What's new

Tibetans in India..... did china forgot them?

British forces invaded Tibet in 1904 and administered it until 1947. Their aim was to create what they self-consciously called a ‘buffer state’ to protect their immense interests in India, then run by the British Raj, from potential advances by Russia and China. Tibet was turned into a guard dog for Britain’s vast Indian Empire. And the British discovered that the idea of Tibet as a mystical, paranormal land - that is, not a normal state and certainly not a part of those other normal states of China or Russia - was a very useful propaganda tool
So they overlook the key, somewhat ironic role played by the British rulers of Tibet in the 1920s, 30s and 40s in creating so-called Tibetan Independence. Where under the feudal rule of the Dalai Lamas, Tibet had conceived of itself largely as a religious entity, the lamas were convinced by the British to adopt the trappings of nationalism. As one fascinating historical study points out, the British funded the creation of a national Tibetan flag, a Tibetan football team and Tibetan school uniform, with the explicit, express aim, in the words of one British imperialist, of ‘showing that Tibet had its own art etc and that in some ways Tibet is more closely allied to India than to China’ (4). In short, the idea of ‘Tibetan independence’ was born largely from the needs of British imperialism in India, and from British conflict with China, rather than from the demands of the Tibetan masses.

Western pro-Tibet activists also overlook the role later played by Washington, in particular the CIA, in funding and training the Dalai Lama’s armed forces in the 1950s. Between China’s invasion of Tibet in 1951 and the fleeing of the Dalai Lama in 1959, the CIA took a keen interest in directing the Tibetan forces as part of what the Dalai Lama himself later described as Washington’s broader international campaign of ‘anti-Communism’
Seven days in Tibet | spiked
 
.
^^^
The Brits tried to do same thing with Afghanistan(with same reasons and intentions) but failed.

But yeah!The drew Durrani line and that remains to be a problem for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 
. .
Which once again proves China's credentials as a an authoritarian regime if a citizen can't return to it if he wants.

They have sneaked out of China illegally and do not process any passport! How could Chinese government knows if they are Chinese?

Chinese government have every right to suspect that they might be brainwash by Indian regime and create unrest for China.
 
. .
Really? So Tibet has been historically part of India? Lol. Mt. Kailash is not very far from the Indian border. Tibet is much bigger than you think.

Lahore is not too far from the Indian border either. What's your point?
 
.
OFF TOPIC :-

Remember my words dude...and let me assure you that kashmir is and kashmir will remain an integral part of india no matter what internet warriors or ourneighbour say..;)

ON TOPIC :-

I think this thread is flame,,what is need to starting this thread when our own Gov accepts tibet as part of china..!

LONG LIVE "BRIC" POWER...specially sino-indian frndship...!

ya long live to 'bric' but the thread is not about china or tibet but about tibetans which are in India :cheers:
 
.
If they want to return they can. Just to go to the Chinese embassy in India and repatriate. Sad that most Tibetans are brainwashed already.
 
.
a. No - it has not historically been part of China.

b. Difference between a Treaty of Accession and the 17-point Agreement

What difference? A "treaty" of Acession made by a monarch without any consent whatsoever of his millions of subjects.
 
.
What difference? A "treaty" of Acession made by a monarch without any consent whatsoever of his millions of subjects.

He would not have bothered signing it and Kashmir would have been a free state if Pakistan had not unilaterally invaded Kashmir without provocation. You can deny it all you want, but this is a fact. Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim (at that time) were all buffer states and Kashmir would have been the same.

The Chinese invaded Tibet and forced them to sign the 17 point document.

Both were signed under duress - yes, that is true. But the Maharaja could have gone either way - he could have signed it with Pakistan too or he could have chosen to remain independent and fight Pakistan. He had options, whereas Tibet did not.
 
. .
He would not have bothered signing it and Kashmir would have been a free state if Pakistan had not unilaterally invaded Kashmir without provocation. You can deny it all you want, but this is a fact. Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim (at that time) were all buffer states and Kashmir would have been the same.

The Chinese invaded Tibet and forced them to sign the 17 point document.

Both were signed under duress - yes, that is true. But the Maharaja could have gone either way - he could have signed it with Pakistan too or he could have chosen to remain independent and fight Pakistan. He had options, whereas Tibet did not.

There was no question of an independent Kashmir, it was just a dream of the raja. At the end of the day he would have to choose between India or Pakistan. Being a Hindu it was obvious which country he would choose hence Pakistans reaction. However we are derailing the topic now so im outta here.
 
.
There was no question of an independent Kashmir, it was just a dream of the raja. At the end of the day he would have to choose between India or Pakistan. Being a Hindu it was obvious which country he would choose hence Pakistans reaction. However we are derailing the topic now so im outta here.

kashmir and tibet are just incomparable

tibet was captured by chinese forces but this was not with kashmir forces were invited there

so stop bringing Kashmir in this matter
 
.
kashmir and tibet are just incomparable

tibet was captured by chinese forces but this was not with kashmir forces were invited there

so stop bringing Kashmir in this matter

Correction: Tibet was captured by Mongolian forces under Kublai Khan.
 
.
Which once again proves China's credentials as a an authoritarian regime if a citizen can't return to it if he wants.

He can, but he'll be arrested if he returns, just like any country would do to its fugitives in exile.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom