Beijing’s vigorous condemnation of the visit presages a fresh round of tensions in the India–China relationship.
The Chinese have been trying to portray Tawang and Arunachal Pradesh as the central issues in the India–China boundary dispute. In doing so, they are trying to repudiate a significant clause of a landmark 2005 bilateral treaty. The clause states that ‘settled populations’ in each country’s border areas would not be disturbed in the process of reaching a boundary settlement.
Tawang, with India’s largest Buddhist monastery and a population of roughly 11,000 at last count, is as ‘settled’ as they come. This Chinese volte-face, related to continued challenges to their legitimacy in Tibet, may be one reason why boundary negotiations have not made real progress in recent years. Self-immolations in Tibetan areas in China continue, with the latest reported in March. Regaining Tawang — the birthplace of the 6th Dalai Lama — is seen as important to the Chinese government in its battle against the present 14th Dalai Lama.
In 2008, to Beijing’s displeasure, the Dalai Lama acknowledged the legitimacy of the colonial-era McMahon Line between today’s Arunachal Pradesh and Tibet. Added to this are Chinese worries about whether or not the Dalai Lama will ‘reincarnate’, that is, find his successor. If he does so in non-Chinese controlled territory, or even not at all as he has sometimes declared, it will likely ensure a continued challenge to Chinese authority in Tibet.
The Dalai Lama last visited Tawang in November 2009. So the current visit, hosted by yet another Indian central government minister Kiren Rijiju, himself a Buddhist and from Arunachal, is not entirely a novelty.
And yet there are indications that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government is trying to sell the Indian public a certain sense of muscularity in its China policy.
The BJP government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi first signalled a combative approach vis-à-vis China by inviting both the Tibetan Sikyong — the prime minister equivalent of the Central Tibetan Administration — and the Taiwanese representative in New Delhi to his swearing-in in May 2014.
Still, India’s very real lack of economic capacity ensures that a ‘Tibet card’, if it exists, is an entirely notional one. While India tries to use Buddhist soft power as a diplomatic tool, one need only look at how quickly the Mongolians regretted their welcome of the Dalai Lama in November 2016. That the Indian ambassador to Mongolia met with him should highlight India’s involvement in the visit. Beijing responded by reading Ulaanbaatar the riot act and imposing an economic blockade.
When the Mongolian ambassador asked India to raise its voice against China’s unilateral action, an Indian foreign ministry spokesperson declared in a media briefing that the ambassador’s comment had been misconstrued. India would commit only to supporting Mongolia through its ‘monetary crisis’, with a US$1 billion credit line announced during Modi’s visit in May 2015, the spokesperson confirmed. Mongolia decided to apologise to China the month after the visit.
There are other contradictions on the Indian side. Well over half of India’s Buddhists are converts from India’s lowest Dalit or ‘untouchable’ castes. These neo-Buddhists, who have adopted a mix of the major Buddhist schools and view religion as a means for political and social emancipation, have little-to-no visibility in India’s Dalai Lama-driven Buddhist showcase and public diplomacy. Even those Buddhists following Tibetan variants along India’s frontier areas are largely ignored, Kiren Rijiju being one exception, in India’s majoritarian electoral politics.
To return to geopolitics, the Dalai Lama issue foregrounds, among other issues, New Delhi’s increasing engagements with China’s rivals. These include the United States — the previous US ambassador visited Tawang in October 2016 — Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam. All of this is taking place against the backdrop of a promising, if also troubled, bilateral economic relationship. The scale of India’s demand for infrastructure development and manufacturing investments can only be met by China.
Many Indians are unhappy at what they perceive as China’s consistently anti-India policies. Examples include China’s continued blocking of attempts at the UN to sanction Pakistani terrorists, and its refusal to support India’s membership of the Nuclear Supplier’s Group. Many perceive India’s decision to officially embrace the Dalai Lama as a long overdue response to Chinese unfriendliness. The real question is whether Indian policymakers are adequately prepared for the next stage of Chinese reactions.
Jabin T. Jacob is Fellow at the Institute of Chinese Studies (ICS), Delhi. You can follow him on Twitter at @JabinJacobT.
Nicely written covering important aspects.
Prof. Horimoto, thank you. I look forward to a Japanese perspective on the Dalai Lama and his role in India-China relations
The author illuminates the current dynamics. The historical context, offers an explanation. Although the Dalai Lama acquiesced in the PLA’s mid-1950 occupation of eastern Tibet, and sent a 15-man delegation to Beijing in February 1951 to negotiate terms, his brothers Thubten Norbu (Taktser Rinpoche) and Gyalo Thondhup, and his Lord Chamberlain Phala Thubten Wonden, contacted Delhi, Taipei and Washington to seek help against China. US Ambassador Loy Henderson wrote twice to the Dalai Lama, warning against deals with Beijing, and offering sanctuary, funds, arms and diplomatic support against the PRC. Although the Dalai Lama returned to Lhasa from Dromo on the Indian border, and ratified the ’17-point Agreement’, thereby formalising Tibet’s incorporation into the PRC, he allowed the US-India-aided Khampa/Amdowa rebellion against Beijing to build strength until the abortive attempt to take over Lhasa in 1959 led to his flight to India. US and Indian official documentation illuminates his ‘political’ role which Beijing has always slammed as separatist/’splittist’. It is in this context that the Dalai Lama’s visit to the disputed Arunachal Pradesh appears to have reignited Sino-Indian antagonism.
Mr. Ali, I think a deep study of history is useful in that it illuminates the context of the times. Today, it is easy to forget the geopolitical considerations and plain difficulties that India had to weigh when considering the Dalai Lama’s requests for asylum. However, the issue of Arunachal Pradesh or indeed, the boundary dispute in India-China relations is, in my view, no longer now solely about the Dalai Lama or Tibet. It is now part of the wider regional and global competition and struggle for influence between the two countries.
At the fundamental level this episode is a contination of the unfinished colonial business left behind by the Raj in which the newly created country India willingly pick it up and inject itself to continue the policy of the Raj. China has a close call in the 19th and 20th century in which the colonial powers seek to dismember and carve up China. Russia from the north, Japan from the northeast, Britain, France and Germany from the east along the coastal waters and Britain again from the Southwest. By the end of the 19th century the territory of the expansionist Raj began to bump into area traditional Tibetan and as in Britain classic colonial playbook, nutured, funded and incited separatist group to do its bidding in an attempt to carve Tibet out from China. In this the Raj found a perfect partner, Tensin Gyatso, a.k.a the Dalai Lama.
http://orientalreview.org/2013/08/12/arms-and-the-elephant-i/
http://orientalreview.org/2013/08/12/arms-and-the-elephant-i/
The Dalai Lama is a sellout to his own people, if he ever considered the Gelupa Tibetans his own people. WikiLeaks has revealed that for years the Dalai Lama has been sending orphans under his care to go to war for India against Pakistan. No wonder Indians like him.
http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-dark-side-of-dalai-lama/
https://followersofdorjeshugden.com/wikileaks/
When Britain quit the subcontinent and gifted the country it created to its former subjects, the new ruler of India has a choice to make. To make peace with its many neighbors and focus its energy and resource to help its fellow country man or to style itself as a poor man’s copy of its former master and engage in more land grabbing and bullying. Sadly India chooses the later. In 1951, four years after India’s creation, India invaded and occupy South Tibet, including Tawang. Tawang is the birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama and home to a four hundred years old Tibetan monastery. As this article shows, South Tibet is still occupied by India to this day.
The author of this article claims that Tawang is as ‘settled’ as they come. He wishes. Not only Tawang is not settled, occupied South Tibet is now a United Nations recognized disputed territory, along with India’s other, Kashmir. At the end of 2008, Britain’s foreign minister David Miliband issued a statement repudiating the MacMahon line and affirming China’s sovernigy of Tibet (Britain is the only country in the world that till 2008 recognized China’s suzeanrity but not sovereignty of Tibet). India, sensing Britain had pulled a rug underneath its feet became restless (India claims that Tawang belongs to India because it was claimed by the British Raj, but even this is not true. Britain left Tawang alone and Tawang was invaded and annexed by India four years after India’s creation). In 2009 India applied for a loan to the Asia Development Bank (an United Nation agency) for a hydroelectric project in South Tibet in an attempt to demonstrate its sovereignty using this backdoor manner. The ruse backfired badly. The loan was rejected by ADB on the basis that the territory is disputed and India was unable to prove its ownership of South Tibet. So on the record South Tibet is now one of India’s two occupied disputed territories.
Readers of this article may be shocked to know but South Tibet is hardly the only land grab India stole from its neighbors. There are a lot more. Here is a selected list:
1947 Annexation of Kashmir
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/06/indias-shame/
http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/kashmirs-young-rebels/
1949 Annexation of Manipur
http://www.tehelka.com/manipurs-merger-with-india-was-a-forced-annexation/
1949 Annexation of Tripura
http://www.crescent-online.net/2009/09/the-myths-of-one-nation-and-one-hinduism-in-india-zawahir-siddique-2316-articles.html
1951 Annexation of South Tibet:
http://kanglaonline.com/2011/06/khathing-the-taking-of-tawang/
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2582.html
http://chasfreeman.net/india-pakistan-and-china/
1954 Annexation of Nagaland
http://morungexpress.com/desire-nagas-live-separate-nation-deserved/
http://nagalandmusings.blogspot.com/2013/01/indias-untold-genocide-of-nagas.html
1954 Attempt annexation of Sikkim and Bhutan (Failed)
http://redbarricade.blogspot.hk/2013/01/twisted-truth.html
1961 Annexation of Goa:
http://goa-invasion-1961.blogspot.in/2013/09/india-pirated-goa-china-is-regaining_16.html
1962 Annexation of Kalapani, Nepal:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/07032012-indian-hegemony-in-nepal-oped/
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1239348
http://www.sharnoffsglobalviews.com/land-disputes-116/
1962 Aggression against China:
http://gregoryclark.net/redif.html
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/podcasts/renewed-tension-indiachina-border-whos-blame
1971 Annexation of Turtuk, Pakistan:
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/suddenly-indian
1972 Annexation of Tin Bigha, Bangladesh
http://www.dhakatribune.com/op-ed/2014/feb/20/killing-fields
1975 Annexation of Sikkim (the whole country):
http://nepalitimes.com/issue/35/Nation/9621#.UohjPHQo6LA
http://www.passblue.com/2015/07/22/a-small-himalayan-kingdom-remembers-its-lost-independence/
http://www.amazon.com/Smash-Grab-Annexation-Sunanda-Datta-Ray/dp/9383260386
http://asiahouse.org/sikkim-tale-love-intrigue-cold-war-asia/
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/annexation-of-sikkim-by-india-was-not-legal-wangchuk-namgyal/1/391498.html
1983 (Aborted) Attempted invasion of Mauritius
http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/when-india-almost-invaded-mauritius/
1990 (Failed) Attempted annexation of Bhutan:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/07/world/india-based-groups-seek-to-disrupt-bhutan.html
2006 Annexation of Duars, Bhutan:
http://wangchasangey.blogspot.in/2015/11/different-kind-of-anxieties-on.html#comment-form
2013 Annexation of Moreh, Myanmar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nehginpao-kipgen/easing-indiamyanmar-borde_b_4633040.html
Dear Chad,
Can’t help you if you have a very ideology-driven view of history – your use of words like ‘annexation’ and ‘occupation’ and identification of examples and sources too are selective. Are you suggesting in any way that Tibet was a part of China before 1949? If so, you clearly don’t know your history nor the fact that the Chinese communist regime itself has revised the starting date of China’s supposed control over Tibet several times. This last is as sure a sign as any that the Chinese themselves are unsure of their legitimacy in Tibet.
On Miliband, well, a politician’s statement can possibly affect what happens in the the future but does not change the past.
Finally and most importantly, the boundary dispute is a bilateral matter between India and China and Tawang is ‘settled’ according to any reasonable interpretation of the 2005 Agreement the Chinese themselves are party to. You mention the United Nations – would China be willing to take the dispute to the UN? Since, you think it’s so sure of its position? Readers of this article will not be shocked to know that China won’t.
“Are you suggesting in any way that Tibet was a part of China before 1949?”
Oh absolutely. If you go to Hong Kong or Taiwan and ask the people there whether Tibet was part of China, they won’t even know what you are talking about because it is not even controversial. It is like asking English people was London part of England. I am from Hong Kong and lived there for nineteen years before I moved abroad. I have never heard of this Tibet thing when I was in Hong Kong.
And not a single country in this world at any time, including Britain, have recognized Tibet as an independent country.
Watch this video produced in 1944 by the United States.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tOtVQ7cNWY&t=210s
India grabbed a piece of China during its moment of weakness and China is now growing stronger by the day and India is very insecure about this because deep inside they know full well that what they did has no legal basis and hence all these maneuver to try to establish India’s legitimacy, including the make up of a new name (so called Arunachal Pradesh in 1987), application of loan from the ADB for South Tibet, stamping of visas and the 2005 agreement.
By the way China’s claim of South Tibet does not contradict at all with the 2005 agreement because China is not asking the settled population to resettle. The boundary should change but the people stay where they are. India is over interpreting the agreement and is fooling itself that it has China in a bind.
Today the population of South Tibet are restless and India knows it. This is why India has imposed the draconian AFSPA on South Tibet, just like Kashmir and most of Northeast. AFSPA are imposed on area India deemed ‘disturbed’.
“Oh absolutely”, is absolutely the wrong attitude to have towards understanding or interpreting history. And before I go any further, one correction, I meant 1950 not 1949 – the communists in China didn’t control Tibet even when they took power in 1949.
As for only the boundary changing but the people staying where they are – if you know what genuine democratic elections are, then you will also know soon enough that the people of Arunachal have no desire to be part of China.
On AFSPA, we can agree – it is draconian and has no place in a democratic country. But it is rather strange that you don’t acknowledge that today the population of Tibet is restless and that China knows it.
Not only Communist China, its predecessor the Nationalist government hold on Tibet is tenuous at best because China was confronting the imperial powers on all four directions. As I have noted, China has a close call of being dismembered in the last century by the colonial powers. But that doesn’t mean Tibet was not part of China. China at one time does not have control of Shanghai, Nanjing….etc. Does that mean this area not part of China? I found it strange that Indians never hesitate to remind the British of their ‘sin’ of colonializing the subcontinent but insist that they should keep a piece of colonial bounty. And Tawang isn’t even a colonial bounty because the Raj never control nor claim it.
Don’t give me this genuine democratic nonsense. Does India give the South Tibetans a choice whether to be a part of India? In case you don’t know the South Tibetans has a history of resisting the Raj’s territorial encroachment and the Nationalist government has repeatedly lodging formal protest after formal protest to British India of their incursions. This thing goes way back before even India was created in 1947. I can tell you with certitude that not only people in South Tibet but people in the Northeast in general absolutely does not want to be part of India. There are many insurgency groups operating in the Northeast fighting for independence.
Who said the population of Tibet in China is restless? Yes I know. Your government, the Western media, the Tibetan Exiled group. And it is nonsense. Impartial Western academics has done field surveys on the Tibetans in China. Listen:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2013/10/bia_20131016.mp3
“If you go to Hong Kong or Taiwan and ask the people there whether Tibet was part of China”
And why would that be relevant?
“Who said the population of Tibet in China is restless?”
I can speak from personal experience, having been there. I’d also point to the number of political prisoners as documented by the TCHRD and Amnesty.
The writer asked Chad: “Are you suggesting in any way that Tibet was a part of China before 1949?”
Yes and I agree with Chad that Tibet was a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1274 to 1368).
History shows that the Mongols invaded Tibet in 1240 when Tibet had no government and then Kublai Khan incorporated it into China under the Yuan Dynasty, when the Mongols ruled over China, until they were expelled at the start of the Ming Dynasty (1368 to 1644).
When the Mongol retreated, they left Tibet and Inner Mongolia behind as parts of China.
According to Historians, Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain “the Mongol Prince Punala, who had inherited his position as a ruler of areas of Tibet, went to Nanjing in 1371 to pay tribute and show his allegiance to the Ming court, bringing with him the seal of authority issued by the Yuan court.”
That showed that the Ming China had full sovereignty over Tibet.
The Manchu invaded China and in 1644 formed the Qing Dynasty and they brought Xinjiang, which they had annexed, into China as a province.
When the Qing Dynasty fell in 1912, Xinjiang and Manchuria became parts of China.
After invading India and colonizing it for over 100 years and having started two Opium Wars in China, in the 19th century, when all Qing China wanted was to stop British merchants from engaging in drug trafficking into China, Britain destroyed the Yuan Ming Yuan (the Old Summer palace, which was 7 times larger than the Vatican City), in 1860, with the help of the conniving French.
The latter went on to colonize Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, violating its own clarion call for “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality”.
The egregious British raj tried to invade Tibet in 1904 but was stopped by Qing China.
Then in 1914, via the Simla Accord, the scheming, meddling Brits also failed to take over part of Tibet because a provincial Tibetan Plenipotentiary had no power to sign such a treaty for Qing China.
The McMahon Line was another British scam and it is illegal. If the present Dalai Lama (DL) accepts it then he is a traitor to China and Tibet, which is China’s autonomous region. He will sell his soul to the highest bidder.
In the 13th century, the Mongols prescribed a reorganization of the many small estates into 13 myriarchies (administrative districts).
In old Tibet there were about 200 aristocratic families. It was a feudal, serfdom-society consisted of lamas, the aristocratic elites and serfs. These serfs lived like slaves in the plantations in the American South.
The monks and the aristocrats owned all the serfs, 93% of the land and wealth and 70% of the animals like yaks. Horrible human rights abuses were committed.
Monks and the elites did not work. They chanted sacred texts and lived on the sweat and tears of the serfs.
The myth is that the DL is a holy man. This is not true. He is a politician monk with the most number of slaves in old Tibet. The DL is an avowed atheist. He believes in reincarnation but does not explain who controls the system of rebirths.
His family used to own 27 manors, 6120 field slaves and 102 house slaves and 36 pastures. When he moved from manor to manor he was carried by slaves.
And when the DL was the spiritual leader of Tibet the serfs were allowed to keep only 25% of their farm produce they harvested. Many starved to death.
When the DL was in charge there were no metal roads, highways, hospitals, clinics, or schools for the peasants, airport or railways.
Under the DL, literacy then was hardly 5% as only the Lamas and the Aristocrats could read and write. Life expectancy was below 45 years and infant mortality in Tibet region was the highest in China.
At that time women who had twins were killed, as the Godless Lamas believe that she had consorted with the devil.
When the DL went into exile in 1959 on his own volition, the serf system was abolished by PRC China. The farmers keep all the farm produce that they harvest till today.
And today ethnic Tibetans are the majority in Tibet. Infant mortality is among the lowest in Asia. The Tibetans’ literacy rate is now over 96%. Life expectancy is over 65 years and climbing.
Modern Tibet has schools, hospitals, clinic, five star hotels with modern amenities and internet connections. There are also super-highways, an airport and the world’s highest and modern railway system.
The myth is that DL represents the Tibetan people. This is not true. He represents the values of old Tibet and he wants to revert to the slave system of old Tibet with the backing of the West, which wants to humiliate China once again, like in the good old days of colonization.
Paradoxically, he was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize even though he was a slave owner and a trouble-maker stirring up wars against China.
But this time around it is more daunting for the West to ‘carve’ up China as China is now the largest trading nation on Earth with the second largest economy, as well as a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UNSC.
I’d imagine Chad and Kttan both of you have somewhat differing ideas of Chinese history. Kttan notes that ‘the Manchu invaded China’ – many Chinese historians and i am sure Chad himself would disagree – the current spiel is that the Manchus were ‘Chinese’ and so how could they ‘invade’ China. Ditto for the Yuan dynasty of the Mongols. Neither of you need to be reminded how Sun Yat-sen’s revolution was as much predicated on a racial opposition to the Manchus as foreigners as anything else.
Also, if you say that Tibet was part of China only since the Yuan dynasty, you should know that the latest white paper on Tibet by the Chinese government tries to push this back further to the Tang or so. That’s not history but propaganda.
I have no disagreement with the view that Tibet was a feudal society but as Tibetans in China recently asked their Chinese counterparts on social media – wasn’t China just as similarly feudal, didn’t peasants starve also in China? both before and after 1949?
So you see, history is a fraught business and no one least of all the Chinese are going to prove to everyone’s satisfaction including those of their own citizens that this or that was exactly what it was in the past.
On Barry Sautman’s recording that Chad provided – interesting, very measured and careful choice of words but he did not quite answer the questions that were posed to him – if you notice and nor do i think he says definitively any where one countries policies are better or worse than the another’s. Saturn’s focus is on socio-economic issues rather than those of historical veracity or political contentment and so needs to be seen in just that light. I am not going to call him pro-China as some have labelled him – that would be just as bad as Chad terming arguments he does not agree with ‘nonsense’. However, i would invite you to a genuinely great scholar of Tibet Elliot Sperling
http://elliotsperling.org/the-history-boy/ as a counter.
Coming back to the boundary dispute between India and China, this can be resolved not on the basis of historical claims but on the basis of a political understanding between two large and rising Asian powers. The Dalai Lama and Tibet are factors but not the only ones.
1 “I’d imagine Chad and Kttan both of you have somewhat differing ideas of Chinese history.”
Ah, the old English “divide and rule” strategy. Please don’t misrepresent Chad.
When you asked him “Are you suggesting in any way that Tibet was a part of China before 1949?” he distinctly answered “Oh absolutely. If you go to Hong Kong or Taiwan and ask the people there whether Tibet was part of China, they won’t even know what you are talking about because it is not even controversial. It is like asking English people was London part of England.”
2 “the current spiel is that the Manchus were ‘Chinese’ and so how could they ‘invade’ China.”
That is like saying that there was no invasion of England in 1066 because William, the Duke of Normandy, who built a large fleet to invade England and decisively defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066, became the King of England. So according to your flawed “logic” how could the Normans have invaded England when they were “English”?
For your info, according to the New World Encyclopedia, the Qing Dynasty was founded not by the Han Chinese, who were the majority of the Chinese population then and now, but by the Manchus, who were nomadic barbarians.
The Manchu state was formed by Nurhaci in the early seventeenth century and the Great Wall was built to keep them and the Mongols out but like ancient China, Trump will also find out that Walls will not keep out “invaders”.
Today, the Manchus are ethnic minorities in China, a karmic case of the invaders being “swallowed” up by the invaded.
3 “Ditto for the Yuan dynasty of the Mongols.”
If you stretch your fertile imagination far enough you could also conclude that Japan could not have invaded China from 1931 to 1945 because the Japanese are also ‘Chinese’, if the Timeline goes back far enough.
4 “you should know that the latest white paper on Tibet by the Chinese government tries to push this back further to the Tang or so.”
What was the rationale? You got a link for that?
5 “Coming back to the boundary dispute between India and China, this can be resolved not on the basis of historical claims but on the basis of a political understanding between two large and rising Asian powers.”
I agree that is the only civilized option going forward because 100% of nothing is still nothing. The two rising Asian powers should always live in peace.
6 “The Dalai Lama and Tibet are factors but not the only ones.”
The McMahon Line is the issue. Was it legal? No. It was as legal as a three sterling pound coin.
Dear Kttan,
I think you might have misunderstood what i said. In fact, you and I actually agree – the Manchus were not Chinese when they invaded and nor were the Normans English. Ditto with the Mongols And of course the Japanese are very much Japanese. What you say actually separates very clearly your views from Chad’s according to what he has said so far and many official PRC historians – no divide and rule, just plain common sense. On 4. google – no pain, no research! On 5. yes, On. 6. i think you will find both the Indian and Chinese sides have long moved on from discussing the McMahon Line – the current basis of taking negotiations forward is the 2005 Agreement on Guiding Principles and Political Parameters. The other factors, i referred to were geopolitical ones
“i think you will find both the Indian and Chinese sides have long moved on from discussing the McMahon Line ”
Not so fast. Don’t be delusional. Yes you can still illegally occupy South Tibet for now but eventually India will cough back out the many land it invaded and annexed in one way or the other, if this artificial country India still exist. And when that happen all those small countries around India will breathe a sign of relief. The bully is gone.
1“I think you might have misunderstood what i said. In fact, you and I actually agree – the Manchus were not Chinese when they invaded and nor were the Normans English. Ditto with the Mongols “
You have since changed the goal-posts. When you said “the current spiel is that the Manchus were ‘Chinese’ and so how could they ‘invade’ China”, you implied that they were Chinese pre-invasion. That was incorrect.
If your position now is that “the Manchus were not Chinese when they invaded” China and “Ditto with the Mongols” meaning the latter were also not Chinese, then we are in full agreement, not otherwise.
2 “What you say actually separates very clearly your views from Chad’s according to what he has said so far..”
If the nuance still escapes you, Chad and my view are the same that Tibet is a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty.
3 ”i think you will find both the Indian and Chinese sides have long moved on from discussing the McMahon Line”
Not true. If that is indeed the case then both parties would have gone back to the original border as if the McMahon Line did not exist. That is simply not the case because today the McMahon Line still exists in spirit, enabling India to justify the illegal occupation of a large chunk of Tibet, including Tawang, etc.
4 “ the current basis of taking negotiations forward is the 2005 Agreement on Guiding Principles and Political Parameters.”
For the 2005 Agreement to gain traction India must not cling to the McMahon Line as if it’s de jure.
India must, instead, be prepared to negotiate sincerely in accordance with Article III that states, to wit: “Both sides should, in the spirit of mutual respect and mutual understanding, make meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments to their respective positions on the boundary question, so as to arrive at a package settlement to the boundary question. The boundary settlement must be final, covering all sectors of the India-China boundary.”
And in my view, the most sanguine statement in the 2005 Agreement is emblazoned in Article I, which states that “The final solution of the boundary question will significantly promote good neighbourly and friendly relations between India and China.”
That I strongly agree.
But don’t your breath if India obfuscates the truth and stubbornly negotiates from behind the phantom McMahon Line.
Dear Chad,
I find it interesting that I could replace India with China for most of your statement and nobody would be able to tell the difference.
Dear Kttan,
I did not change the goalposts, what i did was miss a ‘?’ which you would have realized had you read my comments closely. I have been consistent, the Manchus weren’t Chinese and still weren’t considered Chinese by many Chinese themselves in 1911. Tibet was not historically a part of China. China probably has a better claim on Xinjiang though even that control was interrupted for a considerable stretch in the early 20th century.
To both, you know as they say, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. Simply calling something ‘illegal’ or someone ‘delusional’ does not help advance the argument. Neither of you are up to date with the latest versions on Tibetan history being put out by the Chinese government. If it was your idea to support the Chinese line on Tibet, then you have actually not done a good job of it. You have, however, done a better job of highlighting what the Chinese govt thinks of the 2005 arguments which I think is useful.
Finally , if either of you thinks that you really have a great argument – that shows consistency, logic and respect for the facts – you should now try sending in an article to the East Asia Forum under your real names.
1 If you “have been consistent, the Manchus weren’t Chinese and still weren’t considered Chinese by many Chinese themselves in 1911” then can I take it that it is settled that you do not disagree with me that the Manchus invaded China?
2 “Tibet was not historically a part of China.”
Not true. According to the Information Office of the State Council of the PRC in September 1992, Tibet is historically a part of China.
http://china.org.cn/e-white/tibet/
The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts otherwise. Where is your proof? China has a long history. Which China are you referring to? Tang China? Yuan China? Ming China? Qing China? Nationalist China or PRC?
And btw, were Tawang and the occupied territory now called Arunachal Pradesh historically a part of India before 1914 when the Simla Accord was illegally inked between British India and Tibet but not recognized by Qing China, the KMT and PRC?
3 “China probably has a better claim on Xinjiang though even that control was interrupted for a considerable stretch in the early 20th century.”
Probably? Do you really know how Xinjiang came to be a part of China?
4 “To both, you know as they say, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.
This applies to you as well unless you claim to be the world’s only undisputed authority on Tibet.
And if you are so knowledgeable when can we expect you to lead the Indian delegation to the next border negotiation with China?
5 “Neither of you are up to date with the latest versions on Tibetan history being put out by the Chinese government.
But no doubt you are. So what is Chinese Government’s latest version on Tibetan history? Does it agree with your narrative that “Tibet was not historically a part of China”? I doubt it.
6 “If it was your idea to support the Chinese line on Tibet, then you have actually not done a good job of it.“
My interest is to seek the truth and prevent a war between the two rising giants, not to gain Brownie points. As Buddha once said “Three things cannot be long hidden: The Sun, the Moon and the Truth”, no matter how you care to slice it.
7 “You have, however, done a better job of highlighting what the Chinese govt thinks of the 2005 arguments which I think is useful. ”
Thank you but China does not need me to highlight what the Chinese Govt thinks of the 2005 arguments. She is perfectly capable of doing that without anyone’s help. China did not become the largest trading nation and the second largest economy on Planet Earth in 38 years because she has ‘village idiots’ at the wheels, as we have seen in so many parts of the world.
8”Finally, if either of you thinks that you really have a great argument – that shows consistency, logic and respect for the facts – you should now try sending in an article to the East Asia Forum under your real names.”
My piece below was published by the Eurasia Review 9 hours after a similar draft was rejected by the EAF. No reason was given. KT Tan is my real name.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/15022016-is-abe-paving-the-way-for-a-resurgence-in-japanese-militarism/
“I find it interesting that I could replace India with China for most of your statement and nobody would be able to tell the difference.”
That’s what you think. And that is the problem. Most Indians think India is just a Desi version of China. No.
Just one example. Both countries have numerous neighbors. China has settled amicably twelve of its fourteen land borders except India and Bhutan (Bhutan’s foreign policy is controlled by India) while India has grabbed land and has border disputes with every single of its neighbors save Bangladesh.
And nobody would be able to tell the difference?