Arunachal in China? That is not the reality, says PM Manmohan Singh

[ephone]

This is an astonishing post, in that it is inaccurate and unhistorical.

Secondly, in this decidedly self-serving account, you have not informed us what the duration of the Yuan dynasty was. I presume this was not accidental, nor was the omission a stylistic one, intended to make the note more concise and read better.

Yuan lasted about 100 years or so. You can wiki to check it out. I wonder what it has to do with the topic or anything I have mentioned.

The time line of Chinese history can be found easily by google it.

The last three dynasties in China are Yuan, Ming and Qing, FYI.

Thirdly, you have omitted mention of the huge gap between the Yuan and the Qing, and any mention of the complete independence of the Tibetans in those days, an independence poignantly underlined by their kinship to the ethnic tribes in at least three, possibly four provinces of China proper which were majority Tibetan then, majority Han now.

Since Yuan was driven out to North China by Ming Dynasty, during Ming's era, Tibet was mostly control under former Yuan, which is not called Yuan since they do not control most of China but the North. There is no complete independence definitely then.

Fourthly, you have omitted to mention that the nature of Qing overlordship was through the posting of a Commissioner in Lhasa, with a small detachment of troops sufficient for his personal security. You have omitted to mention that the nature of this overlordship was defined in international law by an Anglo-Russian treaty which clearly stipulated the suzerainty, not sovereignty, of China over Tibet; that further stipulated that neither power should deal with Tibet without the presence of a Chinese representative; that in international law, China's claims are limited to suzerainty, and that the incursion of troops and the overthrow of the sovereign administration after the completion of the Chinese revolution constituted a breach of international law and a breach of their legal position on Tibet.


You must be kidding here. During Qing's era, Qing emperor has great impact over who should be the Dalai or Panchan Lama:

The Qianlong Emperor instituted a system of selecting the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama by a lottery that used a golden urn with names wrapped in clumps of barley.


No sovereignty? The emperor of China can decide who is the next Dalai Lama?

Without central government approval, the selected one cannot be even called Dalai Lama.

In addition, the central government can even remove Dalai Lama. e.g.
Tsangyang Gyatso, 6th Dalai Lama, was removed and later died (probably ordered by emperor to be killed) for his affairs

You even dare to raise the issue of Anglo-Russian treaty? What the fcuk-up treaty is that? Do you know the historical background? Those are the treaties for the imperialist Britain and Russia to decide how to cut china into pieces and who should get which pieces. I bet there are a lot of such treaties that you India has abolished right after you got your independence.

You forget how painful when your British master has cooked up treaties with other foreign powers how to abuse India??? Of course, we abolished all unequal treaties long long time ago.

No wonder India still uses a cooked up accord: simla accord, as its base for its claim over South Tibet
Simla Accord (1914) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"China refused to accept the Accord and their plenipotentiary, Ivan Chen, withdrew on 3 July 1914."

By then, not much China could do besides refusing to recognize it. Later we sent army to take it back.

You use those treaties really showing your ignorance and shame on you.

Finally, you have omitted to mention that a suzerainty can lie with one power, which, when overthrown, replaced, or surrendered, has no residuary power to confer that suzerainty on its successor, and that therefore Chinese overlordship over Tibet legally ceased with the 1911 Revolution.

Really? It seems most territory power transfer lie with the successor all over the world. E.g. Turkey took over Ottman empire as its successor...

In China more than 2000 years, power is transferred that way and has always been that way. Isn't the same for India? You took over after British left and I do not see you tell any part your power over it is over after British is gone.

 

[ephone]

Is this how equality being measured in China?

What does that mean?

He said Tibet was an equal province.

I said Yuan centered on China and has already divided China into quite a few provinces for administration reason. It is quite simply to today's administration.

Tibet was also controlled by Mongolian emperor as well. China is the country, Tibet is the province. How could a province equal to a country???

 

[ephone]

I am beginning to believe, as I advance through this thread, that it is your style to distort and misinterpret information. There was never any occasion when India abolished treaties that had been entered into by British India. There was not a single British treaty which was rejected by independent India as illegal, even when they were against our interests.

If that is the case, I will be totally surprised. For China, When PRC took over, we abolished all unequal treaties and it seems to be that case for most countries, e.g. those African countries who got their independence after WWII. E.g. Egypt, Albania, Algeria, Nigeria and etc....

If India sticks to those unequal treaties, even though I have no idea why? ok, then. I just think that is against common sense. Are you sure you did not abolish any unequal treaties at all???

 

[ephone]

This is an astonishing post, in that it is inaccurate and unhistorical.

As for "The Qing had no authority to hand over suzerainty; suzerainty ceased with their abdication of power and did not transfer to the successor regime in law"

You see, the problem is not Qing to hand over, the successor simply took over what belonged to former dynasty

I have no idea what kind of law you refer to. We China has followed that for thousand of years.

The legitimacy, in those dynasties, is called heaven-given, in modern time, basically just took over what was Chinese territory from the former ruling dynasty.

I really find that your reasoning is really twisted and laughable. You whole country India took over what British left and we never see India say anything about their ruling power is gone after British left.

---------- Post added at 11:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 PM ----------

BTW, I indeed totally agreed with the warnings I have received from other Chinese members: What a waste of time.

 

[Developereo]

And if the response from your leadership is to complain about some Chinese map, I see Joe's argument as throughly convincing.

I really admire Joe's posts and am amused to see some Chinese members actually applauding the fact that they got the wool pulled over their eyes.

Stripped of their needlessly obtuse and flowery language, Joe's posts boil down to these assertions:

A- China offered to compromise in the past but India was too greedy.

B- The people of AP are ethnically different from Tibetans and more similar to Indian tribes. This is a red herring because political boundaries are not justified on the basis of ethnicity. It also flies in the face of Indian propaganda about 'unity in diversity'. Apparently, China is not entitled to such diversity: it cannot claim AP because it doesn't fit in 'ethnically' to the rest of China.

C- The cunning and duplicitous Chinese will continue to fool the innocent, peace loving Indians by their devious and conflicting manoeuvers.

The fact of the matter is that the focus of any democracy, including Indian democracy, is largely confined to domestic policy. When it comes to Indian foreign policy, there is overwhelming support for hardliners, fueled, once again, by the rabidly jingoistic Indian media. Despite meaningless diplomatic platitudes, Indian foreign policy is, and has always been, completely dominated by jingoists.

In any discussion, it is always useful to strip away needlessly obtuse language and focus on the 5% which is actual substantive content. Propaganda couched in flowery language may look like a scholarly treatise but, once you strip away the fluff, it is still just propaganda.

 

[HongWu]

I really admire Joe's posts and am amused to see some Chinese members actually applauding the fact that they got the wool pulled over their eyes.

Stripped of their needlessly obtuse and flowery language, Joe's posts boil down to these assertions:

A- China offered to compromise in the past but India was too greedy.

B- The people of AP are ethnically different from Tibetans and more similar to Indian tribes. This is a red herring because political boundaries are not justified on the basis of ethnicity. It also flies in the face of Indian propaganda about 'unity in diversity'. Apparently, China is not entitled to such diversity: it cannot claim AP because it doesn't fit in 'ethnically' to the rest of China.

C- The cunning and duplicitous Chinese will continue to fool the innocent, peace loving Indians by their devious and conflicting manoeuvers.

The fact of the matter is that the focus of any democracy, including Indian democracy, is largely confined to domestic policy. When it comes to Indian foreign policy, there is overwhelming support for hardliners, fueled, once again, by the rabidly jingoistic Indian media. Despite meaningless diplomatic platitudes, Indian foreign policy is, and has always been, completely dominated by jingoists.

In any discussion, it is always useful to strip away needlessly obtuse language and focus on the 5% which is actual substantive content. Propaganda couched in flowery language may look like a scholarly treatise but, once you strip away the fluff, it is still just propaganda.

You are totally right!!!

The bottom line is that India sees itself as a "great power" after gaining its freedom from colonialism. So it wants to expand territory and prove that India is just as great as the British Raj. This is why India always keeps trying to take advantage of its neighbors especially Pakistan and China since its independence.

There can never be peace with India, because they have a "slave mentality" where they keep trying to pull others (like Chinese and Pakistanis) down to their slave mentality level. This is why Indians are so envious of China's economic success. Surely they will never compromise on border issues with their neighbors until they have a gun pointed at their heads.

In short, India is a hostile and expansionist power that wants to be #1 Asian superpower at all cost. Indian "slave mentality" drives their external aggression and internal unrest. China has no choice but to destroy New Delhi government and separate India into many princely states for peace to prevail in South Asia.

It's all part of the game.

This is the setup for the good cop, bad cop routine. Now other Indians will step up to chastise this intentional troll.

And the game continues....

Ha ha... you are right again!

Indians are the most racist trolls on the internet. But they are also the fastest to accuse other people of racism! Only stupid Chinese keep trusting Indians and persuading them to see reason.

Fortunately, Pakistanis know very well the trickery Indians use!

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is such a delight to be complimented and to be told that my posts are admired. Regrettably I cannot return the compliments; your posts are certainly not worthy of admiration. No post that sets out so obviously to make trouble, to set two groups against each other and to distort and twist others' presentations in order to make some cheap gains can be admirable.

On an amusing note, it is nice to see that you feel it necessary to interpret to the stupid Chinese, who obviously in your view do not have the capacity to do it for themselves, the traps and hazards in Joe's writing. A knight in shining armour! If only the condescending sneer was not present.

I really admire Joe's posts and am amused to see some Chinese members actually applauding the fact that they got the wool pulled over their eyes.

Perhaps, unlike you, they have read posts of mine where there was presentation of fact and then analysis, rather than tendentious sneer and then a disingenuous comment?

Stripped of their needlessly obtuse and flowery language, Joe's posts boil down to these assertions:

A- China offered to compromise in the past but India was too greedy.

True. So far, so good.

B- The people of AP are ethnically different from Tibetans and more similar to Indian tribes. This is a red herring because political boundaries are not justified on the basis of ethnicity. It also flies in the face of Indian propaganda about 'unity in diversity'. Apparently, China is not entitled to such diversity: it cannot claim AP because it doesn't fit in 'ethnically' to the rest of China.

Not true. Here we go again.

Typical disinformation.

Anybody, especially those of Chinese origin who have been following this thread with some care, rather than with the intention of fishing in troubled waters, will find that I have clearly explained that the reasons for the British claiming sovereignty over Arunachal Pradesh was the inheritance of administration from earlier regimes which the British defeated. Excepting for a small patch which paid tribute in kind to a single, isolated monastery, the Monastery of Tawang, peopled by a tribe of Bhutanese extraction, all the rest of this province consists of tribals of trans-Brahmaputra origin, whose trade routes, cultural links and administrative allegiance always were with the dominant power in the Brahmaputra valley, and never with the Tibetan authorities.

C- The cunning and duplicitous Chinese will continue to fool the innocent, peace loving Indians by their devious and conflicting manoeuvers.

Not true.

My posts, sometimes to the exasperation of Indian members, but made without that objective, are clearly to the effect that

....it is in India's interest to make an early settlement, and that delay is damaging for our side. On the other hand, a China earlier willing to come to a fair deal is increasingly irritated by Indian delays, and is now divided in its views, with the older view favouring peace increasingly challenged by a recently-formed view proposing a stiffer stand.

Holders of this new point of view certainly seem to be willing to test India's nerves on every occasion, to keep them off balance.

Neither have my notes classified Indians as innocent and peace-loving nor have they depicted the Chinese as cunning and duplicitous. To some extent, their internal conflicting points of view have led to conflicting manoeuvres.

The fact of the matter is that the focus of any democracy, including Indian democracy, is largely confined to domestic policy. When it comes to Indian foreign policy, there is overwhelming support for hardliners, fueled, once again, by the rabidly jingoistic Indian media. Despite meaningless diplomatic platitudes, Indian foreign policy is, and has always been, completely dominated by jingoists.

You are entitled to your views, which serve as necessary apologies for Pakistani actions of precisely the kind described, which need to be explained away on the grounds that Indians are as guilty, if not more.

In any discussion, it is always useful to strip away needlessly obtuse language and focus on the 5% which is actual substantive content. Propaganda couched in flowery language may look like a scholarly treatise but, once you strip away the fluff, it is still just propaganda.

We must then count ourselves as fortunate that your cynicism has not been on display and has not earlier derailed frank and unrelenting examination of issues, irrespective of national affiliation.

I understand that it is difficult for you to see that such neutral and objective analysis is possible, or that open and frank discussion is possible. There are many such personalities on display; we have a surfeit of them already, so if you would be so good as to return to whatever location is your own, it would be most obliging.

 

[CardSharp]

So much for neutral discussion. The sides are forming again.

 

[Guli Danda]

Do the Arunachal people want to be with China???

 

[Developereo]

Joe,

Allow me to quote the relevant posts

Arunachal Pradesh is inhabited by the following tribes, from west, the borders of Bhutan, to the east - the Monpa, the Aka or Hrusso, in two clans, the Kutsun and Kovatsun, the Dafla or Bangni or Ni, in two classes, the Gute and the Guchi, the Apa Tani, and the Abor or Adi, divided into Padam, Minyong, Pangi, Shimong and others. Further east than this is the large confederation of the Mishmi. In all cases, the names of the tribes have been used as commonly accepted by them; the alternative names that they call themselves have been indicated next to those.

None of these tribes are ethnically Tibetan, or even close, with the possible exception of the Monpas. In the case of the Monpas, it is the consensus of scholars, mainly the British, that they are closely allied to the eastern Bhutanese and any influence of Tibetan culture is due to the dominance of the Tawang monastery and its former feudal grip over this tribe.

In all other cases, there is greater affinity with tribes living south of the Brahmaputra than with the Tibetans. There are no cultural similarities, and the spread of Buddhism is not uniform here, as it was north of the Himalayas, or even to the west, in Bhutan. Even the residual matter of their folk-memories of migration has been handled academically by the great Christoph von Fuehrer-Haimendorff: ...these memories can only relate to the last stages of a population movement which may well have changed its course more than once."

Further proof of their distinction from Tibetans comes from Bailey, discoverer of the Bailey Trail which the PLA used with such devastating effect to achieve complete tactical surprise in 1962, who said, writing about the term lopa used by the Tibetans for these southern tribesmen,"The term Lopa meant to the Tibetans what barbarian meant to the Greeks..."

Now this little tidbit of history, while fascinating, is irrelevant to the political debate about AP. If ethnicity and culture were prerequisites to political claim, then Punjab, Bengal and other areas could have gone either way. This brings up the question of relevance. If it was intended merely as flowery filler, then fair enough. Otherwise, the implication is that India has greater claim over AP due to ethnic and cultural factors. An invalid claim.

The other, more direct and belligerent, justification is that India should get to keep what the British stole from China.

Now, on to the other quote

The assumption here is that the more aggressive, the military faction within the PrC leadership, is motivated to reduce the Indian leadership to a humiliated, bewildered and indecisive state, incapable of taking any actions that challenge China's complete freedom of action within Asia.
[...]
While a brief armed conflict, of short duration, begun and ended by the PLA according to its own timetable, is at one end of the spectrum of action, the violent end, there are other options.
[...]
It is likely to be combined with warm and fraternal exchanges of a cultural, sporting and people-to-people kind, which will thoroughly confuse the opposing leadership, and which will create a 'peace' constituency within India to oppose any hard stand or overt resistance to China.

Again, stripped down to bare bones, this quote summarizes to the claim that the devious Chinese will dupe India into a peaceful lull.

It is interesting to note that this is the same storyline (Army controlling foreign policy) that has been the Indian propaganda mainstay against Pakistan. Now the same strategy is being used against China.

Also interesting to note that the Indian media is slowly shifting its arch-rival focus from Pakistan to China. And it is selling well in India.

As I said, I enjoy reading your posts: they are informative as far as history goes and the flowery language is a recreational relief after reading information-dense scientific papers, but it is understood that, as an Indian, you have a particular bias on interpreting the facts. If you choose to get upset when someone points it out, that is unfortunate.

In any case, what matters, ultimately, is not words on an internet forum, but words and actions by politicians and mainstream media. On that score, I don't need to divide anybody; the Indian media and politicans are doing a fine job by themselves. Since, in a democracy, both these groups represent the voice of the people, the conclusion is obvious which way the majority of Indian public thinks about China.

 

[us1956]

Do the Arunachal people want to be with China???

it's likely that people in dispute area careless which side they will be on; all they care, whether they can have a peaceful live and have a better living.
*why india wants to have a faster border settlement with china

-do it once and forget all bad memory, even it's meant to cede some land in favor to china, so no longer have to worry about war with china
-economic development; with tax & duty free by "special economic zone" not just only giving people a better live but also helping they understand each other culture
-china is getting stronger each day and if there is a war with china, "will any country have a gut to come to help? "
*why not to...
-too many bosses
-keep hoping things will work out by itself

*why china wants to have border settlement with india
-for now china has no benefit to have border settle with india
*why not to..
-focus to give her people to have better living(brought 800 millions out of poverty in 2006?)
-not just only improve defense on east and south china seas but also able to destroy any attacker's force
-does not want to cost pakistan any because of peace deal settlement
-give india a chance to attack china
am i missing some thing???

 

[Water Car Engineer]

The other, more direct and belligerent, justification is that India should get to keep what the British stole from China.

What about what the Manchus stole from the Tibetians in general? A.P. do not want to join China, a lot of them are really patriotic for India.

am i missing some thing???

India will never give a token amount thats what you missed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sorry Joe for using you as a bludgeon, but it made it easier to state my view. Hope you don't mind getting the crossfire.

on that note, what did you think of interpretation of what you wrote. The reasons you gave for the borders not having been settle, are also good reasons for India to try and settle them. Please be frank.

Dear CardSharp,

Using my posts as reference certainly doesn't constitute what you, unfairly to yourself and in harsh terms, have described as using me as a bludgeon. Those posts of mine were researched in reasonable detail, I believe, and presented fairly, without bias; the interpretation is, of course, entirely my own.

Sometimes these reports present facts that may upset one side or the other. As it happens, we have very largely discussed issues - the 1962 border conflict, the background to the ongoing border discrepancies - where I have had to represent the facts, and these facts do not favour jingoism or hyper-heroic attitudes by us Indians. They are sobering facts, and their effect should be to provoke thought among us. I hope they do.

But provoking thought, and that thought finding some effect in our thinking about Sino-Indian relations in general, in public opinion, even if within a small sliver of the public, and that finally culminating in any concrete or practical amelioration of the situation is a long process. Meanwhile, we have to be able to present our views without distortion, without intimidation and without character assassination.

For this, it is essential that we should allow each other the liberty to make full and frank presentations of the facts - as we see them - and, in addition, in an active sense, we need to support those presenting these facts, whether they favour our national mood of the moment or not. This is needed on both sides, Indian and Chinese.

Would you, Chinese-Dragon and Huzihaidou agree? You are the three I have noticed as being most open to listening, rather than strident advocacy; there are several others, but they have shifted between a listening and a bullhorn mode too frequently for me to attempt to address them with confidence.

I am sure that the implications of my question are clear to you, and it is in fact this implication that I want to bring out and discuss openly, frankly and with objectivity.

I hope that you are over the New Year celebrations and this does not catch you in the middle of a painful recovery!!

With sincere regards,

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

i am beginning to believe that in certain matters the military chiefs overrule the president or prime minister. i heard in some issues it happens in america too but in closed doors.

 

[Developereo]

A.P. do not want to join China, a lot of them are really patriotic for India.

You mean, we should let the people of AP decide which side they want to join?

As in a plebiscite?