What's new

China’s Territorial Disputes with India

problem is, based on this logic then all china has to do is invade then the reality becomes "well its our now" and by your statement i see that you would not compain. however territory disputes are very complicated as can even be seen here, history and present reality both play a large part. for all intents and purposes the Chinese claims on south Tibet will probably not be realized but it certainly is a useful political tool in bargaining on other areas. likewise the indian claim on the chinese controlled kashmir will lead nowhere(i pray India isn't stupid enough to even consider another forward policy). on the seas however the situation is much more fluid as generally there isnt a large local population(unihabited for the most part)

But the difference is Chinese controlled Kashmir was part of India until 1962 War, unlike AP. If China was interested in AP(South Tibet) it could have had it in 1962, but it decided to withdraw from AP and instead held on to parts of Kashmir. It seems like it is Kashmir after all which China wants and not South Tibet.

Which brings me back to the point I made earlier that why this "historically mine" argument is flimsy and no one is ready to buy that, let alone concede territory based on that. Whats the need for this facade, every one can see what China is doing is for strategic gains.
 
.
As far I see the Indians are sharpening their knifes wrt to Kashmir and the Chinese seem to get a hang of that
 
.
China lives in an extremely tough neighbourhood and I think they won't go for a war that recklessly
 
.
Guys! It's plain and simple. China's aggressive stance and hegemonic tendencies are well known the world over. They want to finally grab the Asia Pacific region to make it a 'Greater China'. Just look at all the disputes it has with:

India
Japan
Vietnam
South Korea
Philippines
Indonesia
South China Sea

Who's next? Why can't China just shut the heck up and learn to live in peace with its neighbors? But considering they have a thousand year mindset of hegemony and aggression, their psyche is going to be difficult to change. It'll probably take another 1000 years!

The latest of course, is their back door entry into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir with 11,000 troops under the garb of protecting their workers involved in 'construction activities'!! That's a load of crap. Pakistan will soon find that it has lost whatever control it has in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir to China. If Pakistan thinks that China is beholden to it and its best friend, they'll soon come to grief when they realise that Pak Administered Kashmir has become part of China - probably in another 10 years or so! Am I talking through my hat? Just wait and see. 2020 isn't too far off!

There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. And China will act in its own supreme national interest, Pakistan or no Pakistan!

Cheers!
 
.
But the difference is Chinese controlled Kashmir was part of India until 1962 War, unlike AP. If China was interested in AP(South Tibet) it could have had it in 1962, but it decided to withdraw from AP and instead held on to parts of Kashmir. It seems like it is Kashmir after all which China wants and not South Tibet.

Which brings me back to the point I made earlier that why this "historically mine" argument is flimsy and no one is ready to buy that, let alone concede territory based on that. Whats the need for this facade, every one can see what China is doing is for strategic gains.

You need to know one thing, history according is an important reason for the inheritance of sovereignty, each state is so, including India, all of our territories are inherited from history. If you say this is just one factor, in fact, I can agree. But history according not ignore. I also said that China has at least historical basis. what India? you to occupy a territory, or even never belong to India in the history, it is not aggression?
 
.
You need to know one thing, history according is an important reason for the inheritance of sovereignty, each state is so, including India, all of our territories are inherited from history. If you say this is just one factor, in fact, I can agree. But history according not ignore. I also said that China has at least historical basis. what India? you to occupy a territory, or even never belong to India in the history, it is not aggression?

Indian didn't occupy any territory, Republic of India inherited it from the British India. The way I see it, Arunachal Pradesh(South Tibet) was once upon a time, part of the Tibetan Kingdom, and somewhere down the line Tibet was once part of some Chinese Kingdom. You trying selling that to anyone and see people laugh at your claims on Arunachal Pradesh.

As I said earlier, I doubt China has any interest in South Tibet, cause if it did it wouldn't have retreated from there after 1962.
 
. .
Indian didn't occupy any territory, Republic of India inherited it from the British India. The way I see it, Arunachal Pradesh(South Tibet) was once upon a time, part of the Tibetan Kingdom, and somewhere down the line Tibet was once part of some Chinese Kingdom. You trying selling that to anyone and see people laugh at your claims on Arunachal Pradesh.

As I said earlier, I doubt China has any interest in South Tibet, cause if it did it wouldn't have retreated from there after 1962.

First , do not discuss whether the British can represent the fact. But at least you admit, India to inherit the territory because of history. It was the British India's territory, not Republic of India.

As for 1962, simply because China has a back-pressure, the international environment is also a point. We retreat temporarily. As long as we do not agree that it is a temporary retreat.
 
.
Tibet was not historically a part of China. Tibet was a vassal state. It was conquered. Do not even compare Tibet with Texas or California. Texas and California are free to secede from the Federation of United States. Tibet was forcefully occupied. So the 'Free Tibet' campaign is legitimate. Why don't you go start a Free Texas or a Free California movement? I double dare you.

No they are not. The Confederate States of America are still under the illegal occupation of the US Army. The sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii is also under the US Army boot. Free the Confederacy! Free Hawaii!
 
. .
I really don't think Aksai Chin is worth the dispute with China. Let them have it and focus on coming to an agreement on keeping Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India.
 
.
I really don't think Aksai Chin is worth the dispute with China. Let them have it and focus on coming to an agreement on keeping Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India.

That has been our de-facto official position from a long long time ...unfortunately Chinese raise the AP issue in the hope it will put pressure on India and force it into a regional role , vis -a vis China . Apparently as seen from recent times -- this Habit of keeping unresolved disputes with several countries like Japan , Phillipines , Vietnam , India etc has backfired big time ...
 
.
EagleOne, China has the rightful claim to South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh), not India. And it is not the business that the U.S. should ever get involved in either.
China does not even have rightful claim over Tibet,You massacared thousands to gain control.
 
.
No they are not. The Confederate States of America are still under the illegal occupation of the US Army. The sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii is also under the US Army boot. Free the Confederacy! Free Hawaii!
But there is no protest by anyone in Texas or Hawaii against US rule but millions of Tibetans are protesting Chinese rule.
 
.
First , do not discuss whether the British can represent the fact. But at least you admit, India to inherit the territory because of history. It was the British India's territory, not Republic of India.

As for 1962, simply because China has a back-pressure, the international environment is also a point. We retreat temporarily. As long as we do not agree that it is a temporary retreat.

I've Been following the discussion for a long time. It seems all of you have forgotten about general Zorawar Singh .

Here is a description of his conquests ---

Tibet expedition

With the Dogra ambitions clashing with the Punjabi empire in the west, Zorawar Singh turned his energies eastward, towards Tibet. As he had done in Ladakh, so too in the newly-conquered Baltistan, Zorawar recruited the Baltis in his army, which now had men from the Jammu hills, Kishtwar, and Ladakh. This five or six thousand strong army was divided into three columns that marched parallel into the unknown land of Tibet in May, 1841.

One column under the Ladakhi prince, Nono Sungnam, followed the course of the Indus River to its source. Another column of 300 men, under Ghulam Khan, marched along the mountains leading up to the Kailas Range and thus south of the Indus. Zorawar himself led 3,000 men along the plateau region where the vast and picturesque Pangong Lake is located. Sweeping all resistance before them, the three columns passed the Mansarovar Lake and converged at Gartok, defeating the small Tibetan force stationed there. The enemy commander fled to Taklakot but Zorawar stormed that fort on 6 September 1841. Envoys from Tibet now came to him as did agents of the Maharaja of Nepal, whose kingdom was only fifteen miles from Taklakot.

The fall of Taklakot finds mention in the report of the Chinese Imperial Resident, Meng Pao, at Lhasa:

On my arrival at Taklakot a force of only about 1,000 local troops could be mustered, which was divided and stationed as guards at different posts. A guard post was quickly established at a strategic pass near Taklakot to stop the invaders, but these local troops were not brave enough to fight off the Shen-Pa (Dogras) and fled at the approach of the invaders. The distance between Central Tibet and Taklakot is several thousand li…because of the cowardice of the local troops; our forces had to withdraw to the foot of the Tsa Mountain near the Mayum Pass. Reinforcements are essential in order to withstand these violent and unruly invaders.

Zorawar and his men now went on pilgrimage to Mansarovar and Mount Kailash. He had extended his communication and supply line over 450 miles of inhospitable terrain by building small forts and pickets along the way. The fort Chi-T’ang was built near Taklakot, where Mehta Basti Ram was put in command of 500 men, with 8 or 9 cannon. With the onset of winter all the passes were blocked and roads snowed in. The supplies for the Dogra army over such a long distance failed despite Zorawar’s meticulous preparations.

As the intense cold, coupled with the rain, snow and lightning continued for weeks upon weeks, many of the soldiers lost their fingers and toes to frostbite. Others starved to death, while some burnt the wooden stock of their muskets to warm themselves. The Tibetans and their Chinese allies regrouped and advanced to give battle, bypassing the Dogra fort of Chi-T’ang. Zorawar and his men met them at the Battle of To-yo on 12 December 1841—-in the early exchange of fire the Rajput general was wounded in his right shoulder but he grabbed a sword in his left hand. The Tibetan horsemen then charged the Dogra position and one of them thrust his lance in Zorawar Singh’s chest.

The Sino-Tibetan force then mopped up the other garrisons of the Dogras and advanced on Ladakh, now determined to conquer it and add it to the Imperial Chinese dominions. However the force under Mehta Basti Ram stood a siege for several weeks at Chi-T’ang before escaping with 240 men across the Himalayas to the British post of Almora. Within Ladakh the Sino-Tibetan army laid siege to Leh, when reinforcements under Diwan Hari Chand and Wazir Ratnu came from Jammu and repulsed them. The Tibetan fortifications at Drangtse were flooded when the Dogras dammed up the river. On open ground, the Chinese and Tibetans were chased to Chushul. The climactic Battle of Chushul (August, 1842) was fought and won by the Dogras who executed the enemy general to avenge the death of Zorawar Singh.
[edit] The Treaty of Chushul

“On this auspicious occasion, the second day of the month Asuj in the year 1899 we —- the officers of Lhasa, viz. firstly, Kalon Sukanwala, and secondly Bakshi Sapju, commander of the forces of the Empire of China, on the one hand, and Dewan Hari Chand and Wazir Ratnu, on behalf of Raja Gulab Singh, on the other —- agree together and swear before God that the friendship between Raja Gulab Singh and the Emperor of China and Lama Guru Sahib Lassawala will be kept and observed till eternity; for the traffic in shawl, pasham, and tea. We will observe our pledge to God, Gayatri, and Pasi. Wazir Mian Khusal Chu is witness.”

[edit]

what about the historical claims on Aksai Chin from the Indian side ?

But at least you admit, India to inherit the territory because of history. It was the British India's territory, not Republic of India.


By similar logic we can say -- Tibet when under Direct control of the Manchus was Manchu territory not Han Chinese ( present day PRC ) territory...
 
.
Back
Top Bottom