Tibet and Bhutan are neighbors in the Himalayas. Both are Buddhist states and have long traded with each other. I was comparing and contrasting their contact with modernity. Tibet was always much richer and had its own periods of conquest and glory. Bhutan was always a backwater in comparison. As this article notes, Tibet was conquered b…
Tibet and Bhutan are neighbors in the Himalayas. Both are Buddhist states and have long traded with each other. I was comparing and contrasting their contact with modernity. Tibet was always much richer and had its own periods of conquest and glory. Bhutan was always a backwater in comparison. As this article notes, Tibet was conquered by the Chinese, not for the first time, and forced to end its medieval system. Bhutan, in contrast, was never as oppressive if only because it was rarely wealthy enough to support much of an aristocracy.
India has taken Bhutan on as a client state, and Bhutan has been ruled by a series of progressive monarchs who have been moving towards broadly based prosperity and a parliamentary monarchy. India has let Bhutan remain independent. The closest to a threat of invasion involved a group of Indian separatist guerillas who had taken refuge in southern Bhutan. India demanded that Bhutan eliminate or expel them. Bhutan did, but being good Buddhists and abhorring violence, they distributed the weapons they used, AK-47s, to the various monasteries as reminders to try to avoid warfare. (When I noticed an AK-47 in one of the temples, I had to ask.)
There are other mountain kingdoms in the Himalayas, and they have been joining the global community as our world shrinks. Ladahk, for example, is now part of India. Nepal is independent and had a major royal massacre back in 2001. There has been talk, on and off, of India annexing them. There are probably other countries up in the mountain valleys that I am little aware of.
Prosperous than the Bhutan and Nepal before China’s invasion. So I think, If Tibet remained independent state then then it is more still comparatively more prosperous than these neighboring countries.
I don't know what you're smoking but, Tibet was pretty darn poor before the liberation minus the wealthy elites. A lot of their military was dependent on the central military stationed in there.
Nepal on the other hand, was pretty wealthy and had a very strong military. Which was why nearing the late 19th century, their relationship with China to soured. Because they were wealthy and strong enough to contest powers with Qing dynasty trying to expand their borders. This caused China to ignore their request for military assistance when the Brits invaded, now of course at that time China had its own woes, but they were not as severe at that time.
Even to this day Nepalese warriors are known for their strong fighting capability, especially when it comes to mercenary recruitments. Nepalese are great fighters. They have high recruitment rates.
Tibet richer???? Nope, it was stuck on the high roof with very little trade with anyone. The poor couldnt afford greens because v hard to grow there and these go to the elites and the monks. Nepal was a big kingdom, with good access to India and was cut down in size by the British. Nepal stood well against the other Indian states for a long time.
Do you realize Bhutan has been ethnically cleansing its country of all of the Bhutanese who are of Nepali ancestry but have lived there for many generations?
You mention the 2001 Nepali royal massacre here, for what reason, it was committed by the mentally ill crown prince who killed his entire family after a argument with a family member - what has that got to do with this article?
The same "violence abhorring Buddhists" expelled more than 100,000 ethnic Nepalis from their land. There only fault was that they demanded their right to practice their culture and language and democratic reform.
I hope that one day this tragedy gets the attention it deserves.
Tibet and Bhutan are neighbors in the Himalayas. Both are Buddhist states and have long traded with each other. I was comparing and contrasting their contact with modernity. Tibet was always much richer and had its own periods of conquest and glory. Bhutan was always a backwater in comparison. As this article notes, Tibet was conquered by the Chinese, not for the first time, and forced to end its medieval system. Bhutan, in contrast, was never as oppressive if only because it was rarely wealthy enough to support much of an aristocracy.
India has taken Bhutan on as a client state, and Bhutan has been ruled by a series of progressive monarchs who have been moving towards broadly based prosperity and a parliamentary monarchy. India has let Bhutan remain independent. The closest to a threat of invasion involved a group of Indian separatist guerillas who had taken refuge in southern Bhutan. India demanded that Bhutan eliminate or expel them. Bhutan did, but being good Buddhists and abhorring violence, they distributed the weapons they used, AK-47s, to the various monasteries as reminders to try to avoid warfare. (When I noticed an AK-47 in one of the temples, I had to ask.)
There are other mountain kingdoms in the Himalayas, and they have been joining the global community as our world shrinks. Ladahk, for example, is now part of India. Nepal is independent and had a major royal massacre back in 2001. There has been talk, on and off, of India annexing them. There are probably other countries up in the mountain valleys that I am little aware of.
Well said. Tibet was more
Prosperous than the Bhutan and Nepal before China’s invasion. So I think, If Tibet remained independent state then then it is more still comparatively more prosperous than these neighboring countries.
I don't know what you're smoking but, Tibet was pretty darn poor before the liberation minus the wealthy elites. A lot of their military was dependent on the central military stationed in there.
Nepal on the other hand, was pretty wealthy and had a very strong military. Which was why nearing the late 19th century, their relationship with China to soured. Because they were wealthy and strong enough to contest powers with Qing dynasty trying to expand their borders. This caused China to ignore their request for military assistance when the Brits invaded, now of course at that time China had its own woes, but they were not as severe at that time.
Even to this day Nepalese warriors are known for their strong fighting capability, especially when it comes to mercenary recruitments. Nepalese are great fighters. They have high recruitment rates.
Tibet richer???? Nope, it was stuck on the high roof with very little trade with anyone. The poor couldnt afford greens because v hard to grow there and these go to the elites and the monks. Nepal was a big kingdom, with good access to India and was cut down in size by the British. Nepal stood well against the other Indian states for a long time.
Do you realize Bhutan has been ethnically cleansing its country of all of the Bhutanese who are of Nepali ancestry but have lived there for many generations?
You mention the 2001 Nepali royal massacre here, for what reason, it was committed by the mentally ill crown prince who killed his entire family after a argument with a family member - what has that got to do with this article?
The same "violence abhorring Buddhists" expelled more than 100,000 ethnic Nepalis from their land. There only fault was that they demanded their right to practice their culture and language and democratic reform.
I hope that one day this tragedy gets the attention it deserves.