. Widening of her faultlines is China’s own doing. Better sense should make way to democracy, respecting human rights including providing ‘true autonomy’ to Tibet.

The views expressed herein are the personal views of the author.