Sana Hashmi’s article on Wednesday (“Pew wrong about Indians’ views,” Aug. 16, page 8) includes several inaccurate statements about our approach to surveying Indian public opinion. These statements hinge on a fundamental misunderstanding of Pew Research Center’s sampling design in India.
Hashmi erroneously implies that the center only surveyed respondents from four prominent Indian cities for our recent analysis of attitudes toward Taiwan. This is not correct. Respondents from Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Kolkata and Mumbai comprise fewer than 5 percent of our sample — about the same proportion as in the Indian population overall. Because the survey is intended to be representative of the nation as a whole, the remainder of the sample comes from places outside these four cities.
Our poll in India, conducted from March 25 to May 11, involved surveying 2,611 Indians face-to-face in 11 languages across 263 villages and towns, in urban and rural areas. Moreover, counter to Hashmi’s claim that we omitted key regions, about 3 percent of our sample reside in northeastern India, in proportion to available census figures.
The survey covered nearly 97 percent of the entire country and was based on a scientific, random sample. (A total of 3 percent of the Indian population lives in districts or states that had to be excluded from the survey due to inaccessibility or insecurity.) This poll is part of a broader 24-country study where each survey is designed and executed to represent the general population. Pew Research Center does not field urban-only surveys in any of these countries.
Hashmi suggests that the results could be skewed because respondents were confused about whether they were being asked for their opinion of the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of China. Notably, Pew Research Center unambiguously asked respondents about “China” and “Taiwan” in English and 10 other languages in which the survey was conducted (eg, Hindi and Punjabi), which was reviewed by an independent firm that employs local linguists in each language to ensure understanding by Indian participants. While it is always possible for respondents to misunderstand a survey question, efforts were made to reduce the likelihood of such an error.
Indeed, one assertion in Hashmi’s article — “many Indians ... might lack familiarity with Taiwan” — is actually backed by Pew Research Center results. In the survey, when asked about their opinion of Taiwan, the share of Indians who said they did not know or otherwise refused to answer the question was twice as high as when asked the same about China (20 percent vs 8 percent). These “don’t know” rates, paired with the notion that Indians’ unfavorable views of China and Taiwan differed significantly (67 percent unfavorable toward China vs 43 percent unfavorable toward Taiwan), suggest that while there may be some difference in familiarity, Indian respondents still view these places in distinct ways. As such, we feel confident these favorable and unfavorable measures reflect actual sentiment toward Taiwan.
As an organization that conducts polling across the globe, Pew Research Center consistently works with local organizations, vendors and subject matter experts to ensure we responsibly study a range of topics. We stand by our findings on Indians’ views of Taiwan, and in the context of interpreting a Pew Research Center survey, we welcome the public to reach out to info@pewresearch.org for clarification about our approach.
Laura Silver is Pew Research Center’s associate director of global attitudes research; Patrick Moynihan is the center’s associate director of international research methods.
Weeks into the craze, nobody quite knows what to make of the OpenClaw mania sweeping China, marked by viral photos of retirees lining up for installation events and users gathering in red claw hats. The queues and cosplay inspired by the “raising a lobster” trend make for irresistible China clickbait. However, the West is fixating on the least important part of the story. As a consumer craze, OpenClaw — the AI agent designed to do tasks on a user’s behalf — would likely burn out. Without some developer background, it is too glitchy and technically awkward for true mainstream adoption,
On Monday, a group of bipartisan US senators arrived in Taiwan to support the nation’s special defense bill to counter Chinese threats. At the same time, Beijing announced that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had invited Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) to visit China, a move to make the KMT a pawn in its proxy warfare against Taiwan and the US. Since her inauguration as KMT chair last year, Cheng, widely seen as a pro-China figure, has made no secret of her desire to interact with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and meet with Xi, naming it a
A delegation of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials led by Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is to travel to China tomorrow for a six-day visit to Jiangsu, Shanghai and Beijing, which might end with a meeting between Cheng and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The trip was announced by Xinhua news agency on Monday last week, which cited China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Director Song Tao (宋濤) as saying that Cheng has repeatedly expressed willingness to visit China, and that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee and Xi have extended an invitation. Although some people have been speculating about a potential Xi-Cheng
No state has ever formally recognized the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) as a legal entity. The reason is not a lack of legitimacy — the CTA is a functioning exile government with democratic elections and institutions — but the iron grip of realpolitik. To recognize the CTA would be to challenge the People’s Republic of China’s territorial claims, a step no government has been willing to take given Beijing’s economic leverage and geopolitical weight. Under international law, recognition of governments-in-exile has precedent — from the Polish government during World War II to Kuwait’s exile government in 1990 — but such recognition
RSS