China provokes again, troops enter Indian territory in Ladakh

[Lux de Veritas]

I wrote everything that is needed.

I do not understand you. Tell me how does Indian princely states got to do with Shimla accord and also provisioning proof of the sovereignty of Southern Tibet.

 

[Fattyacids]

I do not understand you. Tell me how does Indian princely states got to do with Shimla accord and also provisioning proof of the sovereignty of Southern Tibet.

Logic and reasoning is not something a certain indian is particularly good at. Brainless interpretation and fabrication of history is his forte.

 

[INDIC]

I do not understand you. Tell me how does Indian princely states got to do with Shimla accord and also provisioning proof of the sovereignty of Southern Tibet.

Princely states were under the suzerainty of British India so they were not a signatory but ROC had no suzerainty over Tibet, so Tibet was the signatory for deciding India-Tibet border in Shimla in 1914.

 

[Fattyacids]

How many time do I need to explain, China was there to decide Tibet-China border. Only British India and Lamas of Tibet were negotiating border India-Tibet border. I have no interest in your fake Chinese history.

You didn't explain anything, it's all brainless concoction of history you pieced together from internet which you're so well known for. China was at the table with the British in 1914 Simla accord. Are you disputing that??? Please don't give you countrymen a bad name, there are smarter ways to troll.

 

[INDIC]

@Fattyacids You are asking the same question after getting the answer many times.

 

[Fattyacids]

@Fattyacids You are asking the same question after getting the answer many times.

Didn't I just say you weren't providing any real answers?
Please don't give you countrymen a bad name, there are smarter ways to troll.

 

[Lux de Veritas]

Princely states were under the suzerainty of British India so they were not a signatory but ROC had no suzerainty over Tibet, so Tibet was the signatory for deciding India-Tibet border in Shimla in 1914.

As I have mentioned on my earlier post, British your old colonial masters no longer want to pretend that Tibet is a sovereign states.

In 2008, a historic statement was released by the British Foreign Office which would have far reaching consequences. The British government discarded the Simla agreement as an anachronism and a colonial legacy - a "position [the British] took based on the geo-politics of the time". The British pulled away the only leg India had to stand on.

The statement says,

".......our position is unusual for one reason of history that has been imported into the present: the anachronism of our formal position on whether Tibet is part of China, and whether in fact we harbour continued designs to see the break up of China. We do not."

"Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time. Our recognition of China's "special position" in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. "

Effectively, what Britain in fact was saying was that Tibet is a part of China and is not sovereign - which was the position of almost all countries by that time, including EU nations and the US. It even apologized for not having done so earlier. However, what is important in that statement is that the British seem to have completely discarded the Simla agreement - on which the whole of India's negotiating stance is based. Consequently, if we start with the assumption that the Simla agreement was illegal as Tibet had no right to conclude treaties separately, then we arrive at what the Chinese position has been all along!


The Simla agreement was attended by Britain, Tibet and China. Now, from this information, two questions present themselves - If Tibet was sovereign, why was China invited at the conference at all? Why didn't the British negotiate directly with Tibet?

The answer is that, as stated above, Britain recognised Tibet to be under Chinese suzerainty. Hence, any bilateral agreement that Britain signed with Tibet (without Chinese agreement) would be illegal. (But ironically, that is exactly what the British did)

 

[INDIC]

British left India in 1947, their any statement in 2008 is between Chinese and British relations and keep India out of it.

 

[American Pakistani]

Neither, I come here for mashkarapan. Just go to the 1st page of the thread. You'll see you are the one who is trolling. I just reciprocated and still doing it.

I never quote or mention you. My concern was with thread title & i requested Mods & Management but you jump in between & start lecturing me, since then i' am responding your posts...in fact you forced me to respond your posts.

You can carry on with toota ang (December 16, ) too along with Makbooza-Kharbhooza-Tarbooza. I ain't have problem with that.

Atoot ang & toota nang are your words. Oh so now you wanna drag 71 into this thread? Is there a limit to your trolling & derailing? Or you have plans to make a fish market out of this thread?

Mr. Makbooza Kashmir Representative, I refrain myself from posting in Kashmir related threads. As you said you are not here for Mashkarapan, so let me ask you something.

I hope you won't answer it with Rants:

Do you know why Independence for Kashmir was not included in the UN referendum of 1948? Why only merger with either Indian or Pakistan?

PS: lf by any chance you speak KHOSHUR , feel free to debate in Koshur. I hope word Koshur is not Alien to you.

After so much trolling you expect me to answer your questions? And the question that you already asked me in one other thread & i answered you there.

P.O.K = GULAM KASHMIR.

Indian Kashmir = Azaad Kashmir

Kashmir belongs to India and even Pakistan belongs to India.

Pakistan is a Indian Territory.

And India is SUPA PAWA where gora people come to work as servants... dude can you cut your crap please?

 

[Arya Desa]

Why do cheenia always talk about their irreverent history? We don't care about ping pong dynasty or even the ping pang one.

 

[faithfulguy]

You didn't explain anything, it's all brainless concoction of history you pieced together from internet which you're so well known for. China was at the table with the British in 1914 Simla accord. Are you disputing that??? Please don't give you countrymen a bad name, there are smarter ways to troll.

This guy not only lie by making up truth, but making up another lie after you catch him in a lie. He is only interest in trolling you. Not worth any of your time to respond to him.

 

[danish_vij]

@DESERT FIGHTER @danish_vij spare this thread

i only commented once or twice on this thread!!

Big talk comin from a (blind) "faggot" himself ...chose to ignore pics... Also tell us what "Islamic Flag" is? u dimwit jackass...

simple rply as i told u earlier
and at the end of the day... we hav our country intact with max %age of jammu nd kashmir....and u have
guys like u are the reason many sane pakistanis are ignored nd abused!
ur country can do better or even best only if people like u not intent to win only internet wars!!

 

[A1Kaid]

I think China already made it's position clear last year when Prem. Wen Jiabao stated "China's border with Kashmir is not border with India."

 

[bolo]

There was no war in 1967. I'm talking about real wars, not imaginary ones.

Apparently this 1967 'war' is only recorded in indian history and no where else.

When Indian military appear indecisive, they would claim that they are following the Gandhi doctrine. So indecisiveness is a military doctrine in India and is named after one of their great leader.

What happened to the thank button?

 

[Jzaib]

This is a strategic relationship based on strengths of each country. India is not asking Japanese for any help, it is the Japanese who are giving importance to India and are realizing they have done a mistake by helping chinese economy.

soon they realise that they made mistake helping india ...