The guy posted some articles on the modern culture of Tibet. Why drag the history of India into it? Unless we want to discuss India's cultural influence on Tibet, which was not negligible. Who cares whether there was a nation state called India X centuries ago?
We all know that for some reason, perhaps having to do with unique aspects of Hinduism, the ancient Hindus did not record history with nearly the same rigor as say, the Jews, the Romans, the Chinese, or the post-Islamic Arabs ...
I suggest those who wish to debate the evolution of india do so in a thread called "Was there an 'India' before 1947" - and request that the mods humour you and make it a sticky.
I for one am d@mn tired of seeing it pop up over, and over, and over, and over ...
And while at it, whether Tibet was historically a part of China is also not the point of debate here ... my sense is that it was never directly administered by China until 1950s - not even during the Qing dynasty (Wang Lixiong had published some very detailed account on that topic rather recently).
But it doesn't prevent Tibet from becoming a part of the modern nation state of PRC. I don't see how Tibet becoming a part of China is different from the US annexing Hawaii in 1898 ... particularly convincing evidence exists that Tibet was not a sovereign state in the usual sense of the word during the period from the end of the Manchu dynasty to the founding of the PRC. As the article suggests it was but another one of British Empire's buffer zones to protect their "crown jewel".
But Tibet was autonomous and this autonomy should be respected ...
Although if anything, China had a much longer history of Suzerainty over and association with Tibet than any connenctions US had with Hawaii.
However, the CCP policy in Tibet needs to be reflected upon and the skeletons in the closet need to be aired ... slowly but surely.
Then the rest of the skeletons should come out ... slowly but surely.
