11-21-2006, 11:08 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Ravish+Nov 20 2006, 08:39 PM-->QUOTE(Ravish @ Nov 20 2006, 08:39 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->ashyam please check the historical facts.Certain parts of China had common border with India. The 54 thousand sq miles of terroritory in Askai Chin is claimed by us but now under control of China.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What stupid logic is this, Ravish? China did not have a border with India till they conquered Tibet, it is as simple as that. The Aksai Chin went to Chinese control after they conquered Tibet, which gave China a border with India. If there were a buffer state called Tibet, Aksai Chin would never have gone to China.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is one such part of the border.Historically, Tibet has always been a vessel state of China. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you please explain what a 'vessel' state is? Could you please give me few analogies of other such 'vessel' states? What are the limitations of these 'vessel' states? Didn't they have freedom to decide their own border even if they were 'vessel' of another country? Why didn't China protest when the agreement was signed?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The treaty with Tibet was signed by the Imperial British Administration after the subjugation of Tibet by a British Expeditionary Force. Do u expect the British were generous enough to sign on the dotted lines put forward by a defeated Tibet.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wikipedia says... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 which confirmed the Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904, Britain agreed "not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet" while China engaged "not to permit any other foreign State to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet" <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This means that China agreed to the agreement between Tibet and British India. What China is doing now is to create a reason for future invasion of India or to force India to let China keep Aksai Chin permanently. If you take Chinese logic, which you seem to accept blindly, India can renounce all agreements British made in India, including creation of Pakistan, Durand line, Radcliff line and can reclaim many of their parts which is useful for India (very useful one is Chittagong hills in Bangladesh and of course PoK).
Yes, India should renegotiate its Tibetan border, but with an Independent Tibet and not with its conqueror. Based on your logic, if Tibet becomes independent tomorrow, the Govt. of India can negate all agreements signed with current China and demand to redraw the border saying that China forced the border at the point of gun/war. A stupid logic to go by.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact it was signed after Tibet had become a protectorate of British India.Check the historical facts and then we may continue with this discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me see your historical facts, if you have any?
What stupid logic is this, Ravish? China did not have a border with India till they conquered Tibet, it is as simple as that. The Aksai Chin went to Chinese control after they conquered Tibet, which gave China a border with India. If there were a buffer state called Tibet, Aksai Chin would never have gone to China.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is one such part of the border.Historically, Tibet has always been a vessel state of China. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you please explain what a 'vessel' state is? Could you please give me few analogies of other such 'vessel' states? What are the limitations of these 'vessel' states? Didn't they have freedom to decide their own border even if they were 'vessel' of another country? Why didn't China protest when the agreement was signed?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The treaty with Tibet was signed by the Imperial British Administration after the subjugation of Tibet by a British Expeditionary Force. Do u expect the British were generous enough to sign on the dotted lines put forward by a defeated Tibet.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wikipedia says... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 which confirmed the Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904, Britain agreed "not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet" while China engaged "not to permit any other foreign State to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet" <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This means that China agreed to the agreement between Tibet and British India. What China is doing now is to create a reason for future invasion of India or to force India to let China keep Aksai Chin permanently. If you take Chinese logic, which you seem to accept blindly, India can renounce all agreements British made in India, including creation of Pakistan, Durand line, Radcliff line and can reclaim many of their parts which is useful for India (very useful one is Chittagong hills in Bangladesh and of course PoK).
Yes, India should renegotiate its Tibetan border, but with an Independent Tibet and not with its conqueror. Based on your logic, if Tibet becomes independent tomorrow, the Govt. of India can negate all agreements signed with current China and demand to redraw the border saying that China forced the border at the point of gun/war. A stupid logic to go by.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact it was signed after Tibet had become a protectorate of British India.Check the historical facts and then we may continue with this discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me see your historical facts, if you have any?