Bharat Rakshak

To make this problem clear, we have to make a difference between some definitions. Both British India and India government recognized china has suzerainty instead of sovereignty on west tibet before 1950. The problem is what is the definition of suzerainty? What is the difference between it and sovereignty? I did not find a widely recognized definition of suzerainty yet. But one thing is definite, Britain did not recognize tibet enjoy full independence. After Britain recognized china has suzerainty, she signed an agreement with tibet in about 1904, and then signed with china a same agreement about tibet to confirm the agreement signed with tibet. This means Britain did not think tibet had full right and independence to sign treaty with other countries. It has to be confirmed by china to be leagle.

Another thing is that tibetans in exile said that tibet was heavilly influenced by china in qing dynasty, but did not lose its independence. The question is what is the difference between an autonomous region within a country and an independent country under other country's influence?? I did not find worldwide definition about it yet. I think to determine if tibet was a part of china in qing dynasty, we should see two angles. The first, if china has pratical control on tibet. This has been confirmed by the 29th issues agreement signed by china and tibet. In this agreement, china got a right to heavilly control over tibet internal and external affairs. Another angle is to make a difference between an autonomous region within a country and an independent country under other country's influence. I think although heavily influenced by other country, an independent small weak country under influence has to keep her namely dignity. In name, or in ceremony, her governor should still be paid an equal respect in protocol although he may has little real power. However, Tibet in qing dynasty did not have this name equality either. There are some examples to prove it:

1. According to the 29th agreement, the choosing of new generation of Dalai Lama have to done with a way ordered by China emperor, that is through drawing lots, which is different from tibetan’s traditional way. Tibetans do not like this change at all. (Dalai Lama is both the religious leader and political leader of west Tibet.) After the agreement was reached in 1780, Tibetans ask china’s emperor to do them a favor to waiver a drawing lot to choose a new dalai lama at 1808 because they think the candiate is a real dalai lama. China’s emperor approved their request. This dalai lama died in 1815. In the choosing of the new dalai lam in 1819, Tibetans ask emperor to waiver drawing lot again. The emperor got angry and ordered that they must using drawing lot to choose this new dalai lam, otherwise they will be punished according to law. Tibetans obeyed. From then on until 1870, three new dalai lama was choosen by drawing lot although Tibetans don’t like this method and prefer this old way. But they dare not ignore china’s emperor’s order. In choosing the new dalai lama at 1870, Tibetan did not use drawing lot because they got a waiver from china’s new emperor. This dalai lama lived until 1935. This means that china has full right in determining the way to choose tibet’s leader. For any independent country, this right should not be lost to other country.

2. In each the ceremony to give the full right to new dalai lama to rule Tibet, dalai lama has to have a 9-times-kowtow (or kotow: knee down to earth and knock forehead to earth) to the direction of china’s capital, Beijing. It is well known that 9-times-kowtow is used only by china’s ministers to show their respect to china’s emperor. Dalai lama did this show the relation between him and china’s emperor is a relation of minister and emperor.

3. The sixth dalai lama was arrested by a Mongolian leader who controls Tibet at that time. He was charged to drink alcohol and have sex with woman, which are not permitted to be a dalai lama. He was sent to Beijing for punishment and died on the road to Beijing. This shows that china’s emperor have full right to punish dalai lama.

4. In a letter written china’s emperor to dalai lama in 1783, china’s emperor gave dalai lama an official seal with dalai lama’s title. It is known that seal is the only symbol of the power of governors. If U.S. president or the president of california wants to give an order, he has to sign it. In ancient China, the governors has to stamp with his offical seal. It is a symbol of right or power. Local governor’s offical seal has be be given by emperor. China’s emperor told dalai lama in the letter that in which case he should use this seal to order, and in which case to use another seal (which is given by another emperor in 1720.) to order. This fully show that China’s right to give dalai lama power to rule.

5. According to 29th agreement signed by tibet and china in 1793, all high officials’ appointment in Tibet government has to be approved by china’s emperor. All military officers’ appointment and low government officials’s appointment has to be approved by Chinese representive in Lasah.

There are many other evidences to show that west Tibet was a part of china in qing dynasty.

Now, the second stage. We have proved that Tibet was a part of china in qing dynasty. The second question is if west Tibet get independent between 1912-1950? To answer this question, we have to know what is the definition of an independent country. There should have a land, people, administration and last one, be recognized by other countries in the world. Tibet is under tibetan’s control in this period. (Even in qing dynasty, Tibet enjoied high autonomy.) However, country to the claim of exiled tibetans, Tibet did not declare impendence after the collapse of qing dynasty. Tibetans in exile never shew evidence to prove the 13th dalai lama declared independence. The second and the most important, Tibet never got worldwide recognized as an independent country. Tibetans in exile said some countries signed some trade agreements or have some visit with Tibet, and these can prove Tibet is an independent. It is true that signing agreement can also show a country’s recognizing of other country’s independence, but only when these agreements has no other explaination but to show that those countries thought Tibet as an independent country, not an local government. None of the agreements fulfill this requirement. In fact, one agreement shown by tibeten to prove their independence is signed by Chinese government in this period. It is known that china’s government never recognized Tibet’s independence, and always claim Tibet as a part of china. So, these agreements can not prove tibet’s independence. (Actually, even if the countries signed these agreements did recognize Tibet’s independence, it can not give Tibet world recognizance because the number of those countries are too small.)

In 1950, when PLA entered Tibet, no country said it is an invasion to an independent. This was said only ten years later. If you know PLA is entering Tibet and do not say it is an invasion and do not recognize Tibet as an independent country in 1950, you have no right to say it after that. This is obvious. So, I will say Tibet might have some intention to get independent in this period. But before she finish this process, before she get independence, she was stopped by china and has to be remain to be a part in china. China’s action was completely legal. It is totally groundless to blame china invaded Tibet in 1950 because Tibet did not get full independence.

I want to add that china’s acquiring of both east and west Tibet by peaceful method in 18th century. Tibetans relation with Chinese were perfect at least before the opium 1840.

So, from the moral point of view, china should not occupy Tibet, just like Indians should not occupy Kashmir and asam, Russians should not occupy chennia and Americans should not occupy indian’s land. But from legal’s view, china’s occupation is not only fully legal, but by peaceful way.

By the way, china did pretty well for Tibetan from 1950 until now, except for the great leap in eastern Tibet in 1959-1962 and destroying of temples in cultural revolution. However, I have to point out that both of them targeted to whole china instead of just Tibetans. Yes, Chinese did damage many temples in Tibet, but they damaged much more in china’s own land. This is a problem of couumnist’s extremism instead of racial discrimination. For example, in communism period, Republic of Mongolia damaged all a thousand lama temples but 3 of them are left. This is done by Mongolian communists, mognolian themselves. Taliban damaged bhuta statues in their own land. So, the damage caused by Chinese government in Tibet is due to communism instead of racial discrimination. Actually most temples were damaged by Tibetan ethnic red guarding young men than ethnic Chinese.

Generally, if you Indians want to support Tibetan for independence, we will support kashmiri and asam’s people. But I think the best thing to do for both china and india is to treat the ethnic minorities really well and resolve our border conflict peacefully. To resolve conflicts, we should to know other sides’ view and evidences first. That is why I wrote this article. Both china and india’s governemtn know the facts very well. But both of them are greedy and want more from other side. The people are cheated by media. (Although india’s media is fairly just for internals affairs, it is no more just than china’s in external affairs.) The cheated people then push governments’ to get more lands from the other side. What I want to do is to exchang views and evidences between the people of the two counties, and hope this can push our governments to be more just in resolving the border conflict.

By the way, Chinese have very good feeling to Indians before 1950s. china is heavily influenced by bhudism in history.

Welcome Mr Chen the Chinese.... you have asked for resolving the border dispute through justice!! I respect that and accept your challenge though I never have and never will trust a chinese. Now coming to the point: Can you please name these 9 countries for the benefit of our readers? China had a border clash with the Soviet Union in 1969 over demarcation on the Manchurian and Xinjiang borders. While Vietnam was a faithful communist ally the chinese backstabbed them by forcibly occupying the Paracel islands in 1974.... this when Vietnam was busy in the war against the US! You also have a dispute over the spratly islands with a host of nations and there have been armed clashes. This is because you claim the South China Sea as your personal playground! You unleashed a war against Vietnam in 1979 after unjustly supporting the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia (which Vietnam invaded) which killed 3 million cambodians in one of the worst genocides in history.You have had historical disputes over the Korean peninsula and Manchuria with Japan and Russia. You also unjustly tried taking over Mongolia in 1919 after signing a treaty agreeing not to interfere in Mongolia in 1915. China also has laid claim to whole or part of Southeast Asia, Mongolia, Korea and Siberia at one time or the other after 1949!

First of all Mr Chen let me argue what historical claim China has over Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria? Please refer to the site :
http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Dynasty/history-maps-dynasty.html
Now this site gives the historical maps for all of the chinese dynasties from beyond 2000 BC to the present. It can be seen that except for the two dynasties of the Yuan and the Qing (the Manchus) none of the Chinese dynasties have had total control over the above 4 provinces. Infact the great wall of china is nothing but the boundary of ancient china as it was built to keep the "barbarians" out of china. All the 4 above mentioned provinces fall beyond it! Now coming to the Yuan and the Qing dynasties.... mention needs to be made that both these were foreign rulers. The Yuan dynasty rulers were Mongols descended from Genghis Khan who annexed China for Mongolia. The whole of China formed part of the huge Mongol empire that spread over most of Asia. The Qing or Manchus were from Manchuria and annexed China, Mongolia and Tibet for themselves. They took special steps during their rule to avoid being assimilated by the chinese. CAN YOU SHOW ME ONE HAN CHINESE (the han ethnic group- the real chinese - form 93% of china's population) DYNASTY THAT HAS HELD THESE FOUR PROVINCES BEFORE 1949 MR CHEN? First justify your claim over Tibet and then talk about NEFA and Ladakh!
Now coming to Ladakh.... this province has been a protectorate of the Mughal Empire from the time of Shah Jahan. Infact Aurangzeb his son met the Gyalpo (subsidiary ruler of ladakh) when he visited Srinagar.... this was in the 17th century! Even after the breakup of the Mughal Empire Ladakh was part of the Sikh empire of the punjab and later the Dogra kingdom of Jammu. It may be mentioned here that the Dogra ruler sent tax collectors twice in the 19th century to Aksai chin whereas China did not send them even once(the Qing dynasty!)during the same period. Also the area around Mount kailas and lake Manasarowar deep in Tibet sent its taxes/tributes not to Lhasa but to the Dogra court in Jammu up until 1949. After Zorawar Singh's brilliant campaign in tibet the 1842 treaty recognizing the "ancient boundary between Ladakh and tibet" were signed. The Johnson maps (1870s) even show parts of Xinjiang province to the North of Tibet under Jammu & Kashmir state of India. The one map that shows Aksai Chin in Tibet is the McDonalds line of 1899. This line also has never been confirmed by the Chinese till date! The Simla agreement was between independent Tibet and British India and this was when the McMahon line was drawn. It may be noted that the Tibetans agreed to this line without any problem ! The Chinese representative was present in the Simla agreement because the boundary line between Tibet and China proper were also being finalised. The fact that the Chinese representative was not invited to the Tibet-India boundary finalization confirms that Tibet was free and authorized to transact independently of china!
First let me clarify that the Tibetans themselves recognize no 'Western Tibet' and 'Eastern Tibet' that you claim! The Tibetans divide Tibet into three province - Kham, Amdo and U-Tsang. U-Tsang is the western part and the other two are the eastern parts. It is to be noted that culturally and politically both Kham and Amdo have been related to Tibet and not to the chinese people. Infact the rebellion of 1959 against chinese rule was started by the Khambas of Eastern Tibet! Tibet was a free nation from 1912-1950 and had diplomatic contacts with other countries of the world with equal standing. Can you Mr Chen tell me the percentage of population of the ethnic chinese (the Hans) in the four provinces mentioned above in 1949? The Hans were a meager minority everywhere even in 1949 and you have historical claims over these province! After the illegal occupation of these lands starting 1949 you have forcibly settled Han chinese and changed the demographics of these provinces altogether in the last 50 or so years!!Today Tibetans are a minority in Tibet! I draw attention of the readers to the following sites that legitimately refute the Chinese claim over 60% of china's present area :

http://www.caccp.org/im/
http://members.aol.com/imppsite/50years.htm
http://www.caccp.org/et/

So my advice to you Mr chen is to stop spreading propaganda here and teach yourself the truth!!

Therfore using the "agreement with the british" canard - Arunachal belongs to India and the Chinese position of the Macmohan line being an "imperialistic imposition" does not apply. So exactly what is your stand on Arunachal Pradesh? Using your own logic we India and China should not be fighting since british agreements are sacrosanct - at least in the case of Tibet as far as you chinese are concerned. So lets be fair and agree to the british treaties and agree that arunachal belongs to India!

Ha! If you want to call your 'cultural revolution' - which destroyed tibetan culture - peaceful!!!!

But China does not support Kashmiri freedom! No official statement from china supports this - pakiland and the chinese israel notwithstanding. You know that if you do so, the call for Tibetan is not so much of a 'hop-skip and a jump' - as far as official position of India goes. Therefore both India and and china respect diplomatic realpolitik and avoid this. - GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT KASHMIRI FREEDOM AND SEE HOW QUICKLY the Dalai lama asks for Tibetan independence with INDIAN DIPLOMATIC AND MORAL SUPPORT.

Nehru (the idiot) literally GIFTED the security the coucil seat to outcast china in 1960, we are not going to be so stupid any more.

The case for Kashmir and Assam are different than Tibet's Mr Chen. Can you historically refute India's claim to these provinces like I did to yours? Srinagar the capital of Kashmir was founded by Emperor Ashoka and it has remained under Hindu rule for atleast 16 centuries!! It has formed part of the Mauryan Empire and so has Pakistan. Religiously, Culturally, linguistically and ethnically all these are parts of India whereas Tibet is not so for China.(see my post above). The biggest mistake India did was to accept chinese claims over Tibet in 1950. I would also like to mention here that china has also not recognized Sikkim's merger with India even though a plebiscite clearly indicated that 97% of Sikkim's population wanted union with India! I would also like to tell you here that China claims huge swaths of Indian territory that it has no right over and has helped the insurgents in NE India and Kashmir. You have problems in Xinjiang and Tibet. If these provinces are lost to china then atleast a third of china is gone!! India will not barter kashmir for the tibetans as the case is very different for both.

China supporting pakistan over Kashmir is like India supporting Taiwan's claim over China. If India were to stake claim to Malasia or Indonesia, it would be like China claiming Tibet.

Some definitions to help in the discussions:

suzerain
1. A nation that controls another nation in international affairs but allows it domestic sovereignty.

-American Heritage Dictionary

2. a state exercising a degree of dominion over a dependent state especially in its foreign affairs

-Worldnet

sovereign

One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation

-American Heritage Dictionary

India recognises China's suzerainty over Tibet, not sovereignity. This means Tibet is a semi-independent nation whose external affairs are conducted by China. A sort of domain or colony, meaning China is an imperial nation.

Tibet, Innner Mongolia and Uigher-Sinkiang falls in the same category. (Manchuria of course gave up their rights.)

This still does not resolve the border issues.

There are so many questions. I have no time to answer all of them. I can only answer the most important questions.

First of all, I want to emphasize that the scientific way of thinking is a must even if we are not talking about science. To talk here, you’d better have a clear logic like a lawyer. Otherwise you are wasting other people’s time. There are two angles of views, from the view of legal or from the view of moral. For the question we are talking about, it is a problem of legalism instead of a moral problem.

Many Chinese name can not be pronounced out by Americans. So many Chinese use an English first name in America.

To Chaluka:

What I said is the countries resolved land disputes, not including islands. They are Mongolia, Kazakhstan, kyrgyzstan, tajikstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, burma, laos, Vietnam. Sorry, they are 10 not 9. Which has not been resolved is north korea, Russia, India and Bhutan. Bhutan wanted to sign agreement with china, but was stopped by her big brother-- India. The disputed lands between North Korea and Russia is very small. China did not pick India out. But to reach agreement, you need a cooperatative rival.

About south china sea problem, you’d better looking for some websites to get more knowledge. I have no time to teach you here. China invaded to Vietnam in 1979. Please remember that china and combodia are allies at that time. Vietnam invaded combodia first. From the legal view, china is legal to invade Vietnam to save combodia. Of course, from the moral view, china should not help combodia. About Mongolia problem, you’d better read more detailed history about it. China never recognized Mongolia independence before 1945.

???
Please give evidence.

I don’t want to argue with Mongolian yuan dynasty although we have evidence to prove our view. For manchuria’s Qing dynasty. Please remember that we are talking about sovereignty, it is about a country’s succeeding. We are not talking about anthropology and language. Manchuria is now a part of china. Manchurian is now a part of Chinese. All Manchurian support china’s claim to xinjiang and Tibet. So, china has full right to succeed Manchuria qing dynasty’s legacy, just like India succeeded britain’s claim on assam.

Before 1949, eastern Tibet was always under Chinese troops occupation and was administered by Chinese provinces. It is therefore a part of china. We are not talking about religion here.

Please read the article I posted one page before. I suggest you to have a training to get a scientific and logic way of thinking first, then come to talk. You Indians are famous for math and logic world wide, but seems not in this forum.

To shalav:

To have a legal agreement, both sides have to be a full independent country. Britain and china is ok. But Britain and Tibet is not because Tibet was not an world recognized independent country at that time. So the agreement between Britain and Tibet is illegal.

To Pathmarajah:
What is the difference between suzerain and an autonomy region within china? By the way, Britain and India acknowledge china’s suzerain over Tibet before china attacked Tibet in 1950, it means the simla agreement is illegal because tibet’s external affairs is in china’s hands according to your definition of suzerain. Tibet only has right in interal affairs.

To Chaluka:
Now comes the most important topic for me.
There is almost no inhibitants in aksai chin. Of course, china does not have to send tax-colloctors to there. The tax-collecting item in international law does not apply to here. Furthermore, although china did not collect tax here, we can give much more evidences like this. Such as Chinese mined there.

The 1842 agreement is an important agreement. The problem is: 1, where is the tradition boundary between ladkah and Tibet? Which side aksai chin belongs to? 2. The agreement is about the boundary between Tibet and ladakh. However, china’s claim to aksai chin mainly from the direction of xinjiang instead of Tibet. There are no agreement about the boundary between ladakh and xinjiang. Even if there is a traditional boundary between them, where the boundary is? So, the 1842 agreement is useless agreement except for we can find clear evidence to prove where the “ancient boundary” is. That is why I am asking you Indian to show evidence to prove aksai chin beonged to ladakh before 1842. I am still waiting.

After 1842, it is very clear that both sides lay some claims to aksai chin, but no agreement has ever been reached between china and Britain. China occupied this land first. Don’t tell me aksai chin is “india’s holy territory” any more, if you can not even give out evidence aksai chin belonged to ladakh before 1842. I want evidence!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, to the people who are interested in Tibet problem, there are two websites to compare:
www.tibet.com (this is Tibetan exiled’s official website)
www.tibet-china.org (this is Chinese government’s website).

By a comparison, everybody make find out if china’s occupation of Tibet is legally.

John Chen:

Now that we have questioned China's occupation of several lands, its treatment of ethnic minorities, and its claims over Taiwan and Tibet, you have taken refuge in legalese.

If you go into legal justifications, then India also has a lot of legal arguments in favour of its position in Jammu and Kashmir. In fact, India's legal position is much stronger in J&K than China's vis-a-vis many of its provinces.

Leaving aside the legalese, if you look at moral and cultural argumants, then please note the following:

1. India is a democracy that has conducted free and fair elections in Assam, Arunachal, Sikkim, and lately in Jammu and Kashmir, with widespread participation of the people in electing their Governments. This has been agreed by all reputable Western media also. How many 'free and fair' elections has Communist China conducted since its inception? Forget the areas of ethnic minorities (Uighurs, Tatars, Tibetans, Mongols etc.), how many Governments have been elected by a free vote of the majority Han Chinese people?

2. India, despite all its faults, allows Indian and foreign journalists free access to its people. Several opinion polls conducted by such journalists/news organizations, have found majority support for remaining with India among the people of Assam, Sikkim, and Arunachal. Earlier this year, a poll conducted by a reputed British News Agency in Jammu and Kashmir found that over 60% of the people wanted to remain with India. Most western diplomats and news agencies have agreed with Indian Election Commisssion's figures on participation in J&K polls a couple of months ago. How much uncensored access does China allow journalists to its hinterland?

3. India's protects the rights of its ethnic minorities living in border areas. People of J&K are allowed to buy land anywhere in India, but the Indian citizens from outside of J&K are not allowed to buy land there. This is a special constitutional provision to protect the rights of J&K people. Similar protections are accorded to people in hill districts in other states also.

Contrast this with China, which has flooded Tibet with ethnic Han Chinese to the point that the original Tibetan-speaking people have been reduced to a minority in their homeland, Tibet.

4. As for popular feelings, I have travelled extensively in Taiwan for business. Every single person I have talked to there, does not want Taiwan to merge with China. The younger people are especially fierce in identifying themselves as Taiwanese, and not as Chinese. China's bullying may have forced most countries into accepting China's sovereignty over Taiwan, but no popular vote will agree to it. Will China agree to such a vote?

5. As for the feelings of people of Tibet, there are tens of thousands of Tibetan refugees in India and elsewhere in the world, whose presence proves their opposition to Chinese rule in Tibet. How many refugees from Sikkim, Arunachal, or Assam do you have in China?

6. India's culture is assimilative, which allows space to its minorities, and its democracy, despite its faults, allows it to self-correct when major distortions occur. That's how yesterday's rebels often become Chief Ministers (Administrative Heads) of the States where they led rebellions earlier.

China's culture under communism on the other hand, has been brutal and domineering, which gives no voice to ethnic minorities.

In summary, for the votary of the totalitarian regime of China, to question the conduct of world's largest democracy, India, is ridiculous to say the least. China may have military and economic might on its side, but not morality or ethics.

Mr. Chen,
Are you currently in China? If so, can I mail you the collected writings of HH The Dalai Lama, and a few posters of his? Would you accept them as a token of appreciation for your "hard" work on this topic? Would you take the gift and openly display them in your house for your visitors to see and read?

Just asking, thats all.

Hi, Rajeev,
The land dispute between china and india is a legral problem instead of a moral problem. I in was in leagalism from the begining. Until now, I have not got evidence to support india's calim yet. I never said india's occupation on assam and kashmir is illegal. I just want to say china's occupation on tibet is legal too. and both of them are immoral.

Now, for the first time, I want to talk something about moral and ethics. Tibet is struggling for independence from china. While india make use of tibet's weakness to steal land from tibet. Nothing can be more immoral than this. India is not a symbol of moral but the opposite.

I admire india's democracy. Please be aware that china has already given up communism without declaring. China is changing toward democracy gradually. We need india's support for this process not india's militry invasion.

If you are so confident, why not to kashmir and assam a chance to have a plebiscite to determaine if they want independence or stay in india? Only this counts.

There are very few han permenant resident in west tibet. If tibetans in exile told you the opposite, they are lying. In east tibet, there are many nontibetans from ancient times. There are more now. But it is not more serious than indians flooded into assam. Please resolve your own problem first.

If you read some history, you will find that taiwanese want independence even before communist china existed. It has nothing to do with china's attitude to taiwan.

As far as I know, there are many assam rebels in nepal and bhutan. Neither assam people and tibetan can pass the china/india border.

The same happened in china. Many local tibetan governors are former rebells.

India brought no big changes in minority areas. china is on the countrary did some major damage and major good things too. If you go to ask present tibetans in china, nobody want to go back to the society and life style before 1950. They like the present way of life, although they still hope to be independent. Don'believe the tibetans in exile. They are liers.

Hmmm... it's surprising how China's 'historical' claims have been quickly replaced by 'legal' claims!! Dear Chen, even here a lot of points crop up. You have still to clarify China's historical claim over the 4 provinces I mentioned. First let me clarify that a dispute is a dispute land based or otherwise. How convenient of you to skirt this issue! Now Kryghistan, Tajikistan and kazakhstan were all parts of the former Soviet Union and the dispute also concerned the China-Kazakh border and I have already mentioned the border clashes above. The issue with Pakistan concerned the 'gifting away' of the Shaksgam valley which forms part of the disputed territory of J&K with India. It was an illegal settlement where 'legal' (in ur words) Indian territory was gifted by Pakistan to china to obtain favor! India has not recognized this since 1963. So there goes two peaceful settlements. As regards Vietnam, border clashes are a regular feature along the frontier. In your own words the issues with Russia, India, Taiwan, N.Korea and Bhutan are still unsettled.Add to this the occupation of Xinjiang and Tibet and China's peaceful intentions are all too apparent! It is also to be stated that most of the countries with which China has reached an agreement are small states which did not have the strength and resources to compete. Only Russia, India and vietnam being strong have resisted Chinese expansionism and unfair claims. what you did not tell our readers is that the Khmer Rouge attacked border villages in Vietnam and Thailand brutally killing innocent villagers! It was after grave provocation that Vietnam invaded Cambodia. Also China has no right over a sovereign nation like cambodia. If cambodia was an ally so was Tibet to India in 1950?? One more chinese lie. I quote below a short line from a mongol history site by the mongols themselves Regarding the Qing First let me clarify Assam's position. India's claim on Assam is not due to British rule. The word Assam is derived from the sanskrit word 'asama' meaning "unequalled". Assam has a rich legacy of Hindu culture and civilization dating from the time of the Mahabharat war.(1500 BC?) King Bhagadatta, the son of king Narakasura who ruled from Pragjyotishpur, the former capital of Assam, was famous for the resistance he demonstrated in the Mahabharat war. Long known as the cradle of the Shakta sect of Hinduism, Assam used to be called Kamarupa in history. It was tributary to the Gupta and Harsha empires. The Ahoms who ruled Assam for 6 centuries before the British were devout Hindus and followed our culture. An overwhelming majority of Assamese want to remain in India. Now if we go by your 'Qing' logic then India should rightfully claim Afghanistan, Central Asia, western Xinjiang and also Burma and Ceylon!! Why? Because the Kushans ruled over the first three from their base in the Indian subcontinent and the last two were part of the British Indian Empire. It should also be noted that all the above areas were deeply influenced by Indian culture. But India did not claim these areas because a combination of history and people's wishes dictated otherwise. For example, Burma was separated on the wish of its people in the 1930's and India has never disputed this. The list of lies grows!! I quote below from 'The Chinese Invade Tibet' by Richard Cavendish I also quote from the Tibetan site mentioned by you www.tibet.com wherein the white paper states the following As regards Tibet we all know the position from 1912 and nothing much needs to be said. It is to be mentioned here that Tibet's foreign affairs was dealt by free India untill the chinese occupation in 1950! This setup continued from the time of the British. From this one fact alone the readers can gauge China's claim over Tibet! Mr Chen Indians are known for their math and logic and that's why we have rightfully resisted Chinese bullying! I hope u get that right! As regards Aksai Chin I have asked you to first prove chinese claims on Tibet. Surely the route to Ladakh and NEFA lie through Tibet?? Mao stated that Tibet was the 'palm' through which the 'five fingers' of Ladakh, Sikkim, Bhutan, NEFA and Nepal were to be reached!! So there we go....... In a later post I will detail India's claim to Aksai Chin and also NEFA.

India's democracy is superiorer than china's authorative. Howoever, china did not oppress minorities. They will be ok as long as they do not agitate independence. China's authorative local government in minority region did better than that of indians' in improving people's living standard, education and health. The average age of tibetan is 35 before 1950. Now it is 65, no lower than indian. They have complete religion freedom as long as they do not use it for independence. In tibet, lamas and nons are much much more active in agitating independence than normal people. So, we have to arrest more of them. Tibetans want independence because they want independece. in 1950-1959, they enjoy high autunomy and complete religion freedom, they still rebelled. Now the dalai lama asked from china is self-rule within china instead of independence. This is what they have enjoied before 1959. For the problem of eastern, they rebelled because china government wanted to change their middleaged serfdom to mordern social system. this is like britain forbade burning widows lively in some tibes in india. The differnce is we met more resistance than british.

To chalukya:
I am sorry that I made a mistake. There are only 9 countries signed land border dispute with china. Pakistan is not included. China/pakistan border is only a temporary one without any legal valid. It has to be talked again. All border agreements with former soviet countries was talked and reached after the collapse of soviet union. china and russia has resolved most part of the disputed border. Only some small parts were left.

It is known that vietnam and cambodia has land border dispute. combodia thought those villages as its own. You can not occupy a whole country just because border conflict. Cambodia is an independent country at that time. its relation with china is like france with russia in the first world war.

Do you know the content of 1915 agreements? Has china recognized mongolia's independence? If china just recognize mongolia's autonomy in internal affairs, she has the right to sent troops in mongolia.

At britain's time, afghanstan is now a part of british india. Of course, india has no way to claim it.

If allow burma to seperate is determined by british. British is the governor of india at that time, not indian.

The east tibet we chinese called it now is the part of tibet east of U tibet (in qing dynasty) or east of present west tibet in china. It is on the east of River Yangtze. These lands are under chinese provinces control. Chamdo was and is a part of west tibet. Chamdo is on west of River Yangtze. Tibetans government may took it as eastern tibet at that time in 1950. Before 1950, east tibet occpuied by kuomintong or chinese former government's troops. PLA deafeated the government troops and occupy east tibet and then attacked Chamdo which we thought as in west tibet.
I am not lying. This is a misunderstandood. Please www.tibet-china.org carefully.

I said as china has suzerain over tibet, her foreign affairs should be controled by china not was controled by china. India recognizes china has the right to control tibet's foreign affairs by recognizing china's suzerain over tibet.

I have already proved china's claim on tibet. Do you have any quesitons? If not, please go to aksai chin and the area north of tawang.

suzerainity/autonomy/sovereignity

I see you are not familiar with diplomatese language.

Example:
China has sovereignity over Taiwan and suzerainity over Tibet, in much the same way the British had suzerainity over Hong Hong till 1997.

To Chalukya:
First of all, the maps are not accurate. In Han and Tang dynasties, the chinese land was much bigger in xinjiang than showed on the map. We have hard evidence, including old demolished cities left from that time, to prove it.
However, basically, china's claim on the 4 provinces are all based on qing dynasty. We have talked about tibet above. For mongololia: mognolian separated into severals groups at that time. West mongolia and east mongolia. Mongolia splitted into north and south mongolia. West mongolia was in present xinjiang and was strong and attacked east mongolia. East mongolia joined the strong qing china. China defend east mongolia from the attack of west mongolia. west mongolia was defeated severals times but keep attacking. China got angry and attacked west mongolia and defeated it and occupied all the west mongolia controlled land--the presetn xinjiang. So the attack of west mongolia gave two provinces--east mongolia and xinjiang to china. After qing ended, north mongolia wants independence with the support of russia. However russia did not wish south mongolia (or inner mongolia) and xinjiang get independent. On the contary, russia ever helped china to maintain her control over xinjiang.

About manchuria: Manchurian attacked north china in song dynasty and established jin dynasty. Jin is so sinolized that mongolian called it china and chinese or han. While mongolian called south china as song or southerns. Jin was attacked by mongolia yuan. After yuan dynasty, manchuria is a tribute state of china's ming dynasty. Manchuria recognized to be a part of ming but maintained all power for internal affairs. At 17th century, manchuria became stronger and china get weaker as a result of civil war. Manchuria attacked china with the help of a chinese troop and occupied whole china. That is qing dynasty. As a small ethnic group, they want to keep their own character to avoid be assimilated by hans. However, they still more and more sinolized. Before the end of qing, most manchurian speak only chinese without knowing their own language. At the begining of qing, manchuria forbade han to immigrate into manchuria. However, this policy get more and more loose and completely given up at last. So, by the end of 19th century, most people in manchuria are hans. Manchurian in manchuria were also seriously sinolized. So, after the clooapse of qing, manchuria was still a part of china.

Yes, they are foreign rulers when they came to china. but before the end of qing, manchurian in both china and manchuria has been basically sinolized. Please note that ethic han chinese was not a pure ethnic group from the begining. Even their appearance has significant difference depend on provinces. Han is not a real ethnic group. It actually to any people would like to recognize himself chinese. Manchuiran is just the last group to be sinolized. There are tens of ethnic groups be sinolized. None of the sinolizatin process is carried out by force. For example, in han dynasty, china's policy is that high quality iron can only sold to han chinese. So, the minorities on the edge of china began sinolized to claim they are chinese so that they can buy good iron to produce tools.

Originally posted by john chen:

If both are legal and immoral, then what are you blaming India for? Is it not then the case of the pot (you) calling the kettle (me) black?

For legal disputes, why not let the officials of both Govts. talk to work out a solution, as they
have been doing for a while? That's what they get paid for. Why are we wasting time and space on this BR forum?

So, in the name of helping "weak" Tibet, China occupies its land, deposes its Government, and sends the head of state, the Dalai Lama, into exile. With such great friends like the Chinese, do Tibetans need enemies? How much more land have the Chinese left under Tibetan sovreignty that India can "grab" from poor Tibetans?

Seriously, there is no land dispute that India and the Tibetans cannot solve between themselves, once the Chinese leave Tibet. India's people, and its leaders hold His Holiness The Dalai Lama in highest regard, and there will be no problems in solving disputes, once the Chinese bu_t out.

I am glad you admire India's democracy. If you really do, then you will know that democracy has an in-built mechanism for self-correction and dispute resolution. So trust democratic India to solve the India-China dispute amicably, if you give it half a chance.

As for your worry about "India's military invasion of China", I am

Seriously, even the most jingoist of us BRFites, talk only about how best to "defend" India against a possible Chinese invasion. No Indian in his dreams even thinks about invading China. So you can rest easy on that score.

(By the way, as for strategies to defend India against a Chinese invasion, I advocate the 'layered defense in depth' tactics similar to those employed by the Vietnamese in 1979 when they gave your invading PLA a bloody nose, whereas other BRites advocate a more high-tech approach, which I don't think will work. Which strategy do you think will work better?)

Well, as for Assam, nobody in the world has talked about a plebiscite. As for Kashmir, sure we can have a plebiscite, the same day, and in the same way, that you have a plebiscite in Tibet.

If you are so sure, why not allow the U.N. to conduct a census in Tibet and remove all the Han Chinese residing there. We can similarily allow the U.N. to remove all the non-J&K natives residing in J&K.

As for Assam, the people the Assamese are complaining against having flooded their state, are not from the other states of India, but the illegal immigrants from your other Jihadi friend, Bangladesh. A good solution to these problems in South Asia will be send all the Jihadis, who have been armed by China through Pakistan, to live in China. I am sure you will welcome your bosom buddies the Jihadis, whose cause you always advocate and support. One good place to settle them will be in China's Western Provinces, where they can be among their co-jihadis from the native Uighur and Tatar population.

The majority of people that I talked to in Taiwan, were not native Taiwanese, but mainlanders. They want no part of union with China. The young people, who were born in Taiwan, but whose parents or grandparents came to Taiwan from China in the wake of Communist takeover, even defy their parents, who may have some sentimental link with China, on the issue of reunification. They want independent Taiwan. This is the reason the Govt. of China is exerting pressure through the U.S. to stop the Govt. of Taiwan from declaring its independence. If you don't believe me, then let us have a bet. You allow a plebiscite in Taiwan and we allow a simultaneous plebiscite in Assam. Let us see who votes for whom.

One indicator of the difference between these so-called 'Assam rebels' and the Tibetan refugees, and between the societies of India and China, is that while these so-called "Assam rebels" are mostly single men, whose families are still living in peace in their villages in India, the Tibetan refugees are entire families that have fled Tibet.

The Assam rebels that are in Nepal/Bhutan, nowadays when they try to raid their native villages in Assam, are chased out by the villagers.

The Tibetan refugees in India OTOH, if they were allowed to go back to their villages in Tibet, will be welcomed with open arms by Tibetan villagers. Again, we can try a simultaneous experiment here.

These people, who have had to leave their native land and are living a life in exile, are liars, while what you say is true. I find that hard to believe.

Frankly my dear John Chen, I admire the Chinese people for their industriousness and practicality, but Communist China, the state that has slaughtered millions of its own citizens and others, has no right to moralize and preach to others, least of all to a democracy such as India. You should sermonize after China becomes a functioning democracy as per your wishes. Until then, you should write on the topics of economic development, which I shall be eager to read.

Regards

Mr. Chen: you still haven't responded to my offer of HH Dalai Lama's writings and posters. Can you please post your address, so I can send them to you? (<I>Clearly marked as such for the Customs authorities, of course. Don't want them throwing them away or something</I>). Thanks!

Hi,Manavendra,
Sorry to reply late. I am not a lama bhudist. I don't think he is living bhuda at all. I do not agree with china's policy to ban dalai's picture if this ban is really existed.

Originally posted by john chen:
Hi,Manavendra,
Sorry to reply late. I am not a lama bhudist. I don't think he is living bhuda at all. I do not agree with china's policy to ban dalai's picture if this ban is really existed.

Awww. I'm so sorry to hear that! You don't know if the ban exists or not? Well, lets try it out and see if it exists. Allow me to mail you some books and posters of HHDL. Then you'll know if it exists.

If this stuff is banned, it raises the question: what harm could the picture of a man do to the Mighty Chinese state? After all as you say, it is an ancient and enlightened culture, at peace with its neighbors and with citizenry that is very happy and contented. Then why ban the pictures/writings of some old man sitting outside the country?
Or, for that matter, why the ban on Falun Gong?

You see, Mr. Chen, there's a very basic difference between the 2 countries, India and China. India has always accepted persecuted peoples from all over the world. The Jews, when they were persecuted, found a refuge in India. St. Thomas (the Apostle) came to India and preached. The Parsees (Zoroastrians) came from Iran. When your West Pakistani friends went on the rampage in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), millions of Bengali muslims and hindus came over to India (and still live here). And the latest, the HH Dalai Lama. The Indian Govt gave them security and resettled the Tibetans in not only Himachal Pradesh, but also some southern Indian states. You see, these refugees came of their own free will; they weren't dragged kicking and screaming to India; they chose it. This is the big difference here: choice. Indians have choice.

As far as your talk about Tibet goes, keep in mind that India took over Bangladesh, and could have just kept it (seeing that it was a part of India for 1000s of years). But, we did The Right Thing and vacated Bangladesh completely (of course, the ungrateful wretches are harboring Indian gangs there now, but thats a different matter) within weeks of the war ending. Even the PoWs that India took were treated very well, including their families. India could have just turned away and watched the families of the Pakistani rapists be slaughtered, but we didn't. Saving a few 1000 lives probably doesn't mean much to you, but to most of us, life is sacred in all forms.

Manvendra and Chen please take your discussion elsewhere. Thanks, ramana

Chalukya,rare posts and lots of info.A hearty welcome to you .

Also,nice to have a chinese participant who tries to make his points,whatever they may be,in civilized language without sneering at India.So mr Chen welcome and hope you pursue the same path of discourse to share your viewpoint.

Regards,
Nitin

But dont hijack this thread. Please start a new one for Chen and others to duke it out there.

Next column in the series: Remembering a War by Wing Commander (retd) R V Parasnis

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/03chin.htm

Regarding the article by Wg. Cdr. Parasnis in the end he writes that he marched With Brig Sunderji in 1962(?????). Then how comw Sunderji wasa Lt Col in 1965 during the Kutch incident. Someone has got his facts wrong. Sunderji was not involved with either 4 Div or 4 Corps, in 1962 during the chinese war.

The article by Wg. Cdr. Parasnis even otherwise is mostly junk. There is a lot of bile against Nehru in that article and he might well have deserved some of it, but there is nothing in that article which adds to our understanding of the India-China relationship of either the past or the present. He accuses Nehru of being soft but then goes on to recommend that Nehru should have been softer - not granting the Dalai Lama asylum and being 'flexible' on the border issue. His references to 'Greater Assam' as a British imperialistic creation was the final nail on the coffin. He takes a position on the other extreme in the beginning - that India should have aided Tibel militarily without any understanding of our capabilities to do that across the Himalayas then (and even now).

Mr Chen: There are still a lot of irregularities and misconceptions in your last few postings. For example I quote again from www.tibet.com I am having my exams now and am very busy. I will be back after the 12th of Dec and we can continue this topic under a different thread as requested by Ramana. I have lots of stuff to share with you and our other readers so........

To chalukya and S.M Nair,
Please read www.tibet-china.org carefully. You can find answers there.

To S.M Nair,
Please read my articles pasted above. I have made it clear from the begining.
I can not talk abut this topic in this thread any more as requested by Ramana.

The site www.tibet-china.org seems to be the view of the Chinese government. While you might agree with that, which you have every right to, it is not the view of the world, and not every one beleives it. Anyway, thanks for sharing the official Chinese views on the issue.

Yes, no intentions to hijack the thread at all.Back to business i go.

John:

According to your logic any land over which the rulers who ruled China, at any point in history, now belongs to modern China. This is regardless of any linguistic/cultural/historical affinity.
So if the Mongols ruled China and they also ruled Tibet, modern China has the right over Tibet since the soveriegn ruler of China (the Mongols) also ruled over Tibet!

By the same logic, India has right over the entire Middle East all the way to Greece since Alexandar the Great conquered virtually everything his path and parts of Northern India before being halting.

Any historical Chinese claim has to be based on the sovereitn rule of Han Chinese and areas where people have a cultural affinity to them.

I do appreciate your efforts to explain the situation, but the your logic is severly flawed. I do not understand why people who no longer lives in China (and hence is free to think and express freely) has to cling to these lies.

Dave

Its a matter of interpretaion

Wing Commander R V Parasnis is probably the only air force pilot to have flown extensively as well as moved on foot in the NEFA area. He particularly remembers an exercise where he marched for 24 days in the Bomdila region on a man-pack basis with General (then brigadier) K Sundarji, whose unforgettable briefings and brilliant strategic theories at night revived the bitter memories of the 1962 war among the young officers, even as ice-cold winds threatened to blow their small tents away.

from the above passage , I can infer the trek was organised by Brig Sundarji sometime after the 1962 War (Possibly around 1971/73 time and Parasnis was part of the trek. ) The writeup might lead us to believe that Parasnis was part of the troops trekking on the ground during 62 - but I think its a matter of wrong interpretation.

damn!! thats what they told me at the recruitment office!??! well in that case, count me out of the revolution comerade!

but seriously - mr chen is to be applauded for participating in this debate. however mr chen i regret to inform you that your views are based on what you have been told by your side. our views are based on what we have been told by our side, and our side's story is more open and verifiable and challengable than yours - so we feel that you are not sufficiently informed

and please do not misunderstand, most of us do admire the Chinese people and culture a great deal, but we have our opinions too! And we respectfully disagree

what is interesting though is China's fear that India will intervene militarily in Tibet! This totally misunderstand's India's mindset about the world

Sridhar,
Parasnis' line of reasoning is, if Nehru chose to relinquish India's rights in Tibet (hers by inheritance of the British Indian empire) and accept China overlordship of Tibet, why allow Dalai Lama to set up a government in exile ? Since he had said that he wanted no part of imperial inheritance, then Chinese claims could have been negotiated. Note that another article points out that the Chinese were ready to trade Aksai Chin for Chumbi valley and that it made eminent strategic sense. So Parasnis' line of reasoning does make sense to me. Could you explain further why you think it is not coherent with the other parts of his article ?

I think he makes it quite clear that the support of the United States should(could) have been taken for the purpose. If India had started preparing for the defence of Tibet when China was busy with the Chiang Kai-Sheik (not so sure of the spelling), couldn't she have managed to train, condition and maintain sufficient troops to thwart any Chinese ambitions in Tibet (especially with American support ?). Even in a worst case scenario, it would have been warranted for us to incur Chinese wrath as we would have been well prepared for it in the first place with a superpower to back us quicktime. Since we chose to keep our guard down, why provoke the opponent when you are least prepared for his reaction ? I think he makes very clear Nehru's inconsistent and incomprehensive reasoning. My two cents. Would like to know the reasons for your position.

You can see striking similarities between
real Chacha Nehru and his current incarination
Chacha Atal ji, the former had a rose the later sans rose.

The Rediff article by Wg.Cdr. Parasisnis is a joke. It written by a very simple minded person who is in awe with the Chinese betrayal. I suggest he read the whole war history and ruminate on what could JLN have done differently taking into account the resources- military and political, the economic status of post Independence India.
Its very important to understand why the GOI at that time did what it did. All this secrecy is not helpful. It allows ramblings by dissillusioned folks as analysis.

All this posturing is remarkable. I don't offer a blanket defense of Chinese policies of repressing religion when the government believes it strays into politics, but your self-righteous attitude and gross generalizations are obnoxious and unfair.

Simple question: why is Urgyen Trinley Dorje (the 17th Karmapa Lama as recognized by the Dalai Lama, Beijing, and the majority of exiled Tibetans) prevented, by the Indian government, from going to the Sikkim and the traditional seat of his sect: Rumtek monastery?

Not only that, but his sister and his attendants, while allowed to stay in India, are also denied the same access. Upon her most recent attempt, she was detained and interrogated by Indian security forces.

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.asp?id=2785

Now, certainly, from a legal point of view as refugees it only makes sense that the GOI has the 'right' to restrict their access. But let's be perfectly clear here: restrictions on travel for the Karmapa Lama pertain directly to his religious (and political) background.

I don't pretend to have a problem with this; I'm pragmatic, and recognize the state has a responsibility to protect national security even if it violates basic civil liberties.

So, your turn. Do you find it acceptable that India, a land that 'welcomes' persecuted religious refugees, restricts the right to practice religion of the Karmapa Lama (as well as the religious needs of tens of thousands of his followers, in India, that believe in good karma to be attained from calling upon the Karmapa Lama in his proper 'home')?

Temporary insertion of some reality into your soap-box moment is needed here. Kaifeng, central China, was one of the few bastions of Jewish existence in Asia ever since members of the diaspora arrived as early as 960 C.E., the early Song dynasty.

http://www.sino-judaic.org/kaifeng.html

Muslim traders have also settled throughout China, and 20 million of their descendents are found in every Chinese city. White Russians escaping from the Soviet revolution found their way to China. As far back as the Tang dynasty, Koreans, Mongols, and Turks all served high positions within the Chinese government... some of the most famous and accomplished generals in Chinese history were 'foreigners'.

I suspect you're a Western-educated liberal trying to adopt the American myth of "give us your tired, your poor... the wretched refuse of your teeming shore" to the long history of Indian civilization. I don't buy it for a second.

Perhaps you honestly believe that India would welcome, or perhaps even embrace, a mass migration of former-Pakistini Muslim "refugees" into India-controlled Kashmir, where they'd be given their right to free religious and political expression.

I certainly don't.

The Tibet government-in-exile claims, in the passage that you quote, that the area of Kham/Amdo/U-Tsang are collectively known as 'Tibet' before 1949.

While true, that's inaccurate.

The areas were also clearly labeled as 'inner Tibet' and 'outer Tibet' during negotiations between Tibet, Britain, and China during the early 20th century. Read the Simla Convention, which was accepted ratified by China, but accepted by British/Tibetan representatives.

http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties16.html

What the Simla Convention (from 1914) tried to formally recognize is the distinction between the center of Tibet traditionally under the administration of the Dalai Lama's government, and the predominantly Tibetan areas to the east traditionally under direct control of Chinese representatives.

Kham/Amdo were part of Chinese provinces long before 1949.

And, to make the example really clear, China should permit Kham/Amdo to be claimed as part of 'Tibet' the same time Nepal relinquishes Mustang, and India relinquishes Sikkim... not to mention whatever Bhutan might've claimed.

Your logic is equally flawed. Based on your formula of cultural affinity, does that mean it's more morally appropriate to you if China makes its claims on Singapore? A nation that's majority ethnic Chinese?

China's claims on border territories are not based strictly on historical control. IF that was the case, China would assert its claims over the entirety of Vietnam, Korea, about 1/3rd of Russia, and all of central Asia up to the borders of modern Iran (which China reached during its adventurous days of the Tang dynasty).

We're not here to support that view. Your responses are off target.

Instead, modern Chinese claims of territory pertain exclusively to territory that was under Chinese control in the waning days of the Qing dynasty, and that was wrested away by force under (or perceived to be under) the manipulation of foreign colonial forces. Nations like Korea, Vietnam, central Asia were all ceded long ago... sometimes to other conquerors, sometimes to their local princes. Mongolia was ceded only in the 20th century, but it was also done with the consent and acceptance of the Chinese government.

Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang are different. No Chinese government, since they joined the Chinese empire, has ever willingly granted or recognized their independence. In the case of Tibet, three different Chinese governments in the 20th century alone insisted to the world that Tibet must be part of the Chinese nation-state (the Manchu Qing-empire, the Christian/fascist Republic of China, and the Comunist/Soviet People's Republic of China).

Your rather pompous claims to familiarity with 'diplomatese' is compromised by the fact that the term 'suzerainty' has never been applied to the relationship between Hong Kong and the British empire.

Hong Kong was sovereign British territory from 1842 on. It had been formally ceded under the Treaty of Nanking. Britain was most definitely NOT 'suzerain' of the island; she was sovereign.