The book you are taking with a pinch of salt is the most important and comprehensive history of Qing Xinjiang written in English.
Every historical source or text should be taken with a pinch of salt. We'd have no issue with that statement if the book was written by a euro-centrist. One secondary source, if well regarded, is not the 100% indisputable truth.
Sinophone Muslims were, although it is clear that they were conceived as "familiar strangers," while the Manchus themselves took the examinations, of course. Besides, imperial exams were not the hallmark of the Qing imperial system as a whole. The Qing empire enforced uniformity in some areas (the rule of avoidance applied for most officials of all ethnicities, for example) but compartmentalized each conquered society to ensure maximal stability. None of the largely hereditary hakim begs of the Tarim Basin took the exams, yet they held great power in the cities they were assigned. Conversely, very few of the people who took the exams served in the Tarim Basin. Should we complain that the Manchus were prejudiced in favor of the Turkestanis and against the Han Chinese because very few Han Chinese were allowed hereditary rank? Or should we complain that the Qing were too partial to the Mongols because the Mongols could rise very high without taking the examinations? Of course not. There is no evidence that the Qing even viewed Xinjiang as China until the 1830s at the earliest; it was always "beyond the pass," to be contrasted with the "inner land" (neidi; peraphrasis for China proper) and governed with different regulations. And there is no evidence that these different regulations represented racism favoring Chinese over others.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, at the very least. But I'm happily educated on the matter of the examinations. It certainly reinforces the idea of vassal/protectorate systems being realpolitik rather than integrating them fully into the same governing system, and supports your position on the more fair Qing. I however wouldn't see this so much as a colony however - it seems more akin to the Ottoman conquest of Egypt, and its maintenance of the Mamluks within the O.E. The idea of familiar strangers does conflict with some other statements that the Qing would treat many as equals.
The Zunghars are an exception during the Qing conquest of Inner Asia, provoked by their consistent resistance to conquest for six decades. The Turkestanis revolted under the two khwaja brothers in 1755-1759, in Ush in 1765, and generally in 1862, as well as many collaborating with the khwaja Jahangir's invasion in 1825-1827. Never was there a genocidal solution to the Turkestanis, and Chinese rebels during the High Qing were also rarely subject to rampant massacres. The Zunghar killings were exceptional, a bureaucratic final solution to the steppe, and the main English source on this treats it as such (China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia, pages 285-286). They were not reflective of typical Qing behavior towards rebels.
So the Panthay rebellion is also atypical? And the treatment of the people of Sichuan during the White Lotus rebellion? Not to repeat Tibet. So far I see mass imprisonment and slaughter not at all unusual, if smattered with examples of promotion. This policy seems pretty consistent, even against people who were ethnic Han. Whilst it may not be a racist policy, it is most certainly atrocious and equal to some of the worst European atrocities.
So if Qing China does something bad, it is genuinely racist behavior. If the contrary happens, it is realpolitik. Could you elaborate on your justification for this?
If Qing China commits genocide, it goes beyond realpolitik into complete atrocity, as it would be for anyone else. When the administration of the periphery is left to the people of the periphery rather than brought under tighter Qing control, I see it as measured and practical, as nobody is being harmed in that process. I still think the Qing should not exactly be admired for their treatment of Christian missionaries.
Do you believe that the Ottoman conquest of the Mamluks is comparable to Erdogan's intervention in Syria? Modern China belongs to a separate tradition of statecraft from imperial China and has entirely different reasons and objectives for overseas expansionism. Nor is modern Africa, the archetypal 3rd World, Early Modern India, among the world's economic centers. The fact that you think this is a "comparable" example is very, very astonishing.
I think they are comparable, but not the same. Both are military actions in the region, one to conquer, the other to pacify a neighbouring region, with no chance to hold territory. But we'd be right that other concerns (i.e. the recent coup, international pressure to prevent a new Mandatory system) would prevent any action akin to that of the Ottoman Empire. My comparison to modern China is to point out that there are plenty of circumstances in which China could be accused of being exploitative.
Also, you're asking us to make predictions on a Chinese state having colonies - something that never happened. The examples from OTL were where some of the worst atrocities the colonisers committed took place, half the reason we have the debate on Qings moral character is that you seem to believe that it is greater than the European powers, based on its policies, and as such wouldn't commit these crimes. So I'm forced to take reference to its contrary policy decisions, and the only other Chinese state that has taken maritime action in the way you suggest. Yes, proto-industrial Qing may not be a resource extractor initially, but they could certainly take advantage of cheaper resources, and the wealth of india to fund their own industrial revolution. After all, China does have its own coal reserves. If the reverse took place in a DBWI - I could well use the fact that England committed one atrocity (the Harrowing) to a rebel group outside of colonisation to show that its moral character (based on policy) was superior and in an England-dominated timeline it wouldn't commit the alt-Qing atrocities. But it did, so there is every chance that the Qing dynasty would too - since it committed more atrocities.
Considering this never happened in the Tarim Basin, care to justify? So far your only serious argument has been the Zunghar genocide, which can be easily demonstrated not to be normal Qing behavior by citing the repeated examples of leniency towards Altishahr, which is so obviously different from the case of India insofar as the Zunghars would have yielded no benefit to the throne even had they not been killed, and which does not take into account the Qing view of India as a center of civilization and the view of Zunghars as mere barbarians who "run to their nests."
I refer you to the treatment of other rebellions.
Citing Taiwan for hypothetical Qing policy in India is akin to citing North America for British policy in India. Taiwan is a settler colony occupied by no states and a lightly settled population vulnerable to disease, which both India and the Tarim Basin would not be under the (High) Qing.
Apart from Qing actively tried to limit settlement of Taiwan, which suggests it wasn't intentionally a settler colony. Plus, the comparisons are in some ways valid - Britain tried to use N.America as a captive market for its goods, used local peoples as allies to ]against rivals.
You realize you have not shown a single example of racism besides the examinations issue (which was never universal in the first place; the Mongols, who did not take the examinations, were explicitly among the Qing elite) and the Zunghar genocide, which as I have shown is easily refutable. Your sole reason for rejecting academic consensus and why Qing patronage of Xinjiang Mongols and Muslims was any more "realpolitik" than the Zunghar genocide is what it feels like to you.
I refer again to Tibet, and whilst not exactly race, the treatment of Christians. Also, "Rejecting Consensus", you've referenced one text! One! I reject your argument that the Qing would not commit atrocities, because its one sided and based on one (if well regarded) text to indicate their moral character, or their policy decisions, despite there being adequate examples of the opposite action.
What do you mean by taking a genocide "into account"? This thread isn't about whether the Qing were morally good, it's about how exploitative a Qing India would be. My point isn't that the genocide didn't matter, rather that it was not reflective of general Qing policies and RogueTraderEnthusiast is ignoring all context on why such polices would not have any precedent or make any sense in India. To draw an analogy, RTE is saying "the Ottoman Empire would have committed genocide on Italians if Mehmed II conquered Italy because of the Armenian genocide."
I'm ignoring no context. Also, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that you're disregarding or all ignoring all Qing action, or arguments that disagree with your position. The best analogy is that "The Ottoman Empire may have committed genocide on Italians based on their treatment of the Armenian people". You state there is no precedent, but your argument relies on us ignoring all the precedent set up by both European and Arab colonisers to reach your conclusion.