Chinese can't 'see' McMahon line

[applesauce]

Sir, everybody (including India) has accepted Tibet as a part of China. So your point regarding Tibet is not relevant.
The time when the treaty was signed, it was done with the Tibet governement. Just because now Tibet givernment is in exile, does not mean the treaty should be scrapped.
We undertand China has some reservations on the region called "Arunachal Predesh". It is also possible that British might have aplogized for the same though I do not have any idea about that. But you can't deny the fact that treaty was signed with then Tibetean governement. So please let me how Indian claims is illegal on the region?

1. i wasnt arguing whether Tibet is a part of china or not, was talking about the status of AP

2. yes it does, it was done illegally and the British has admitted it.

3. i dont deny that the Tibetan government sign the treaty, however i tried to let you know why its illegal. mainly that Tibet had no power to sign that treaty. simply put regional governments cannot give away national land, now then, was Tibet a part of china?, tibet has been a part of china since many hundreds of years ago, but during the times of turmoil tibet became like other regions, a warlord takes powers and has a high degree of autonomy. also the Dali lama thinks so and he is the leader of the Tibetan government, history agrees, ie: if i get a guy in Canada drunk and has him sign a piece of paper that says his house is now part of the US, does that make it true?

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

1. i wasnt arguing whether Tibet is a part of china or not, was talking about the status of AP

2. yes it does, it was done illegally and the British has admitted it.

3. i dont deny that the Tibetan government sign the treaty, however i tried to let you know why its illegal. mainly that Tibet had no power to sign that treaty. simply put regional governments cannot give away national land, now then, was Tibet a part of china?, tibet has been a part of china since many hundreds of years ago, but during the times of turmoil tibet became like other regions, a warlord takes powers and has a high degree of autonomy. also the Dali lama thinks so and he is the leader of the Tibetan government, history agrees, ie: if i get a guy in Canada drunk and has him sign a piece of paper that says his house is now part of the US, does that make it true?

Friends, we need to look at it from the Indian point of view.

Regardless how they ended up with the land, they are unwilling to forgo it without getting some 'compensation' in return. We can trade them "Aksai Chin" for "AP" plus technology + $$$$ + goodwill. They end up winning in the end, because it wasn't their land to start with.

 

[Nemesis]

1. AP is a part of india because the tibetian government agreed NOT the chinese government and since the leader of tibet himself agrees tibet is a part of china those agreements are null and void having no legal standings in the first place

The Dalai Lama may or may not agree whether Tibet is a part of China. What he has said is that Arunachal pradesh is not a part of Tibet, but India. Fact.

As far as the SWW question, whether the British government was legitimate or otherwise but the fact remains British India fought against the Axis powers and it could also be argued that without the British Indian armies involvement, the allies would not have won in North Africa.

 

[R.A.W.]

3. i dont deny that the Tibetan government sign the treaty, however i tried to let you know why its illegal. mainly that Tibet had no power to sign that treaty. simply put regional governments cannot give away national land, now then, was Tibet a part of china?, tibet has been a part of china since many hundreds of years ago, but during the times of turmoil tibet became like other regions, a warlord takes powers and has a high degree of autonomy. also the Dali lama thinks so and he is the leader of the Tibetan government, history agrees, ie: if i get a guy in Canada drunk and has him sign a piece of paper that says his house is now part of the US, does that make it true?

By the same logic Pakistan has been a part of India for long. So will it be legitimate to claim whole of Pakistan because we signed the pact with Jinnah and he is no more in power.

 

[grey boy 2]

By the same logic Pakistan has been a part of India for long. So will it be legitimate to claim whole of Pakistan because we signed the pact with Jinnah and he is no more in power.

R.O.W. ; I expect a better post from you than this.

Simple answer to your your post;

Did Jinnah admitted the partition was illegal and appologized ?

 

[R.A.W.]

R.O.W. ; I expect a better post from you than this.

Simple answer to your your post;

Did Jinnah admitted the partition was illegal and appologized ?

See the problem here is with the perception about how Chinese sees it and how it is seen by Indians.

The element of AP becoming part of India ....... India sees it legal on the grounds of Tibet accepting it where as China is not ready to accept the legality of the Tibeatian view on the accounts of it being a region before becoming a part of China.

But when being a independent region they took decisions which impacts the sovereignty of another nation. So how much justified would it be to claim on the sovereignty of another nation where the people of region have identified themselves as the part of India and India has identified them as their own people for past 62 years.

 

[applesauce]

The Dalai Lama may or may not agree whether Tibet is a part of China. What he has said is that Arunachal pradesh is not a part of Tibet, but India. Fact.

As far as the SWW question, whether the British government was legitimate or otherwise but the fact remains British India fought against the Axis powers and it could also be argued that without the British Indian armies involvement, the allies would not have won in North Africa.

1. but again as the dali lama is not the leader of a independent nation, and he agreed that tibet is china, he still has no power to make official what is indian and what is not. see my analogy on drunk Canadian guy.

2. British india fought the axis , yes. north africa? thats a debate for another day.

 

[applesauce]

By the same logic Pakistan has been a part of India for long. So will it be legitimate to claim whole of Pakistan because we signed the pact with Jinnah and he is no more in power.

see now there are major differences between Tibet and this. does the current leader of pakistan say pakistan is a part of india? china is under the grounds that tibet is and has been a part of china since hundreds of years past. also india signed a pact with a legitimate person in power as seen from both sides. where as the British made the treaty with the Tibetans which was viewed as never having legitimate independence. and also the British themselves have now agreed that it was illegal to do so. there are other reasons but i think you can see the difference now.

 

[applesauce]

See the problem here is with the perception about how Chinese sees it and how it is seen by Indians.

The element of AP becoming part of India ....... India sees it legal on the grounds of Tibet accepting it where as China is not ready to accept the legality of the Tibeatian view on the accounts of it being a region before becoming a part of China.

But when being a independent region they took decisions which impacts the sovereignty of another nation. So how much justified would it be to claim on the sovereignty of another nation where the people of region have identified themselves as the part of India and India has identified them as their own people for past 62 years.

1. but see china views tibet as never having been a independent nation thus it cannot make concessions to other nations. thus "before becoming a part of china" is moot to chinese leadership

2. that made be true but in turns of greater politics there is no room for that, much more is at stake here. in my view AP may never be a part of china, in the future some terms will be worked out, as it is not in CCP interest to take over a barren resource-less land anyways but their claim on the area, once of which they can legitimately defend can be use as a powerful political tool as concession of it even if it was already under indian defacto rule is a major move, similarly any perceived hardening of their stance is also a major political statement.

 

[third eye]

Was the current border between India & China objected to by the Govt in Peking in 1947 ?

If not then a Govt which came to power later in 1949 ought not to object. It would be like BD raising a border issue with India post 1971 after Pk accepted the IB in 1947.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

This thread is becoming nonsensical.

Simple as this, Bharat is ILLEGALLY occupying Chinese land. If China was occupying, say Bihar, then the situation would be similar!

Fact is simple:

You can either return the STOLEN land - or - you can wait in anticipation for the day when it will be TAKEN back. In which case, you will get a big bloody nose.

 

[praveen]

This thread is becoming nonsensical.

Simple as this, Bharat is ILLEGALLY occupying Chinese land. If China was occupying, say Bihar, then the situation would be similar!

Fact is simple:

You can either return the STOLEN land - or - you can wait in anticipation for the day when it will be TAKEN back. In which case, you will get a big bloody nose.

We are wiaiting for you

 

[grey boy 2]

We are wiaiting for you

Oh yeah; Waiting for us with your Ballistic missiles useless against

Himalayas concept ?

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

Now if India supports China, then China will support India.

What will India get out with mutual friendship?

(1) PEACE - No fear of war with the world's future superpower

(2) Land swap -- China gets access to ocean, India gets access to CAR

(3) Technology, equipment, resources, skills transfer, etc

 

[R.A.W.]

Now if India supports China, then China will support India.

What will India get out with mutual friendship?

(1) PEACE - No fear of war with the world's future superpower

(2) Land swap -- China gets access to ocean, India gets access to CAR

(3) Technology, equipment, resources, skills transfer, etc

The problem is we Indians consider India as our mother. And actually we are not of the type to offer our mother to some one else for peace and bilateral relationships as done by other nations.