Bharat Rakshak

The level of vitriol in the public sphere in both countries is reaching unprecedented levels. In India great concern has been expressed about an editorial in the People’s Daily castigating India, and arguments emanating from a Chinese think tank about strategies to dismember it. The trust deficit seems to be widening.

But there is also a perception in China that no Indian leadership will be able to politically deliver on a border settlement. The dominant narrative of China as an aggressor in 1962 is still so ingrained that when it comes down to the wire no Indian government will be able to make a credible offer.

The second is that the Indo-US relationship is perceived to be explicitly some part of a design to contain China. India can argue with some justification that the China-US relationship is much closer and more consequential, that improving relations with the US and China is not a zero sum game, and the possibility of serious Sino-US conflict is remote. But this argument does not seem as compelling to many Chinese for two reasons. First, many of them rate the possibility of Sino-US tensions increasing higher than what Indians normally do. So whose side you are on matters to them. Second, while they are happy with bilateral relationships, placing the relationship with the US in a broader quadrilateral arrangement involving Japan and Australia has not exactly gone down well.It has fed into their encirclement syndrome.

The message was more to throw cold water on the Indian model, than belligerence in a classical security sense. In a strange way this confirms what some Chinese academics have been saying informally: India may pose a threat to some sections of the regime, not by its power but by its success.

In 1786 the Gurkhas invaded Tibet. The cause for this invasion went back a few years before the Gurkhas had gained full control of Nepal. Nepal had started adding copper to the silver coins which they were supplying to Tibet. In 1751 the Seventh Dalai Lama had written to the three Newari Kings, who ruled over the principalities of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhatgaon, to protest against this practice. When Prithvi Narayan, chief of the Gurkhas, overthrew the Newari rulers he was similarly apprised of the situation.

Another sore point in the relations between the Gurkhas and the Tibetans had been the intervention of Tibet in the Gurkha invasion of Sikkim. Tibet offered help to Sikkim and a treaty was concluded between Nepal and Sikkim in the presence of two

Tibetan representatives. The Gurkhas resented this interference and were looking for an excuse to attack Tibet. Such an opportunity arose in the controversy over the third Panchen Lama's personal property which was being claimed by the Panchen's two brothers, Drugpa Tulku and Shamar Tulku. The latter hoped to use the backing of the Gurkhas for his claim. The Gurkhas used the claim of Shamar Tulku and invaded Tibet.

The Eighth Dalai Lama, then 26 years old, requested the Manchu Emperor, Ch'ien Lung, for temporary military assistance. The Manchu army which entered Tibet in 1792 became more harmful to the Tibetans and they again tried to increase the power of the Manchu Resident. Further, Ch'ien Lung sent a golden urn from Peking and declared that future reincarnations of the Dalai Lama and other important lamas should be determined by putting the names of the candidates in it and extracting one at random in the presence of the Manchu Resident. This imperialist imposition was not adhered to by the Tibetans and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, whose own choice had not even been referred to the Manchus, publicly abolished this form.

During this period Tibet was invaded several times and the Manchu Resident at Lhasa engaged in nefarious intrigues and meddled in Tibetan state affairs. But Tibet never lost her sovereignty. The Tibetan people recognized the Central Tibetan Government, headed by the Dalai Lama, as the only legal Government of Tibet.

The sovereignty of Tibet was further shown in her dealings with Nepal in 1856 when a treaty was signed between the two countries without reference to China. In the internal affairs of Tibet, the sovereignty of the Central Government of Tibet at Lhasa was most clearly illustrated in the internal war which broke out during the middle of the nineteenth century between the chieftain of Nyarong on the one side and the King of Derge and the Horpa princes on the other. The Tibetan Government sent an army, crushed the Nyarong Chief, whose invasion of his neighbour was the cause of the trouble, and set up a Tibetan Governor in his place, charging him with the general supervision of the affairs of Derge and the Horpa principalities.

In 1876, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Thupten Gyatso, at the age of 19, took charge of the duties of state from Regent Choekyi Gyaltsen Kundeling. He was an outstanding personality and helped Tibet to reassert her rightful sovereignty in international affairs.

At this period the British had close and profitable ties with China. The Chinese had persuaded the British that they exercise 'suzerainty' over Tibet. Therefore on September 13, 1876, the Sino-British Chefoo Convention, which granted Britain the 'right' of sending a mission of exploration into Tibet, was signed. The mission was abandoned when the Tibetans refused to allow them on the grounds that they did not recognise China's authority. Two more similar agreements, the Peking Convention of July 24, 1886 and the Calcutta Convention of March 17, 1890, were also repudiated by the Tibetans.

The Tibetan Government refused to have anything to do with the British who were dealing over their heads with the Chinese. This coincided with new contacts between Russia and Tibet around 1900-1.

There followed an interchange of letters and presents between the Dalai Lama and the Russian Czar. This strengthened British fears about Russian involvement in Tibetan affairs. As the Russian power in Asia was growing, the British Government felt that their interest was at stake. Tibet was invaded by a British expeditionary force under Colonel Younghusband, which entered Lhasa on August 3, 1904.

A treaty was signed between Tibet and Great Britain on September 7, 1904. During the British invasion Tibet conducted her affairs as an independent country. Peking did not so much as protest against the British invasion of Tibet.

When the British invaded Tibet, the 13th Dalai Lama went to Mongolia. The Manchus, who were then ruling China, made one last attempt to interfere in Tibet through the military campaigns of the infamous Chao Erhfeng. Mhen the Dalai Lama was in Kumbum monastery in the province of Amdo, he received two messages - one from Lhasa, urging him to return with all speed as they feared for his safety and could not oppose the intruding troops of Chao Erhfeng, and the other from Peking, requesting him to visit the Chinese capital. The Dalai Lama chose to go to Peking with the hope of prevailing upon the Chinese Emperor to stop the military agression against Tibet and to withdraw his troops.

When the Dalai Lama finally returned to Lhasa in 1909, he found that, contrary to all the promises he had received in Peking, Chao Erhfeng's troops were at his heels. During the annual Monlam festival of 1910, some 2,000 Manchu and Chinese soldiers under the command of General Chung Ying entered Lhasa and indulged in carnage, rape, murder, plunder, and wanton destruction. Once again the Dalai Lama was forced to leave Lhasa. He appointed a Regent to rule in his absence and left for the southern town of Dromo with the intention to go to British India if necessary. Events in Lhasa and the pursuing Chinese troops forced him to leave his country once again.

In India the Dalai Lama and his ministers appealed to the British Government to help Tibet. Meanwhile the Manchu occupation force tried to subvert the Tibetan Government and to divide Tibet into Chinese provinces - exactly what, not half a century later, the Communist Chinese would do.

But, when the news of the 1911 Revolution in China reached Lhasa, the Chinese troops mutinied against their Manchu officers and attacked the Amban's residence. Fighting broke out between rival Manchu and Chinese generals. Then, in a desperate attempt to regain their dwindling hold in Lhasa, the Chinese attacked the Tibetans. By then, however, the Tibetans had reorganised themselves with orders coming from the Dalai Lama in India. Chinese troops in Lhasa, and elsewhere in Tibet were overcome by the Tibetans and finally expelled in 1912. During this period of fighting and confusion the new ruler of China, President Yuan Shih-kai, tried to send military reinforcements to the beleagured troops while at the same time trying to placate the Tibetans. He apologised for the excesses and

said that he had restored the Dalai Lama who wrote back saying that he was not asking the Chinese Government for any rank as he intended to ezercise both spiritual and temporal rule in Tibet and declared Tibet's independence.

A treaty was signed between Tibet and Great Britain on September 7, 1904. During the British invasion Tibet conducted her affairs as an independent country. Peking did not so much as protest against the British invasion of Tibet.

When the British invaded Tibet, the 13th Dalai Lama went to Mongolia. The Manchus, who were then ruling China, made one last attempt to interfere in Tibet through the military campaigns of the infamous Chao Erhfeng. Mhen the Dalai Lama was in Kumbum monastery in the province of Amdo, he received two messages - one from Lhasa, urging him to return with all speed as they feared for his safety and could not oppose the intruding troops of Chao Erhfeng, and the other from Peking, requesting him to visit the Chinese capital. The Dalai Lama chose to go to Peking with the hope of prevailing upon the Chinese Emperor to stop the military agression against Tibet and to withdraw his troops.

When the Dalai Lama finally returned to Lhasa in 1909, he found that, contrary to all the promises he had received in Peking, Chao Erhfeng's troops were at his heels. During the annual Monlam festival of 1910, some 2,000 Manchu and Chinese soldiers under the command of General Chung Ying entered Lhasa and indulged in carnage, rape, murder, plunder, and wanton destruction. Once again the Dalai Lama was forced to leave Lhasa. He appointed a Regent to rule in his absence and left for the southern town of Dromo with the intention to go to British India if necessary. Events in Lhasa and the pursuing Chinese troops forced him to leave his country once again.

In India the Dalai Lama and his ministers appealed to the British Government to help Tibet. Meanwhile the Manchu occupation force tried to subvert the Tibetan Government and to divide Tibet into Chinese provinces - exactly what, not half a century later, the Communist Chinese would do.

In January 1913 a bilateral treaty was signed between Tibet and Mongolia at Urga. In that treaty both countries declared themselves free and separate from China.

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama, having returned from India i.n January 1913, issued a formal declaration of the complete independence of Tibet, dated the eighth day of the first month of the Water-Ox year (March 1913). The document also clarified:

"Now the Chinese intention of colonising Tibet under the patron-priest relationship has faded like a rainbow in the sky".

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama started international relations, introduced modern postal and telegraph services and, despite the turbulent period in which he ruled, introduced measures to modernise Tibet. On December 17, 1933 he passed away.

The following year a Chinese mission arrived in Lhasa to offer condolences, but in fact they tried to settle the Sino-Tibetan border issue. After the chief delegate left, another Chinese delegate remained to continue discussions. The Chinese delegation was permitted to remain in Lhasa on the same footing as the Nepalese and Indian representatives until he was expelled in 1949.

In September 1949, Communist China, without any provocation, invaded Eastern Tibet and captured Chamdo, the headquarters of the Governor of Eastern Tibet. On November 11, 1950, the Tibetan Government protested to the United Nations Organisation against the Chinese aggression. Although El Salvador raised the question, the Steering Committee of the General Assembly moved to postpone the issue.

On November 17, 1950, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama assumed full spiritual and temporal powers as the Head of State because of the grave crisis facing the country, although he was barely sixteen years old. On May 23, 1951 a Tibetan delegation, which had gone to Peking to hold talks on the invasion, was forced to sign the so-called "17-point Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet", with threats of more military action in Tibet and by forging the official seals of Tibet.

The Chinese then used this document to carry out their plans to turn Tibet into a colony of China disregarding the strong resistance by the Tibetan people. What is more, the Chinese violated every article of this unequal 'treaty' which they had imposed on the Tibetans.

On September 9, 1951 thousands of Chinese troops marched into Lhasa. The forcible occupation of Tibet was marked by systematic destruction of monasteries, suppression of religion, denial of political freedom, widespread arrests and imprisonment and massacre of innocent men, women and children.

On March 10, 1959 the nation-wide Tibetan resistance culminated in the Tibetan National Uprising against the Chinese in Lhasa. The Chinese retaliated with a ruthlessness unknown to the Tibetans. Thousands of men, women and children were massacred in the streets and many more imprisoned and deported. Monks and nuns were a prime target. Monasteries and temples were shelled.

On March 17, 1959 the Dalai Lama left Lhasa and escaped from the pursuing Chinese to seek political asylum in India. He was followed by unprecedented exodus of Tibetans into exile. Never before in their history had so many Tibetans been forced to leave their homeland under such difficult circumstances. There are now more than one hundred thousand Tibetan refugees all over the world.

It has been almost 40 years since Chinese occupied Tibet and the destruction of a unique

Culture is still going on Tibet, yet the world has not come in aid of Tibet, only lip service.

the history and status quo fully proves that the political map is written by force ,instead of morality or ethnic.

It is completely a game of power and has nothing with ethnic or morality. if you are power enough, then you take it. if you are not powerful enough, you have to let them go.

the history and status quo fully proves that the political map is written by force ,instead of morality or ethnic.

so I'm sure you and chinese people who think like you have absolutely no problem with the colonialist powers of europe and japan and how they treated china ?
right ?

so I'm sure you and chinese people who think like you have absolutely no problem with the colonialist powers of europe and japan and how they treated china ?
right ?

Exactly Liu ji.

PRC's hold over Tibet and Xinjiang is ONLY based on power, not on historical legitimacy, not on morality, not on ethnicity. Whereas historical legitimacy, morality and ethnicity may have a longer shelf-life, power is indeed fickle. Now you have it, now you don't, as history teaches us.

That is all India and the world needs to know about China. Thank you!

welcome to the earth.

the geopolitics and international politics today have no difference with those in colonist era.
but dut to the exsitence of WMD, main powers had to limit their ambitions for their survivals.

Had there been no WMD, WW III would have happened decades ago.

thanks for your welcome, I feel quite comfortable here even without it !

but you didn't answer my question. or didn't you understand it ?
or perhaps unable to answer because of the inherent hypocrisy it'll inevitably display?

India would still consists of dozens of small independent states.

before WW II, it was "colonialism 1.0" . powerful states could be robbers without any disguise ;
After WW II, it is "conialism 2.0". powerufl states are still robbers,but they just disguise themselve as " human righter keepers"

not only chinese borders ,but aslo all borders on the earth tody, are based on power balance,not on historical legitimacy.

otherwise, there would not be so many "man-made" borders and " man-made " countries.
India would still consists of dozens of small independent states.

and china is one of these states ?

India is together because the Indians decided to live together, despite our differences in language, ethnicity, religion, caste, political persuasion. Except for some small minorities who have still not adjusted well and where there have been external interventions, 99% Indians are together of their own free will.

It was power politics by the useless princes, and foreign powers which were keeping Indians from living together in a single country, but it was not power politics that brought our people together. Otherwise our democracy would not work!

Just for your information!

China just is trying to become one of them,but still has not mananged it yet.

Had britishmen not united India with iron and blood, dozens small states in India would still fight their ways to massacre each others.

Had britishmen not united India with iron and blood, dozens small states in India subcontinent would still fight their ways to massacre each others.

China just is trying to become one of them,but still has not mananged it yet.

the history and status quo fully prove that the borders are painted according to power balance ,instead of morality or ethnic.

And this is what no one likes about China. Civilization ultimately is not about brute power. It is about Truth. The Chinese htough in the past have learnt many things from India, would do well to look at India's national motto: Satyameva Jayate. The truth alone triumphs.

.

Had britishmen not united India with iron and blood, dozens small states in India subcontient would still fight their ways to massacre each others.

Incorrect. The Mauryan Empire was bigger than the British Indian Empire and lasted much longer.

how about south India penisular and northeast ? they were always left outside any big empires in india subcontinent.

welcome to the earth.

the geopolitics and international politics today have no difference with those in colonist era.
but dut to the exsitence of WMD, main powers had to limit their ambitions for their survivals.

Had there been no WMD, WW III would have happened decades ago.

On March 28 the 14th Dalai Lama appealed personally to Chinese people everywhere, especially to those in the PRC, hoping that they understand his sincere wishes for Tibetan autonomy and cultural rights only, without seeking independence for Tibet. This was to my knowledge the first time the Dalai Lama has gone over the heads of the Chinese government and leaders to engage the Han people’s understanding directly; its significance is far-reaching. No one, of course, imagines that this appeal will have a positive impact on Hu Jintao and the Chinese leadership as a whole. On the contrary, I believe that it can only further shame them into anger. If Hu Jintao has recently relaxed at all on the issue of dialogue with the Dalai Lama, it would not be due to this appeal, but more likely the result of pressure exerted by Western communities, in particular the United States. The only language understood by China’s mediocre rulers is that of power and interest........

The ill-informed responses to western media reports of some overseas Chinese youth are most thought-provoking in this connection. They immediately relay these false reports back to China as ironclad proof of Western ill will, and gain a strong response among domestic internet users..............

The ignorance of many Han lies in the fact that devotion to power and interest has rendered them incapable of understanding this reasoning: that when the Han deprived Tibetans of their autonomy, they deprive themselves of their own rights to democratic self-government, and thereby to give up their dignity in the face of all humanity

Just as indigenous cultures are represented as ideologically deficient in the PRC, the dominant Han are represented as agents of civilisation. Like many modern colonisers, the Han legitimate their control by conceiving themselves as uniquely burden with a civilising mission to help indigenous peoples progress and overcome cultural and linguistic deficits ……

Such deeply embedded ethnic arrogance and colonial paternalism arise from a unique combination of Han chauvinism and Marxist modernism. Han chauvinism arises from an historical belief in Han racial and cultural superiority which even Mao identified as a potential threat to national unity. This ethnic arrogance……

Han Chinese ARROGANCE