China provokes again, troops enter Indian territory in Ladakh

[INDIC]

You need to read up on what your British master did more carefully. Stop making up things because its easy to catch your lie. Your lies are too outrageous that its impossible not to detect it.

For once, stick with facts instead your fabricated fiction.

Tibet was independent for almost half a century before 1950. Tibetans were integrated into Qing Empire by foreign invaders. China as a nation has only existed within the wall Great wall of China.

 

[sincity]

Tibet was independent for almost half a century before 1950. Tibetans were integrated into Qing Empire by foreign invaders. China as a nation has only existed within the wall Great wall of China.

Is South Tibet Independent of India?

 

[faithfulguy]

Tibet was independent for almost half a century before 1950. Tibetans were integrated into Qing Empire by foreign invaders. China as a nation has only existed within the wall Great wall of China.

Tibet was integrated by Qing dynasty into Qing dynasty. That happened back in 1700s. Didn't British first got the taxation rights in Bengal in 1770s? Or was it before British expelled the French from India? You should be thankful that British expelled most other European colonialists and rule India by itself.

 

[kaykay]

This is a false reporting. As per Army there have been NO incursion in Indian land.

 

[Lux de Veritas]

You can open a separate thread to discuss it. The boundary between India and Tibet was settled in 1914 and Chinese are just showing their greed towards our land.

In the eastern sector, however, the entire disputed territory hinges upon one question - The legality, or not, of the Simla agreement.

India has had two contradictory stances simultaneously
a) Not recognizing Tibet's sovereignty and
b) Recognizing the McMahon line as the international boundary;

and thus the legality of the Simla agreement. However, if a country doesn't recognize Tibet's sovereignty, then consequently it is expected that it would also not recognize the legality of the Simla agreement and the McMahon line.

The Indian position can also be construed to mean that regardless of whether or not Tibet is sovereign now , it was sovereign when the Simla agreement was signed; and consequently the McMahon line is legal.

For McMahon line to be a legal document, first thing India should do is to recognize Tibet as a sovereign state, and backtrack it to at least 1914. Not doing so, and neither did British India did so, make the Shimla Accord 1914 a piece of rubbish and that is the reason China found it unacceptable.

 

[INDIC]

Tibet was integrated by Qing dynasty into Qing dynasty. That happened back in 1700s. Didn't British first got the taxation rights in Bengal in 1770s? Or was it before British expelled the French from India? You should be thankful that British expelled most other European colonialists and rule India by itself.

So, you think you claim over territories by a foreign invaders is rights and you telling me about British rule.

British handed over power to Indians in 1947 to the elected representatives in 1946 while Puyi didn't abdicate by his own wish and even collaborated with Japanese to continue his rule in Manchuria. ROC never had control over Tibet.

 

[sincity]

In the eastern sector, however, the entire disputed territory hinges upon one question - The legality, or not, of the Simla agreement.

India has had two contradictory stances simultaneously
a) Not recognizing Tibet's sovereignty and
b) Recognizing the McMahon line as the international boundary;

and thus the legality of the Simla agreement. However, if a country doesn't recognize Tibet's sovereignty, then consequently it is expected that it would also not recognize the legality of the Simla agreement and the McMahon line.

The Indian position can also be construed to mean that regardless of whether or not Tibet is sovereign now , it was sovereign when the Simla agreement was signed; and consequently the McMahon line is legal.



If India recognized Tibet sovereign which meant India illegally invaded and occupied Tibetans land. The more Indian open their mouth about illegal occupation of Tibet by China, the more they stuck their foot in the mouth.

For McMahon line to be a legal document, first thing India should do is to recognize Tibet as a sovereign state, and backtrack it to at least 1914. Not doing so, and neither did British India did so, make the Shimla Accord 1914 a piece of rubbish and that is the reason China found it unacceptable.

 

[INDIC]

In the eastern sector, however, the entire disputed territory hinges upon one question - The legality, or not, of the Simla agreement.

India has had two contradictory stances simultaneously
a) Not recognizing Tibet's sovereignty and
b) Recognizing the McMahon line as the international boundary;

and thus the legality of the Simla agreement. However, if a country doesn't recognize Tibet's sovereignty, then consequently it is expected that it would also not recognize the legality of the Simla agreement and the McMahon line.

The Indian position can also be construed to mean that regardless of whether or not Tibet is sovereign now , it was sovereign when the Simla agreement was signed; and consequently the McMahon line is legal.

For McMahon line to be a legal document, first thing India should do is to recognize Tibet as a sovereign state, and backtrack it to at least 1914. Not doing so, and neither did British India did so, make the Shimla Accord 1914 a piece of rubbish and that is the reason China found it unacceptable.

Tibet integrated in China in 1950 while it was a independent state from until 1950, so China don't have right to reject treaties signed before 1950.

 

[faithfulguy]

So, you think you claim over territories by a foreign invaders is rights and you telling me about British rule.

British handed over power to Indians in 1947 to the elected representatives in 1946 while Puyi didn't abdicate by his own wish and even collaborated with Japanese to continue his rule in Manchuria. ROC never had control over Tibet.

The existence of India as a nation today is an affirmation of British colonialism. Once India adopted British as the official language, it admits that without English as the official language, India would not exist as a nation.

Tibet integrated in China in 1950 while it was a independent state from until 1950, so China don't have right to reject treaties signed before 1950.

Can you name a country that recognized Tibetan independence?

 

[INDIC]

Is South Tibet Independent of India?

What is South Tibet, never heard of it.

 

[Lux de Veritas]

Tibet integrated in China in 1950 while it was a independent state from until 1950, so China don't have right to reject treaties signed before 1950.

British India need to recognize Tibet, for Shimla agreement to be valid. She did not did it then and neither she recognizes it now.

 

[Fattyacids]

Tibet was integrated by Qing dynasty into Qing dynasty. That happened back in 1700s. Didn't British first got the taxation rights in Bengal in 1770s? Or was it before British expelled the French from India? You should be thankful that British expelled most other European colonialists and rule India by itself.

You see, for someone coming from a country created by British in 1947, compared to China an unified empire since 221 BC, he suffered deep inferiority complex and jealously when pit against us. Perhaps, we should excuse his brainless rhetoric due to his complex issue?

 

[INDIC]

Can you name a country that recognized Tibetan independence?

Why was Tibet a signatory in Shimla treaty.

 

[sincity]

Indian talk about China illegal occupation of Tibet as the same time they illegal occupation of South Tibet, Indian adamant of their outrageous by the way China forcefully occupy Tibet. It's like a thief calling other thief.

 

[INDIC]

You see, for someone coming from a country created by British in 1947, compared to China an unified empire since 221 BC, he suffered deep inferiority complex and jealously when pit against us. Perhaps, we should excuse his brainless rhetoric due to his complex issue?

Unified since 221BC, there were 18 successor states of Qin Dynasty.

British India need to recognize Tibet, for Shimla agreement to be valid. She did not did it then and neither she recognizes it now.

They recognized the border between India and Tibet, Chinese shouldn't be selective.

But why you Chinese still neglecting to answer, why was Tibet a signatory in India-Tibet border in 1914.