Im currently too busy to write more, but let me point out your blatant flaws in your logical reasoning.
1) You claim that K&J is an India state,
and Ladakh (Little Tibet) belongs to K&J, and therefore, Ladakh is Indias.
This argument is hugely flawed, since a) it is well known that
K&J is a disputed region, on which UN has a well-known resolution. But a neo-imperialist claims it is Indias
. Nobody will give it a sh!t, but only keep it for your own consumption. b) You claim Ladakh belongs to K&J, which is again a highly disputable statement.
Little Tibet was a place initially being resided by various tribes. Authentic kings were established by Tibetan descendents and cultures are Tibetan as well. When Little Tibet was invaded by enemies, the people were less seeking help from India than from Tibet, as India, though historically strongly related with Buddhism, was hostile and callous to Buddhists, and was prosecuting Buddhists as well. Little Tibet sought help from K&J when it was in conflict with Tibet, otherwise sought help from Tibet when in conflict with K&J kingdoms.
2) You claim historical prefix Indo- implies current todays India, such that Ladakh was a part of the Kushana empire. And that the "Kushans", as one of the five aristocratic tribes of the Yuezhi, also spelled Yueh-chi,[9] (Ch: 月氏
, a loose confederation of Indo-European peoples.
Nothing is more clownishly false like that! It reflects a serious lack of historical knowledge in your neo-imperialist brain. Yuezhi, an obvious pronunciation of Chinese language, was a Xiongnu Kingdom in west of ancient China, existing in Chinese literature for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with todays India. The prefix Indo there was referring to a geographic meaning not a country.
3) You proclaimed that so in the 18th and 19th century India regained what belonged to it again.
Again, you made a fundamental error in history.
First,
there was not a country called India before 1947. The continent was ruled by numerous states and eventually dominated by British (East India Company). Dogra region was a part of residence, and was a Sikh empire. EIC saw Dogras influence, and tried to utilize it.
In August 1834, Dogra, deemed self as a second-hand colonist master as some Indians do today, invaded Dalakh with 10,000 men, and forced the King to abdicate, established a puppet ruler and made Dalakh pay an annual ransom of 20,000 rupees before leaving.
By the end of 1840, under the excuses that Dalakh did not fulfill the agreement, Dogra invaded second time Dalakh with 7,000 men, and occupied it. As Opium war erupted in East China, Gogra prepared to coordinate with their British Master in an attempt to invade Tibet.
In 1841-42 battle In an attempt to capture Tibet proper, reckless Zorawar Singh himself was killed, and his army suffered a crushing defeat. The remnants of his army fled.
Now it seemed that some Ladakhis in prison saw the chance to seek independence by playing Tibet/China card. Tibetan forces with Chinese Emperors consent fought again Dogra's troops.
History accounts diverges on this fight. From Dogra's and Landakhs records, Fighting raged indecisively for about ten days. The war was brought to an end only when the Dogra forces managed to dam up a stream and flood the Tibetan camp, after which the Tibetans surrendered. Dewan Hari Chand and Wazir Ratanu carried General Pi-hsi, the two Kalons, and some fifty other officers and men to Leh, where a peace was concluded.
From a Tibetan to Chinese Emperors report, nonetheless, depicted a different picture: Writing on December 8, 1842, he began by quoting a report from Kalon Sur-khang, covering events from early September to the signing of the treaty on the lytk Nothing whatever is mentioned concerning the Tibetan army's foray into Ladakh, and the language used strongly implies that the Dogras were attempting to invade Tibet again only to avenge the death of Zorawar Singh.
The flooding of the Tibetan camp is recounted,
but in terms of a "retreat to a higher, more strategic spot, where it was possible to resist them/ 7 It continues that the Dogras then requested peace, "and when it was found that the Shenpas [Dogras] were actually afraid of us, a truce was agreed upon." On September 17, "the officers from the aboriginal tribes of Gulab Singh and Ranjit Singh and Kashmir repented, and came with statements of
submission and also signed an agreement calling for permanent peace, and pledging never to start trouble again. Subsequently, all the enemy forces were disbanded by their chiefs."
I have presented the agreement before. If Dogra were winning, why it would submit and give up most, if not all, of its rights over Ladakh. This implies that perhaps Tibetans won big.