I will still insist that recognising Tibet as part of China was a major concession.
Okay. Remember that China supplied India with heavy water (yes look it up) in the 80s and 90s while knowing India was working on or refining you know what - before Yankees suddenly discovered a "strategic ally" ..
Draw your own conclusion Ejaz. As I said, you are a smart guy. Insist whatever you wish to insist.
I will give you once thing, however. If India was like the Russian Empire (in "raw" strength and temperament), then most likely there would have been an independent "outer Tibet" that includes Lhasa ... But the "inner Tibet" around Kham (the part DL unrealistically wants to be supreme leader over) would still be in China.
So how about this? You should've postponed your independence - for if the mighty British Empire held sway for another 2 or 3 decades, they in some likelihood would have been able to prevent the "loss of Tibet" to godless communists ...
How's that digression food for your thought?
India had come out of colonisation of the west and wanted to get as much goodwill as possible from its neighbours and took up many anti-west stands particularly against colonisation in the early years.
That's partially true. Have you seen or heard China
about your NAM stance?
You do know that the disputed territory is also under Chinese control and makes it direct party to the conflict. And that Gilgit Baltistan in Pakistan is also part of it where Chinese troops and construction is illegally taking place. Will China and Pakistan agree or object for joint control with India of these regions? Give me your honest assesment here. You can't expect GoI to be the only one that keeps comprimising on every issue.
PRC controls some barren, uninhabitable, though "strategic" rocks - that's not disputed. But will you stop this Gigit-Baltistan BS? It's beneath you ... Someone like you don't need this. Leave it for the saffron-wrapped hot heads.
Lets look at another aspect, Kashmiris from India are getting staples visas because it is disputed. Why were no stabled visas issued before 2008?And also why are not residents from Gilgit Baltistan or Pakistani Kashmir issued stapled visas? After all China is trying to follow international obligations. Any answers for that?
Frankly, I have personal reservations about the stapled visa bit. I really do. It's not in sync with the accepted
modus operandi of the CCP. Maybe they are changing ... not necessarily improving. And I am not sure if it was done on "request" and out of "other concerns".
GoI has consistently tried to solve Kashmir since the problem started. You seem to be ill informed of the history. The most direct resolution that was signed by Pakistan after 1971 was to accept the LoC as IB. However, after 20 years of the agreement Pakistan reneged suddenly by sending Jihadis across the border int he early 90s.
Any so-called "treaty" signed in the direct aftermath of 1971 would be in the company of illustrious predesesors such as the "Treaty of Versailles" or the "Treaty of Sèvres" ...
The PRC never acknowledged the legality of
unequal treaties (at least not willingly). Nor do they, or should they expect others to do so.
Will the PRC welcome "joint administration" of the entire historical, "Akhand" Kashmir including the barren rocks under PRC possesion?
Will India really? The answer is unlikely.
However, good deeds are often repaid in unexpected areas. How do you know the good will India generates if she acts in "good faith" in Kashmir will not translate to, say, more formal access and more
legitamacy in Mount Kailash and surrounding religiously significant areas?
