"On the issue of 14th Dalai Lama's statement of being a 'Son of India', I've discussed several rounds with him and his heelers," the article said.

Prior to this, an article pulbished on Feb. 19 unveiled the fact that Dalai Lama had "ceded" southern part of Tibet to India.

On March 9, the Dalai Lama, who could no more turn a blind ear to critics, held a high-profile press conferrence in grandiosity in India and "produced three reasons for being son of India".

"I had patiently pointed out that all the three reasons were groundless," Yi Duo quoted his March 31 article as saying. "It was not so easy for the Dalai Lama to prove such a sonship, he had to give sufficient reasons."

Afterwards, the spokesman of the Dalai Lama's government-in-exile came to argue for him. Another overseas person named Chen was bold enough to argue that "son of India" could not be understood as "child of India". Chen defended that a son was a son, but a child was a child; as a matter of fact, it's true that the Dalai Lama is "son of India" and could not be denied for whatever reason on earth.

However, after Yi Duo's article titled "New Argument for the Dalai Lama's Claim as 'son of India' "was published, despite Mr. Chen's silence, the spokesman, secretary of the Dalai Lama's exiled government and overseas activists shouted curses in concert. In order not to disappoint them, Yi Duo would like to add some given that they were already exhausted in thoughts.

For their convenience, Yi Duo wanted to give them a nickname accoridng to their logic. Since the Dalai Lama called himself "son of India" as he worships Buddhism originated from India, those who worship him would in turn be called "grandsons of India". And Yi Duo bet they would be wild with joy for this new title.

Yi Duo read carefully the articles written by "grandsons of India". To his delight, the "grandsons" were willing to debate on this topic and their articles were long enough to show that they had taken pains to finish them.

It's a pity that these "grandsons" didn't make much progress in their writing. Taking their reasons for being "son of India" for example, they defended again and again but the listed reasons were the same three reasons given by the Dalai Lama with nothing new. They were the same as the Dalai Lama's arguments: "Buddhist knowledge was originated from India", and "the idea of non-violence was derived from Indian culture".

Yi Duo has long before pointed out that the national identity held by followers of the world's religions, including Buddhism, has no connection with which country or region this religion dates back to.

In the same way, the valuable idea and culture of human beings are shared among various nations and ethnic groups to different degrees. The national identity of the followers has nothing to do with the original country or ethnic group.

Taking Buddhism for example, there are many followers in the People's Republic of China (PRC), Japan, South Korea, Burma and Thailand etc. Except for the Dalai Lama, who else would admit that he is "son of India"?