Hacker News Reader

Comment by infocollector | Hacker News Reader

I do wish the world would be more sympathetic to Ukraine and Tibet than it is currently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet).

View on HN

Indeed. Both the Tibetans and the people of Xinjiang deserve much better than what they currently have.

And in Tigray and in Mali and in Yemen, ...

It feels surreal to think that I live on the same planet as people who face such suffering. I feel totally helpless and sad.

And the Kurds in the middle east

And those Afghanis now starving to death after being ravaged by imperialist war-adventuring for decades

Yeah, creating educational opportunities for girls was the worst. Good thing that's all being put back the way it's supposed to be.

have you seen Afghanistan before US helped Taliban with arms to fight USSR? and before USSR invaded? they didn't need your "educational opportunities" they need invaders not to invade.

It is possible both are true: Arming the Taliban was bad. Disarming them was good.

Given that the intention of arming the Taliban was to bring down a government similar to the one currently invading Ukraine, maybe the overall effect of arming the Taliban was good, however tragic for Afghanistan.

Ultimately, I do not presume to be smart enough to know what is right in international relations.

The cynical use of feminism as a justification for war-mongering then bookended by abandoning the same girls to starve to death is not something to be proud of.

Gender equality works well for the developed world because a lot of other systems are compatible with it and we have technology to even the playing field. But it may very well be bad for most people involved, including the girls themselves, in an extremely undeveloped society.

Because you know better? Complete BS.

Because almost every society in history, including the present, and except for technologically developed ones had strong gender roles.

Citations massively needed.

and Iraq? And the United States?

It's a big mess. The major rivers of India and China all originate in Tibet, so having that whole area be under the control of either one of these two actors is a recipe for ongoing stability concerns in the region.

> The major rivers of India and China all originate in Tibet

Apart from the Brahmaputra, which flows through the part of India east of Bangladesh, I have a hard time finding a major India river that originates in Tibet. Certainly, the Ganges flows west to east.

What river(s) do I overlook?

Indeed OPs comment doesn't make much sense. Ganges is sourced in Gangotri, Yamuna in Yamunotri which are in Indian territory, behing massive himalayan wall separating it from (occupied and formerly indian) chinese territory.

Mighty fine hiking locations too!

The Karnarli comes from Mt Kailash, which is a tributary of the Ganges.

There are 4 sacred river that originate from Mt Kailash as far as I remember.

https://www.wondersoftibet.com/mount-kailash-four-river-sour...

(I have kayaked the Karnarli, well worth a rafting trip if you are in Nepal).

I think the Yarlung Tsangpo as well comes from one of them.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/80558/yarlung-tsang...

Ahhh, wait, in see you said India. That would be the Indus and Karnarli - which goes to the Ganges. Sorry rushed post not got time to remind myself.

Tibet has never been under the control of India as far as I know. It was an ethnically independent region in the past and now comes under the govt of China. So major Himalayan rivers originating in Tibet is a big gain for China and a strategic problem for India, considering China has already built several huge upstream damns across these rivers which irrigate much of N India.

I suppose one could claim that at the time of the Convention of Lhasa, Tibet and much of India swore suzerainty to the same nation of Great Britain.

There's also the concept of Arkhand Bharat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhand_Bharat) which is the notion of a unified Indian subcontinent.

One may also observe that India is primarily Hindu, while Tibet is primarily Buddhist, which is an offshoot of Hinduism. Present day China is communist atheist, which has a lot less in common with Buddhism than Hinduism does.

Reality is a bit more complicated, there are many religions in India and most people consider Buddhism not theistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India

https://qz.com/india/1585631/the-ancient-connections-between...

"most people consider Buddhism not theistic"

In practice, a lot of Buddhists are very theistic. Many of them worship various gods and Buddhas.

In the West, Buddhism has been desacrilized to make it more palatable for Westerners, but in the East it's often way more religious and theistic, especially as the Buddhism that actually exists in those countries has often been blended with other indigenous religions which themselves are very theistic.

River high up in mountains aren't where the power lies. You could damn all of those 4 but the water coming off of them wouldn't affect the large important parts of rivers downstream too much.

I'm not sure how significant that geographic fact is. Tibet is incredibly remote and rugged. Any kind of dam project large enough to have downstream impacts would be infeasible.

I'm pretty sure the Vietnamese have already began to complain about the impacts of damming in Chinese Tibet.

Though I read that in the news, so take it with a grain of salt

The Mekong, the usual river that comes up when it comes to water rights, originates in Qinghai province, not Tibet. Any other rivers originating in China and flowing through VN would be even further east.

You might be confused because the Mekong (along with numerous other rivers) originates on the Tibetan Plateau, but that's a geographical feature which is vastly larger than Tibet itself.

That doesn't seem right. The North/East borders of India, Nepal, and Bhutan are along the Himalayas. Any river that flows in India should start on India's side of the mountains.

True. But sometimes there are small openings in the hills which are enough for rivers to rush through. Brahmaputra starts near Tibet, but enters India in the state of Arunachal Pradesh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmaputra_River#/media/File:...

@treis, It doesn't work like that. Rivers can originate anywhere and flow in any direction. For ex- Jhelum and Indus rivers originate in India but flow through Pakistan. I am sure there are many other similar examples.

I’m quite certain rivers always flows downwards due to gravity. So mountain ranges tend to be problematic to run through.

This seems like an argument of semantics. I see both of your statements as true.

How so?

In this case, though, they seem to be correct.

A map of the Ganges watershed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ganges-Brahmaputra-M...

Looks unlikely that Tibet could exert too much control over it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com