A Brief History of the Sino-Indian Border Dispute and the role of Tibet
Filed under:General | Tags:Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh, Beijing, British India, China, China's Border disputes, Chinese, history, india, McMahon Line, Simla accord, Simla agreement, Sino-Indian border dispute, South Tibet, tibet, UK
Add comments
After refusing to sign the agreement himself, he was made to sit in a separate room, and behind his back, was signed one of the most controversial and bizarre treaties in human history – The Simla accord.
For over a century, the intricacies of the border between India and China/Tibet have baffled scholars. In fact, the plot leading to the Simla conference and beyond actually plays just like a thriller movie or book. The sheer complexity of this problem can be judged by the fact that 36 rounds of negotiations have taken place between India and China at different levels since 1981; but they have yet to reach a settlement.
Background
The era of the late 19th century and the early 20th century was ripe with the European colonial powers finding new ways of exerting their influence in Asia and dividing it up.
Tibet was no exception. For years, many kings and empires, from Muhammad Tukluq to the British, had tried to wrench Tibet from China, with no significant successes.
Finally, the British came up with an underhand ploy to divide Tibet from within; so as to create a buffer state between British India and China; just as Mongolia had been divided and part of it made into a buffer between Russia and China. Sir Henry McMahon proposed the division of Tibet into an ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ Tibet. The Chinese representative saw through British imperial designs and smelt a rat; and thus left the Simla conference.
But the matter didn’t end there. A note was appended to the Simla accord, which contained a map showing a part of Tibetan territory as Indian, based on a thick red line known as the McMahon line. Furthermore, China was barred from any rights and privileges of the Accord with respect to Tibet.
Disputed Territories
The major territories which are disputed between these two countries can be divided into two distinct parts:
1) The Western Sector – Aksai Chin, which lies to the east of the Kashmir valley, covering an area of about 37,250 sq.km (14,380 sq.mi) – currently occupied by China.
2) The Eastern Sector – The Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which China calls South Tibet, covering an area of 83,743 sq.km (32,333 sq.mi) – currently occupied by India.
In addition to these, there are also a few small chunks of territory in between these two sectors, but they are largely irrelevant when compared to these two major distinct territories.
The McMahon Line
The McMahon line is the basis of the Indian claim to the area which was formerly known as the North-East Frontier Agency; and has since become the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. It was drawn with a complete disregard for cartographic techniques and the geography of the area. The scale was – eight miles to an inch.
As Wikipedia makes clear, “The actual treaty map itself is topographically vague (as the treaty was not accompanied with demarcation), and the treaty includes no verbal description of geographic features nor description of the highest ridges.” There is no protocol or scientific method which uses cartographic techniques to identify the geographical location of the line. The McMahon line was literally a line on paper.
Aksai Chin
Historical claims on the Aksai China area are even more dubious. There has never been any concrete demarcation of this region.
Britain was concerned about Russia’s designs in this area, and hence proposed to make the Karakorum Pass as the boundary, so as to again create a buffer between Xinjiang/China and India.
As author Neville Maxwell states,
“In early 1880s, China and India agreed the Karakoram Pass as the fixed point of boundary, while leaving both sides of the pass indefinite. In the mid-1890s, China claimed Aksai Chin as its territory, and voiced the claim to Macartney in 1896, who drew part of the British boundary in the Himalayas. Macartney presented the claim to the British who agreed with his comment that part of Aksai Chin was in China and part in the British territory. Meanwhile, the forward school of British strategist in London suggested that the British should not only include the whole of Aksai Chin, but also all the territory given to Kashmir in 1865.”
In 1899, the British proposed to China that the whole of Aksai Chin would remain Chinese territory and the boundary would be along the Karakorum range; which is the status quo as of today. The Karakorum pass falls precisely on the boundary of territory controlled by India and China, marking northern end of Sino – Indian border, known as the Line of Actual Control.
However, China didn’t reply to this proposal, something which it would regret for years. If it had, the fate of Aksai Chin would have been sealed then and there.
Nehru, for his part, appeared willing to play down the Indian claims to the Aksai Chin. He tried to delay disclosure if the news that the Chinese had built a road in the area. After the news had been revealed, he sought to play down the economic significance of the area, describing it as “barren tundra” and where “not even a blade of grass grows”. He even went so far as to cast doubt on the validity of the Indian claim to Aksai Chin.
In statements to the Indian Parliament during early 1959, Nehru pointed out that
“…during British rule, this area was neither inhabited: nor were there any outposts, …….this place, Aksai Chin area, is distinguished completely from other areas. It is a matter for argument which part belongs to us and which part belongs to somebody else. It is not clear”.
Britain’s Flip-Flops
Around that time, it was understood by the British government that Tibet forms part of Chinese territory. According to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, both players of the so called ‘Great Game’, Britain and Russia, had decided to negotiate with Tibet only through China. According to the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, Britain was “not to annex Tibetan territory”. British Journalist Neville Maxwell states that McMahon had been instructed not to sign bilaterally with the Tibetans if China refused.
But that was exactly what McMahon did, previous promises be damned. Britain and Tibet signed the agreement themselves without Chinese knowledge, and was thus rejected at first by the British government in London. (Later however, its stance seems to have changed; and then changed again in 2008, as discussed below). Tibet welcomed this treaty because it would give further credence to what it thought was its ‘sovereignty’, even if it came at the cost of territory. Accordingly, the purpose and content of these exchanges had to be kept secret, and not only from the Chinese.
Britain seems to have taken upon itself the self-appointed role of Tibet’s Guardian. In the 1940s, British officials in India pointed out to Anthony Eden, the then British Foreign Secretary, that China had no rights in Tibet since it had not accepted the provisions of the Simla accord of 1914 (As if it was up to Britain to decide the extent of China’s ‘right’ to Tibet!). Needless to say, the Tibetan government welcomed these intrusions.
Initially, London rejected the Simla accord as it was in contradiction with many previous agreements. But later, in 1935, some hardliners within the government convinced it to start using the line on official maps – thus officially accepting that the McMahon line was the official border between India and Tibet (and hence, later China too).
But recently in 2008, a historical 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. “
(A New York Times article about this statement, entitled, ‘Did Britain just sell Tibet?’ (as if Britain owned it!) accused the British of ‘rewriting history’ in exchange for China’s support during the financial crisis!)
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 Tibetan question and the cause of the dispute
The fact is that a large part of the border dispute hinges on the uncomfortable question of Tibet’s sovereignty. If Tibet was sovereign at the time of the Simla conference, then the treaty is legal and it serves India’s cause. If Tibet was not sovereign at that time, then the treaty is illegal and serves China’s cause.
Some activists campaigning for a free Tibet often bring up the Simla conference as proof of Tibet’s independence. Their arguments are mainly two fold –
a)The Tibetan representative signed the treaty even though he was instructed by the Chinese representative not to sign, a clear indication undermining Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.
b) More importantly, since Tibet concluded a treaty with a foreign power on its own, it was an independent country on that day.
At the time of the Simla conference, although the Tibetan government had driven out all Chinese officials from Tibet after the collapse of the Qing dynasty and declared independence, the Nationalist government did not accept this and neither has the PRC or any other government.
India had enjoyed certain privileges with regard to Tibet under the Simla Agreement, including those regarding trade and commerce. If the Simla accord is legal, then it serves India’s cause; and if it is illegal, China’s. However, when China annexed Tibet in 1951, India under Nehru recognized it as Chinese territory, thus giving up those privileges and undermining Tibet’s sovereignty (which it may have momentarily enjoyed during the time of the Simla agreement). Thus in a sense the Indian government tacitly admitted that the Simla agreement was effectively illegal, which to this day remains China’s official position. In doing so, India weakened its own position with respect to the border dispute.
The Simla agreement was signed between Britain, Tibet and China. Now, from this information, two questions present themselves –
1) If Tibet was sovereign, why was China invited at the conference at all? Why didn’t the British negotiate directly with Tibet?
2) If Tibet was not sovereign, why was it invited at the conference? Why didn’t the British negotiate directly with China?
In other words, why did China accept to attend a conference where Tibet was represented as a separate party?
The answer to (1) 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)
(2) is a bit more complicated. There are indications that the British had blackmailed the Chinese into attending by threatening to –
a) withdraw their recognition of the new nationalist government, and,
b) sign the treaty with Tibet alone if China didn’t participate, thus acknowledging that Tibet was in fact sovereign. (But later the British did this exact same thing when China didn’t agree to its terms during the conference).
Hence it is clear that Britain’s imperial designs and its policy of ‘divide and rule’ and double crossing everyone was in effect the cause of the entire dispute.
Conclusion
Surprisingly, in this complicated dispute, China has shown a remarkable tendency to restrain its own claims and even recognize the McMahon line. It is willing to ignore history and has offered to recognize Indian claims on 74% of the total disputed territory (currently controlled by India); provided India recognizes Chinese claims on the remaining 26 % (Chinese controlled Aksai Chin). In other words, while China has taken a prudent first step and is willing to convert the current status quo ‘borders’ into the international boundary. But India, on the other hand, is just not willing to even discuss the issue of compromise.
In the western sector the claim is entirely a matter of perspective, as Nehru himself admitted. 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. Which begs the question on which the whole dispute in the eastern sector is based – Does signing a bilateral treaty with a foreign power make a province sovereign?
(originally posted at India’s China Blog)
There are currently 11 comments highlighted: 66942, 66948, 67076, 67083, 67087, 67103, 67236, 67253, 67266, 67300, 67335.
March 27th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Thank you very much for the information.
March 27th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I don’t see where “legality” comes into it — the Simla Convention was legal if Tibet was independent and illegal if it was not, but that is a political question rather than a legal one. I don’t think this can tell us much about how the issue should be settled today. The simplest political solution would be a referendum in Arunachal Pradesh by district — but neither India nor China wants to create that precedent.
March 28th, 2010 at 5:39 am
Referendums are political tools to weaken enemies. According to that logic, the southern American states should be the Confederacy.
Notice how people call for referendums only when they know they’re going to win.
March 28th, 2010 at 6:16 am
One could equally well say that “legality” is a political tool to weaken enemies. In practice, anything’s a political tool in the right hands.
March 28th, 2010 at 6:22 am
“Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.” – Mao Zedong 😉
March 28th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Some corrections and pointers Maitreya:
“After refusing to sign the agreement himself..”
It is my understanding that Ivan Chen did initial the agreement, but did not put the seal of his office on it, as he said he would need the Nationalist govt to ratify it first..the Chinese govt refused to ratify it thus effectively nullifying his signature.
area of dispute
“The Eastern Sector – The Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which China calls South Tibet, covering an area of 83,743 sq.km (32,333 sq.mi) – currently occupied by India”
The PRC does not claim 2 easternmost districts of Tirap & Changlang, hence the area claimed by PRC is about 60K + sq kms only. It may be interesting to note that these two districts are claimed by Naga insurgents as part of an independent Naga country–and both districts are effectively under their shadow administration( including taxation & justice system).
#3 James
“Notice how people call for referendums only when they know they’re going to win”
true…I think China should hold a UN ref in TAR , Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, and India should hold a UN ref in Kashmir and Northeastern states ! 🙂 the very thought of it will make both governments to pi$$ in their pants LOL!
March 28th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
@ChineseInUK: Your most welcome
@Otto
“I don’t see where “legality” comes into it”
As you know, the Simla Convention was legal if Tibet was independent and illegal if it was not. Now if that’s not legality ‘coming into it’, then I don’t know what is.
It is also a political question, since it concerns the sovereignty of Tibet.
In general, I think that the question of sovereignty is political as well as legal.
The dispute hangs on the legality of the Simla accord and the sovereignty of Tibet.
@Buru
Ivan Chen did initial the agreement; but what I’ve said is that he didn’t sign it. Initialling is a largely irrelevant point here, since he did not put his seal on the agreement; and hence it was not a ‘signature’ per se.
The Chinese government refused to ratify the convention, but saying it “nullified his signature” is not quite correct, since there was no signature to nullify.
In other words, a signature or an initial, without being accompanied by the seal, is in effect invalid and does not amount to ratification or signing.
In other words, Ivan Chen didn’t sign the agreement.
I’m not sure whether or not China claims those two districts, but even if it doesn’t, the total disputed area in this sector becomes 79019 sq.kms, not 60k + sq.kms, since those two districts have an area of 2362 sq.kms each.
March 28th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Maitreya,
The reason I say it doesn’t come into it is twofold: 1) whether or not the treaty is legal is dependent entirely on a question which is realistically never going to be resolved by the various parties who have a strong opinions about it: whether or not Tibet was independent in 1914. Feel free to continue discussing that topic if you want — I think it’s interesting. More importantly, 2) I don’t think the validity of the Simla Convention should determine the status of Arunachel Pradesh. Who cares? That was then and this is now. Most national borders are determined by historical convention and the status quo; on a good day, occasionally, the countries involved will take public opinion into account.
I’m completely in favor India and China settling the dispute by China keep Aksai Chin and India keeping Arunachal.
Buru,
I think India’s position on Kashmir is that they actually would win a fair referendum, because all of the Hindus would vote to stay in India and a large minority of the Muslims would also prefer that to joining Pakistan. However, India would claim, I think, that a fair referendum would be impossible because a radical minority of the Muslims would use violence to intimidate moderate Muslims not to vote for India. I have no idea whether this claim is true or not, but it’s not obviously false.
March 29th, 2010 at 2:29 am
Maitreya,#7
1. I agree with your differentiation of a signature and an initial– i just felt you narrated the event as if Ivan Chen was simply shut out of the process– he did agree to the McMahon line, albeit reluctantly( otherwise there’s no reason why he would put his initials into the document).
2. Claimed area in AP: I think i did not elaborate here– the Chinese left out Tirap & Changlang districts in toto + a large chunks of adjoining districs most of which consist of plains. I had read in some Chinese blog a figure of about 63 K sq kms, tho I cant remember the exact figure or website. Perhaps some PRC guy can shed some light here?
Otto#9,
I would disagree with you re Kashmir ref results.I have no doubt in a fair ref they would opt to secede–either independent or less likely go with Pak( hope fellow Indians wont mind my frankness here).The Hindus and Ladakhis simply dont have the numbers. I may add here that, even tho the Indian army is quite a brutal force, it has dealt with the Kashmiri independence movement with a relative kid-glove (say, relative to how Pak/China/Yemen/Russia/Israel deals with their insurgents).
March 29th, 2010 at 2:36 am
Otto #9
2) I don’t think the validity of the Simla Convention should determine the status of Arunachel Pradesh. Who cares?
Fully agree.The PRC harping on the ‘legal’ aspects of ownership of AP as well as TAR shows the weak ground under their feet 🙂
Same goes for India too ofcourse(in other disputes)
March 29th, 2010 at 4:17 am
Buru,
At least while the current Dalai Lama is alive and well in India, China may be concerned more about the other direction of the Simla signing, that recognizing the McMahon Line amounts to recognizing Tibet’s independence in 1914. Before the Dalai Lama’s exile, the McMahon Line and AP were not much of a pressing issue, as I understand it.
March 29th, 2010 at 4:30 am
Buru,
I was imagining a referendum in which the only options are “India” or “Pakistan”. Independence would probably be a popular option if included. I was also imagining the referendum taking part only in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir. If the Pakistani side were included in the same vote, that would be much more difficult. But, by my calculations, Indian would retain control if at least ~30% of the Muslims voted in its favor (assuming that almost all of the Hindus and Ladakhis do). Like I say, I have no information as to whether that’s possible or not.
Thanks for your comments, Buru. I always enjoy your insights on India. You should get your own blog.
March 29th, 2010 at 7:33 am
@Otto
“a question which is realistically never going to be resolved by the various parties who have a strong opinions about it”
“I don’t think the validity of the Simla Convention should determine the status of Arunachel Pradesh. Who cares?”
India cares. As I had said in one of my earlier posts, China is more than willing to resolve the dispute realistically. It is willing to give its claims in the eastern sector if India gives up its claims in the western sector. But that is unacceptable to India. China doesn’t have such a strong opinion about it, and is even willing to recognize the (illegal?) McMahon line and make it the international boundary. China doesn’t care about the validity of the Simla convention as much as India does. All it cares about is settling the dispute peacefully, giving much more concessions then it receives, but it is being frustrated by India at every turn.
@Buru
“i just felt you narrated the event as if Ivan Chen was simply shut out of the process”
He was. He did not know of the McMahon line in the appendix of the agreement. He was kept in a separate room and the British and Tibetans signed the agreement themselves. It was kept a secret from the Chinese, as I’ve said in my post.
Hence, he didn’t agree to the McMahon line, since he didn’t even know that it existed. In fact, the Chinese even claimed that a month after the agreement, the British and Tibetans changed the maps without anyone’s knowledge.
“I had read in some Chinese blog a figure of about 63 K sq kms, tho I cant remember the exact figure or website”
I’m not quite sure about the authenticity of that blog then.
In any case, the TOTAL disputed area is 1,25,000 sq.kms, according to authentic sources, including both these sectors plus some chunks of territory in between.
“The PRC harping on the ‘legal’ aspects of ownership of AP…shows the weak ground under their feet”
Bringing up the legal aspects of disputed territories is the way in which territorial disputes are negotiated. The PRC most certainly does not have “weak ground under their feet”.
In any case, as I said earlier, China is willing to give up its claims on AP if India gives up its claims on Aksai Chin.
March 29th, 2010 at 7:45 am
“In any case, as I said earlier, China is willing to give up its claims on AP if India gives up its claims on Aksai Chin.”
So you’re saying then that China would prefer to have a high-altitude Tibetan desert than the fertile green pastures of Arunachal Pradesh? I don’t believe a word of it.
March 29th, 2010 at 9:00 am
@Chris Devonshire-Ellis
Yes, China would prefer to have the “high-altitude Tibetan desert” than the “fertile green pastures of Arunachal Pradesh”. That is why I said that China wants to settle the dispute peacefully, giving much more concessions then it receives.
If you “don’t believe a word of it”, then I suggest you do a bit of reading on the dispute; and that too preferably before displaying your ignorance by commenting.
March 29th, 2010 at 11:06 am
2 years back I read an article in the China Review magazine, Professor Ge Jianxiong, Director of the Institute of Chinese Historical Geography at Fudan University in Shanghai, writes: “To claim that Tibet has always been a part of China since the Tang dynasty; the fact that the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau subsequently became a part of the Chinese dynasties does not substantiate such a claim.” Ge also notes that prior to 1912 when the Republic of China was established the idea of China was not clearly conceptualised. Even during the late Qing period (Manchu), the term, China, would on occasion refer to the Qing State including all the territory that fell within the boundaries of the Qing Empire. At other times it would be taken to refer to only the 18 interior provinces excluding Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Sinkiang.
Professor Ge further adds that the notions of ‘Greater China’ were based entirely on the “one-sided views of Qing court records that were written for the courts self-aggrandisement”. Ge criticises those who feel that the more they exaggerate the territory of historical China the more “patriotic” they are.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
All published antique maps in the West going back centuries show Tibet as part of China.
including this one by the CIA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tOtVQ7cNWY&hl=en
March 29th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
@lobsang tenzin.
When the Chinese say Tibet was a part of China, it does not always mean Tibet is incorporating in China. It could mean Tibet receive Chinese culture. During the Tang dynasty, the notion of “nation-state” does not exist. China or more precisely the Middle Kingdom is not a nation-state, but a civilization-state that include many different ethnics or tribes. One can not apply the characteristic of nation-state into the Middle Kingdom, except for China which is a derivative word of the Middle Kingdom. The word nation is a European word. The Middle Kingdom existed before the introduction of this word. The existence of the Middle Kingdom is not bounded by the word nation and won’t be shape by it.
During the Tang Dynasty, the Tang Princess Wencheng married the Songtsan Gambo who is King of Tubo. The alliance between Tubo and Tang became the foundation in cultural exchange between Tibet and the Middle Kingdom. In that sense, the chinese say Tibet was part of the Middle Kingdom.
It is not until the Yuan dynasty in which the ruler incorporate Tibet into the Middle Kingdom. The Qing dynasty strengthened administration of Tibet.
I doubt the interpretation of Professor Ge Jianxiong into English is accurate. I think it have lost the meaning of his statement through translation or without the context of the Middle Kingdom history.
March 29th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
@ Bob #17: That map in the Why We Fight series wasn’t a CIA map. That movie is from 1944 and the CIA was founded in 1947. My guess was that it was the official KMT map of that time. Incidentally, I’ve linked to the Why We Fight/China series in the past, it’s really well done!
March 29th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
wuen,
I agree that the concept of the nation-state can’t be applied to pre-modern China. However, your definition, which counts any groups which were influenced by China as “part of China” is so broad as to make the term meaningless. Tibet did have significant cultural influences from China, but it had even greater influences from India (for example, the Tibetan script is based on an Indian script, not on Chinese characters), so does that mean that Tibet has been part of India for hundreds of years? In fact, Tibet has been an independent cultural centre, neither Chinese nor Indian, since the 8th century. That doesn’t mean that it has no outside influences, of course. But Korea, Japan, and Vietnam have each had much more thorough influences from Chinese culture, so are you going to say that those are all part of the Middle Kingdom as well?
No, I’m afraid the basis of China’s rule in Tibet is not social-historical but simply geo-political: strategic interest on the one hand, plus a heavy investment of national pride on the other.
March 30th, 2010 at 12:52 am
@Otto Kerner
You misunderstand some statement I stated.
“However, your definition, which counts any groups which were influenced by China as “part of China” is so broad as to make the term meaningless.”
You misquote my statement. I am talking about the Chinese view of Tibet in relation to the Middle Kingdom in the Tang dynasty. Since you are not a Chinese, you can disagree with the Chinese.
“Tibet did have significant cultural influences from China, but it had even greater influences from India (for example, the Tibetan script is based on an Indian script, not on Chinese characters), so does that mean that Tibet has been part of India for hundreds of years”
I am not referring to the language of Tibet or their belief in their religion, but to culture such as astronomical, agricultural techniques, medicines, paper making and sculpturing, as well as agricultural technicians, painters and architects. If you want to know if Tibet was consider part of India, please ask the Indian. Being part of the Middle Kingdom does not only mean the central government have a direct control of Tibet. It also mean many cultural exchange between both kingdoms.
The Middle Kingdom does not mean only one Kingdom, It exist even with many different Kingdoms such as the Three Kingdoms period or the Warring States Period in which many Kingdoms coexisted at the same time.
“But Korea, Japan, and Vietnam have each had much more thorough influences from Chinese culture, so are you going to say that those are all part of the Middle Kingdom as well?”
Korea and Vietnam was once part of the Middle Kingdom as a region or a tributary state, so it did receive the Middle Kingdom culture. Japan was never part of the Middle Kingdom but did send student to Middle Kingdom to learn from it.
“In fact, Tibet has been an independent cultural centre, neither Chinese nor Indian, since the 8th century. That doesn’t mean that it has no outside influences, of course.”
These two statements contradict with each other. A group of people who are culturally independent do not received any outside cultural influence.
March 30th, 2010 at 2:08 am
Chris Devonshire-Ellis Says:
So you’re saying then that China would prefer to have a high-altitude Tibetan desert than the fertile green pastures of Arunachal Pradesh? I don’t believe a word of it.
+++++
While the southern Himalayan slopes are more “productive”, and I’ve seen nationalists argue on those grounds with regard to the India border, it is not maintainable. The defense and infrastructure spending to get to the other side of the Himalayas won’t be worth it. However, Aksai Chin is more strategic and defensible, since it is a high linchpin outpost overlooking Xinjiang, Central Asia, and Tibet, and the entry way to the “water reservoir” for all of Asia.
March 30th, 2010 at 2:24 am
wuen,
Well, regardless of whether it is a modern view or the Tang-era conventional Chinese view, the resulting definition is still much too broad to be useful in a modern discussion. You began your comment #18 by saying, “When the Chinese say Tibet was a part of China …” and I assumed you were talking about living Chinese people, perhaps including yourself. Tang-era political theory is an interesting tidbit, but I am more interesting arguments supporting the opinions of actual living people.
“Japan was never part of the Middle Kingdom but did send student to Middle Kingdom to learn from it.”
This seems entirely arbitrary. Neither Tibet nor Japan was ruled by China during the Tang dynasty. However, Japan received a vast cultural influence, including the absorption of huge amounts of Chinese vocabulary into their language. Tibet also received significant cultural influences from China. And yet you say that Japan was not part of the Middle Kingdom, while Tibet was. On what grounds do you make the distinction?
“These two statements contradict with each other. A group of people who are culturally independent do not received any outside cultural influence.”
That strikes me as quite fanciful. By this logic, Tang China was not culturally independent, since it received cultural influence from India in the form of Buddhism.
March 30th, 2010 at 2:45 am
@Otto Kerner
“However, Japan received a vast cultural influence, including the absorption of huge amounts of Chinese vocabulary into their language. Tibet also received significant cultural influences from China. And yet you say that Japan was not part of the Middle Kingdom, while Tibet was. On what grounds do you make the distinction?”
Chinese send cultural gift to Tibet but never send any cultural gift to Japan. That is the difference.
“That strikes me as quite fanciful. By this logic, Tang China was not culturally independent, since it received cultural influence from India in the form of Buddhism.”
I never said the Middle Kingdom was a independent culturally. The Middle Kingdom include different ethnics or tribes. Each of these ethnics or tribes have their own culture or receive culture from other part of the region.
“Well, regardless of whether it is a modern view or the Tang-era conventional Chinese view, the resulting definition is still much too broad to be useful in a modern discussion. You began your comment #18 by saying, “When the Chinese say Tibet was a part of China …” and I assumed you were talking about living Chinese people, perhaps including yourself. Tang-era political theory is an interesting tidbit, but I am more interesting arguments supporting the opinions of actual living people.”
Living Chinese still refer to Tibet as being part of China since ancient time. When you read or hear the following statement: “Tibet has been part of China since ancient times”, the word “ancient time” start from the 7th century and the word “part” mean the Chinese consider Tubo Tibet to be equal to the Tang Dynasty just like during the Warring States period when all six kingdoms were equals to one another. This time instead of sending warrior to battle, it send a princess to Tibet to form a alliance against common threat.
From the 7th century until today and toward the future, the history of the Middle Kingdom include the history of Tibet.
March 30th, 2010 at 4:11 am
lobsang tenzin Says:
2 years back I read an article in the China Review magazine, Professor Ge Jianxiong, Director of the Institute of Chinese Historical Geography at Fudan University in Shanghai, writes: “To claim that Tibet has always been a part of China since the Tang dynasty; the fact that the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau subsequently became a part of the Chinese dynasties does not substantiate such a claim.” Ge also notes that prior to 1912 when the Republic of China was established the idea of China was not clearly conceptualised. Even during the late Qing period (Manchu), the term, China, would on occasion refer to the Qing State including all the territory that fell within the boundaries of the Qing Empire. At other times it would be taken to refer to only the 18 interior provinces excluding Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Sinkiang.
Professor Ge further adds that the notions of ‘Greater China’ were based entirely on the “one-sided views of Qing court records that were written for the courts self-aggrandisement”. Ge criticises those who feel that the more they exaggerate the territory of historical China the more “patriotic” they are.
+++++
This is interesting. I’ve seen some rather old maps and I think it’s true that the Qing court had a more vague notion of sphere of influence, but only until it had to make treaties with Western countries. This is seen in earlier European maps of China, which variously showed China as consisting of a core region labeled as simply, “China”, or a larger region that included Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, and usually labeled as the “Chinese Empire”. Tibet and Xinjiang were sometimes even labeled “Chinese Tartaristan” or some such, presumably because nobody knew who lived there. My point is, this was modeled after empires of Europe’s own familiarity, with the inner core and outer appendages.
How did “China” under Qing actually work? I argue it is more like the United States model. The United States, as it expanded, did not distinguish between static regions that were core and appendage. Instead it distinguished between states and territories that were dynamic. Territories were land owned by the country that simply had not been organized into states yet, but for the contiguous territories anyway, they did, eventually. By the mid-1800’s at the latest, the situation in Qing records is this:
There were 19 provinces, 18 traditional ones plus Xinjiang, which was newly organized from some prior administrative units of “routes”. Manchuria and Inner Mongolia were “banner reservations”, with a different political organization, and Outer Mongolia and Tibet were “territories” to be organized. Usually the nearer part of the territory first becomes a district, then upgraded to a province. Qing did subdivide Outer Mongolia and Tibet into province-like regions, which for Tibet were Chuanbian District (Kham), Qiangzang/Wei (U), Houzang (Tsang and Ngari), and Qinghai Territory (Amdo or Kokonor). Later, the Republic of China inherited all of this and there was a lot of continuity to the process. Qinghai was upgraded to a province, and Chuanbian District was upgraded to Xikang Province.
Note that the likes of Korea, Southeast Asia, and Ryukyu were tributaries or protectorates under Qing, which were a rung further away politically, even though they were culturally closer traditionally. So it is not so wishy washy. There was a clear political and administrative organziation that defined what was within the state of China and what was simply under cultural influence. These were two different things.
March 30th, 2010 at 6:01 am
@ wuen, the chinese concept of Middle kingdom always bemused me and it’s really interesting.
“During the Tang Dynasty, the Tang Princess Wencheng married the Songtsan Gambo who is King of Tubo. The alliance between Tubo and Tang became the foundation in cultural exchange between Tibet and the Middle Kingdom. In that sense, the chinese say Tibet was part of the Middle Kingdom.”
Well you are talking about 7th century here, during those era the rulers as a sign of submission or bribe give away their daughters to the rival mighty king, and even Nepal gave their Princess ‘Brikuthi Devi’ to Songtsen Gampo. Both chinese and nepalese princess, were devoted buddhist, also bought with them sacred budhist relics, text and statutes. That’s how Buddhism first came into Tibet. Well now Nepal should also claim that Tibet was part of Nepal since Nepal king gave away Princess ‘Brikuthi Devi’ to Dharma King Songtsen Gampo, Tibetan king in 7th Century.
The first laws were promulgate in Tibet by Emperor Songtsen Gampo, they refer to the Buddhist moral laws of India, with no relation to the Confucian canon of Chinese tradition. Under the Mongolian Empire, Mongol military laws were occasionally enforced in both Tibet and China. During all other periods of Tibetan history Tibetan laws based on Buddhism were administered in Tibetan courts by officials of the various Tibetan governments. The Chinese did not think of Tibetans as accepting of their laws, and the Tibetans did not even know what laws of China were.
For your kind knowledge, the Chinese have considered the Tibetans as uncivilized barbarians since the time of Confucius. The Tibetans were among the serious dangers to the Chinese, part of the reason for the building of the ‘Great Wall of China’. Tibetan armies conquered the then-Chinese capital at Chang-an in the eighth century. Good relations with the Tibetans were considered important by Mongol emperors, such as Kublai Khan , and Manchu emperors, especially K’ang-hsi and Ch’ien Lung, who considered the Tibetans the key to staying on the good side of the redoubtable Mongols.
March 30th, 2010 at 7:35 am
Wuen,
Do you know that the PRC’s official claim of Tibet being under chinese rule since 7th century was later changed and presently claim that it’s since since 13th century!!!…an you believe this???? China’s present claim to Tibet is based entirely on the influence the Mongol and Manchu emperors exercised over Tibet in the 13th and 18th centuries, respectively.
As Genghis Khan’s Mongol Empire expanded toward Europe in the west and China in the east in the 13th century, the Tibetan leaders of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism concluded an agreement with the Mongol rulers in order to avoid the otherwise inevitable conquest of Tibet. They promised political allegiance and religious blessings and teachings in exchange for patronage and protection. The religious relationship became so important that when Kublai Khan conquered China and established the Yuan Dynasty, he invited the Sakya Lama to become the Imperial Preceptor and supreme pontiff of his empire. The relationship that developed and still exists today between the Mongols and Tibetans is a reflection of the close racial, cultural and especially religious affinity between the two Central Asian peoples. To claim that Tibet became a part of China because both countries were independently subjected to varying degrees of Mongol control, as the PRC does, is absurd. The Mongol Empire was a world empire; no evidence exists to indicate that the Mongols integrated the administration of China and Tibet or appended Tibet to China in any manner. It is like claiming that France should belong to England because both came under Roman domination, or that Burma became a part of India when the British Empire extended its authority over both territories.
Please don’t come up with the saying that Mongol empire was part of chinese empire and the great Genghis Khan empire was part of chinese, i’m quite doubtful may be the PRC’s official document on the chinese history must have claimed the same.
March 30th, 2010 at 10:16 am
To be blunt and precise about Tawang (Arunachal) issue, it was part of Tibet ruled by India and claimed by China. Aksai Chin which was historically part of Ladakh (Jammu & Kashmir) which comes under Ngari district of Tibet pre 1947. So it’s like lets kill and rape the weaker country and share it. India accepted China’s claim over Tibet in April 29, 1954. But china till date never accepted India’s claim over Sikkim (integrated in India, 1975), Arunachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir. Don’t know when the meek Indian will open their eyes and give a real blow to, China, their deceitful neighbor (earn the tag after 1962 war). If India and Britain wanted they can provide many documents for international body proving Tibet’s independence pre 1949.
Only problem is Indian government never declassified important documents of it’s oldest and biggest neighbor, Tibet ever after repeated plea by it’s eminent citizen. I’m not sure whether they can afford to do so as many parts of northern Himalayan belt were under the Tibetan influence pre 1949. I’m being very blunt here!.. 🙁
March 30th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
@lobsang tenzin
“Do you know that the PRC’s official claim of Tibet being under chinese rule since 7th century was later changed and presently claim that it’s since since 13th century!!!…an you believe this???? China’s present claim to Tibet is based entirely on the influence the Mongol and Manchu emperors exercised over Tibet in the 13th and 18th centuries, respectively.”
I have never seen any document from the PRC’s official claim Tibet was under the Tang dynasty rule during the 7th century. It is not until the Yuan dynasty China proper and Tibet was under one ruler. Tibet is part of the Middle Kingdom in the 7th century, it mean the Middle Kingdom have two rulers at that time.
“To claim that Tibet became a part of China because both countries were independently subjected to varying degrees of Mongol control, as the PRC does, is absurd. The Mongol Empire was a world empire; no evidence exists to indicate that the Mongols integrated the administration of China and Tibet or appended Tibet to China in any manner. It is like claiming that France should belong to England because both came under Roman domination, or that Burma became a part of India when the British Empire extended its authority over both territories.”
Do you agree that France, Britain and Italy is part of the Europe. The concept of the Middle Kingdom is similar to Europe in some aspect. For this reason the Yuan Dynasty is also part of the Middle Kingdom. The people of Middle Kingdom cherish unity over splitting. peace over war. The Yuan dynasty and the Qing dynasty provided unity and peace among the different ethnics. Their legacy will not be forgotten and are part of the Middle Kingdom history. Any group of people who unite the people under heaven and pacify the region of China will become part of the Middle Kingdom. The Imperial Japanese had a chance to rule the Middle Kingdom during the period of instability from the Opium War to before the Second World War, except they fail to unite the people in China. Only a good leader can unite people and bring peace. If the leader is bad, the Middle Kingdom will fragment again.
“If India and Britain wanted they can provide many documents for international body proving Tibet’s independence pre 1949.”
What time frame are you talking about in pre 1949. There was a time when Tibet was not united at all until the 7th century. Tibet was many independent Kingdoms similar to the Warring State Period. Please be more accurate on the date and provide proof of these documents. Do these documents have a name like the Simla Accord of 1914.
March 30th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Dude,
PRC recognized Indian sovereignty over Sikkim in 2003.
BTW, the Great Wall does not face Tibet. It faces Inner Mongolia.
March 30th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
@Maitreya Bhakal – thanks, but I’ve been to the region extensively. We happen to disagree, but I don’t deserve to be labelled ‘ignorant’, . After all, I run a business in both of the countries concerned, have done for nearly 20 years, and am a UNDP advisor to part of the region. Civility, especially from the author of the piece, would be appreciated. Thank you. I’m sure it was just a slip.
@ Nimrod – you quote: “While the southern Himalayan slopes are more “productive”, and I’ve seen nationalists argue on those grounds with regard to the India border, it is not maintainable. The defense and infrastructure spending to get to the other side of the Himalayas won’t be worth it. However, Aksai Chin is more strategic and defensible, since it is a high linchpin outpost overlooking Xinjiang, Central Asia, and Tibet, and the entry way to the “water reservoir” for all of Asia.”
Nimrod, Aksai Chin is a dry desert, there’s little water there. No water resources to fight over, no major rivers tumbling down. It was the summer palace for the previous Kings, not even they stayed for the winter. Its arid except for spring summer melts. As for Arunachal Pradesh, its very fertile and fairly low altitude. The border is marked by the convergence of two huge rivers. I’ve been to both areas, and the Chinese side has excellent roads and infrastructure. The city of Nringtri for example is booming. Really I think if you’re going to write about these areas it might be wise if you can visit them before you pass judgement please. Its a nice subject, but if you are going to be knowledgable please do your personal research.
@My Mother – Good call. However you’ll find that the Great Wall (despite it being most memorably placed between Beijing and Shanghai in one of the Raiders of the Lost Ark films) actually faces Hebei Province. I fly over it many many times en route to Outer Mongolia, and Inner Mongolia is quite a long way to the west, but curls around a bit at the top. Its only an hours drive from downtown Beijing, which shows how close it is. I should know – I live there. The wall is about four miles down in sea level terms and approximately 4,000 km from Lhasa.
I ran a series on the border disputes on 2point6billion recently if you’re interested (not to take anything away from this article, but if people want to do research), the main one with loads of similar related links and history, so on is here:
“China-India Border Disputes: Aksai Chin, China’s Kashmir”
http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2009/04/16/china-india-border-disputes-aksai-chin-china%e2%80%99s-kashmir-1291.html
March 30th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Chris Devonshire-Ellis,
I was of course referring to the Tibetan Plateau, to which Aksai Chin is — as I wrote — an entry way.
Modern day travellers don’t leave the beaten trail. It’s much more fascinating to read some accounts from a hundred years ago, like this:
A Journey to Northern Tibet and Aksai Chin
Review: Sven Hedin and Dutreuil de Rhins in Central Asia
A Journey in Mongolia and in Tibet.
Dutreuil de Rhins was a Frenchman who was killed by Tibetans near modern-day Yushu in Qinghai, and you get the sense from these travelogues that China controlled Tibet in the sense of entry and exit and administering justice where it mattered, though it was kind of like the Wild West for the most part, and that the area around Lhasa was like a Tibetan reservation left to its own devices.
Here is a foreign account (1894) from the third article, for example:
I recommend reading.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
@Chris
“but I’ve been to the region extensively”
When have I ever said that you haven’t? And what has that got to do with the article?
“After all, I run a business in both of the countries concerned, have done for nearly 20 years, and am a UNDP advisor to part of the region”
This is not the place to advertise yourself. Again you are providing unnecessary details which have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion. Also, I think that someone of your credentials ought to know about the east-west swap deal which has been proposed by China on many occasions. I’m quite surprised that you don’t.
Moreover, if you hear someone else say it, then atleast verify whether that person is true or not, before saying “I don’t believe a word of it”.
“Civility, especially from the author of the piece, would be appreciated.”
The word “ignorant” is not uncivil, in any sense. I do hope that you know what “ignorant” means. It means ‘lacking knowledge’.
In this case, the word is quite truthful. You are ignorant, and one would be lying if one said that you aren’t. In fact, “ignorant” would be putting it rather mildly, especially for someone who is a “UNDP advisor”.
You were simply ‘ignorant’ of the fact that China has proposed the swap on a number of occasions to India. I never said that you purposefully said that “you don’t believe a word of it”, its just that you didn’t know, in other words, you were ‘ignorant’ about it.
You choose to falsely label a word as “uncivil” simply in order to hide your own mistakes.
“We happen to disagree, but I don’t deserve to be labelled ‘ignorant’,”
So what you are saying is that if you hold a view which is wrong, you simply “disagree” with the person who holds the right view, instead of admitting that you in fact were ignorant about the truth.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Chris Devonshire-Ellis,
Your disagreement with Maitreya does have traces of ignorance. Maitreya comes up with his conclusion on the basis of analyzing verifiable historical records and facts. Until you can provide your own version of reasonable analysis other than merely throwing in statements like “I don’t believe a word of it”, I am afraid that you are a bit ignorant.
Your alleged extensive travel to the region, running of businesses and the role of UNDP advisor, etc. have nothing to do with the border dispute issue in discussion.
March 31st, 2010 at 5:35 am
let me give my two cents here. I am also interested in the issue and post in my blog, however they are in Chinese.
Maitreya Bhakal’s questions on the three participants are quite smart and sharp. The answer to the questions is: upon the time of 1914, Tibet is regarded as neither an independent country nor a province under republic China. Althought Lhasa govt seeked an independence declaration by Simla convention, British Indian govt didn’t support it. Actually Simla convention is not a document about Tibetan independence, it recognized both China’s suzerainty over Tibet and Tibet’s autonomy. Then Republic China govt didn’t like it but it had to accept this position. The most significant reason of Chinese govt’s veto of the treaty was, they didn’t like the border line between Tibet and inland China.
PRC govt doesn’t want to recognize either McMahon line or Simla convention, because they disagree the term “suzerainty” which implies some extent of Tibetan independence. PRC used the word “traditional control line” while the line is not traditional at all. Until 1947, Lhasa govt still dispatched lama official to Dawang temple and this district; but India govt drove him away.
While HHDL gave up Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet in his recent Dawang visit, PRC govt didn’t have strong position on the claim. However, Beijing still want Dawang since that’s the born place for the 6th Dalai Lama. As for the Aksai Chin, it is in the way of Xinjiang-Tibet Road. In the history, the issue was first time brought up by the construction of the road to backup weak Tibet transportation. Before that, the area is remote and out of radar of both China and India govt. That strategy road is the reason why PLA retreated from hard-supply Dawang area while stayed in Aksai Chin.
Maitreya, maybe you’re the best one to explain Indian govt’s position on the issue.
March 31st, 2010 at 6:07 am
@Matrieya, CC, If you don’t agree with me, then fair enough. So I’ll leave it up to you guys to continue the thread in your own fashion. Which seems to mean you’re always right and never wrong. Which is OK, its your blog. However I was expecting a bit more balanced debate on the issue. But never mind.
@Nimrod – great recommendations btw – and I do have them, courtesy of those wonderful old bookstores in Delhi. Part of research into my next book on travellers in the region, and especially between India, Tibet & China. I agree, a lot of the British accounts are interesting when considering China’s claims. I just think the Indians were never expecting a Communist driven government on their doorstep. That changed everything. From Tibetan Buddhism to Atheist Communism is quite a leap.
March 31st, 2010 at 6:11 am
Thanks for the comment, David. Maitreya, you’ve mentioned that China is willing to give up Arunachal Pradesh for Aksai Chin on this and another thread. Could you supply some documentation in support of this as China’s position? I think that would answer Mr. Devonshire-Ellis’ skepticism and then we could all move along. 🙂
@ CDE #31: If you live in Beijing, why are you posting from Hong Kong?
March 31st, 2010 at 6:22 am
wuen,
“Living Chinese still refer to Tibet as being part of China since ancient time”, etc., etc.
I know that they do. What I am interested in hearing is a relevant argument for why they do, since this claim is, on the face of it, just plain wrong. The arguments I have heard from you so far are that a) “it does not always mean Tibet is incorporating in China. It could mean Tibet receive Chinese culture”, but this makes the definition of “part of China” much too broad to be meaningful; and b) people in the Tang dynasty thought of Tibet as being part of China, which (even if it’s true) is completely irrelevant — “argument from what some people used to think a long time ago” is not an actual argument.
What I think is going on is that you will simply define “China” and “part of” as whatever you need to in order to make the statement “Tibet was part of China since ancient times” a true statement … because you want it to be true. This sort of wordplay might be merely bemusing, except that living people today are liable to hear it and, not understanding that it is wordplay, try to draw conclusions about the modern world on that basis. For instance, they might reason, “Since Tibet has always been part of China, therefore it is only natural that it should continue to be ruled by the current Chinese government,” even though this is nonsense, because you yourself have said that “part of China” doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with being politically united. It’s like reasoning that Poland has always been part of Europe, so therefore Germany should rule Poland.
For another example of the faulty logic that could result from your failure to employ 正名, you say, “The people of Middle Kingdom cherish unity over splitting.” Someone could easily draw the conclusion from this that, because Tibetans are part of the Middle Kingdom, therefore they cherish unity with China. However, even though love of unity is the dominant trend in Chinese political thought, obviously that doesn’t mean 100% of the people will agree on a principle, and there’s no reason to assume that Tibetans would follow the same trend as the majority. One could equally well argue that because Chinese people traditionally speak Chinese, and Tibet is part of China, therefore Tibetans traditionally speak Chinese.
March 31st, 2010 at 7:16 am
@Steve – I post in Hong Kong courtesy of that wonderful invention known as “Air Travel”. I have an office here. I spend most of my time, if you must know, between my family in Beijing (and my various offices in China), my business in India (tomorrow I am off to Delhi) and inbetween usually in the US or elsewhere in emerging Asia (Mongolia, North Korea and Primorsky Krai). Its normal for people to occasionally work from other places. You can check me out here, if you really want to know more: http://www.dezshira.com/chris-devonshire-ellis.html If you guys (including Maitreya) would like to meet up sometime for a beer to discuss these fascinating issues face to face I’d be honored. My contact details are in the link. I’d also like to hear Maitreya’s position on the Aksai Chin versus Arunachal Pradesh issue. Last official comment I heard the Chinese were keen on the latter rather than inheriting a desert. – Chris
March 31st, 2010 at 11:00 am
Chris Devonshire-Ellis,
1. “If you don’t agree with me, then fair enough”, I don’t agree with THE WAY you disagree with other people.
2. “So I’ll leave it up to you guys to continue the thread in your own fashion. “, the thread will continue, but hopefully not in the fashion that “I don’t believe a word of what you say, but I can’t be bothered to provide any explanation (because I have traveled extensively, are running multiple businesses and are/were an UN advisor.).”
2. “Which seems to mean you’re always right and never wrong”, a cheap shot?
3. “Which is OK, its your blog”, It is NOT my blog, another cheap shot, I am afraid.
4. “However I was expecting a bit more balanced debate on the issue. But never mind”,
if that is your intention, it is surely welcomed. However, so far you have not demonstrated any of that kind of intention in your comment in relation to the issue that you don’t believe a word of it.
It seems that your style of balanced “debate” is as follows: no matter what you say and what evidence you provide with regard to the issue in discussion, my conclusion is simple and final: I don’t believe a word of it, and no explanation is needed. If you dare to say that I am ignorant of the issue in discussion, I’ll show you my silver bullet(s), see No.2 and/or No.3 above.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Ok, ok, as I said, I leave it to you. I don’t need the hassle, and I certainly didn’t come here for an argument. I just posted my opinion, that all. Isn’t that what blogging is about? I won’t bother commenting or visiting here any more if it upsets you so much. No-one needs the aggro, and I have other things to do. Thanks – Chris
March 31st, 2010 at 2:41 pm
@Otto Kerner #38
The following statement: “Tibet was part of China since ancient times” does not have any legal implication. It is how the Chinese feel toward Tibet. You are free to disagree with it. It will be pointless to continue to argue about it. It is not the legal aspect that is important but the consequence of it. This point of view prevent any sane Chinese ruler from massacring Tibetan or destroying their culture.
“For another example of the faulty logic that could result from your failure to employ 正名, you say, “The people of Middle Kingdom cherish unity over splitting.” Someone could easily draw the conclusion from this that, because Tibetans are part of the Middle Kingdom, therefore they cherish unity with China. However, even though love of unity is the dominant trend in Chinese political thought, obviously that doesn’t mean 100% of the people will agree on a principle, and there’s no reason to assume that Tibetans would follow the same trend as the majority. One could equally well argue that because Chinese people traditionally speak Chinese, and Tibet is part of China, therefore Tibetans traditionally speak Chinese.”
The concept of the Middle Kingdom is derive from the old concept of 天下. This old concept translate into everyone under heaven. People who believe in this concept aspire for unity and peace with their neighbor. It is what drive the thinking of enlightening Chinese. Enlightening ruler of China never have any though of expanded territory to increase wealth or prestige. It only need to expanded if it could bring peace to the land and to prevent war from falling into the town, village or city.
By applying the old concept of 天下, the current government of China is willing to exchange territories with the Indian government which benefit the Indian in term of size and wealth but will benefit China in term of lasting peace with India. People who does not understand the concept of 天下 will not understand the reason why Chinese government is willing to give up territories.
March 31st, 2010 at 3:22 pm
@ Chris #39: Thanks for joining the blog. We get a lot of people who show up here under false pretenses; that’s why I asked you about the posting. I checked out your site so I do apologize.
I guess my question to both you and Matrieya is for both of you to back up what you say. Chris, you say you don’t believe a word of it. Why not? Matrieya, you called Chris ignorant yet you have not backed up your claim that China has proposed an Aksai Chin for Arunachal Pradesh swap. If you question his statement and ask him to back it up, why not apply the same standard to yourself? I think there’s been a bit too much name calling in general.
@ wuen #42: I don’t question your position but as Otto pointed out, I also question your logic. His examples logically follow from your statements. Logic isn’t relative, it’s absolute. Your statement of the Chinese position is accurate but your conclusion based on that position is illogical. That’s all he was pointing out. That’s also why I highlighted his comment. Arguing from an illogical conclusion is an argument build on a house of cards.
March 31st, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I second Steve in asking Maitreya to back up his repeated categorical assertions that China wants to exchange Aksai Chin for Arunachal ; I dont remember any PRC official saying it, or even hinting it directly. If they did say it, it proves that AP is not ‘historically’ Chinese territory as nobody barters their own territory, but their colonial possessions.
Chris:
your inputs are appreciated. would you please give a comparative description of what you saw in AP and the Tibetan areas bordering AP in terms of economy/income/infrastructure/freedom/etc ??
March 31st, 2010 at 3:46 pm
@steve
Applying the rule of logic to a opinion or a point of view will lead to confusion. I point out in my post at #42 this statement is a point of view and have no legal implication.
“I am talking about the Chinese view of Tibet in relation to the Middle Kingdom in the Tang dynasty. Since you are not a Chinese, you can disagree with the Chinese.”
This statement at #21 express a point of view. No need to apply the rule of logic. We have here a misunderstanding between us. You see it as a true or false statement, I see it as a opinion. A opinion is relative to the person who hold the view, that is why it can be agree or disagree. Everything that derive from this statement is a point of view. I have given the reason why the Chinese hold this point of view. This does not need to be absolute. There are a lot of belief in this world which are not absolute in religion, social life, government system, etc.
March 31st, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Steve,
Here is an extract from “India’s China War” By Neville Maxwell
During his visit to India in April, 1960,
“Chou En-lai reiterated that the Sino-Indian boundary question had been left over from history, and not created by either of the two Governments: it was “only an issue of a limited and temporary nature” and it was “entirely possible to achieve a fair and reasonable overall settlement.” China was proposing “reciprocal acceptance of present actualities in both sectors and constitution of a boundary commission.” China would accept the McMahon alignment in the western sector, while India would accepted the positions then obtaining in the west. There would be no physical withdrawals involved, as the forward posts on both sides were far apart, but India would drop the claim to Aksai Chin. “
March 31st, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Buru,
Please note that NOBODY would make a compromise offer official unless they are sure that they will get some reciprocal offer. In this case, India has offered nothing.
So, I don’t think China could/would go beyond giving some hint of compromise/swap deal.
March 31st, 2010 at 4:13 pm
“If they did say it, it proves that AP is not ‘historically’ Chinese territory as nobody barters their own territory, but their colonial possessions.”
This is exactly the attitude which can destroy any hope of a compromise/negotiation.
March 31st, 2010 at 4:33 pm
#48 This is exactly the attitude which can destroy any hope of a compromise/negotiation.
..is this also a hint that the current Chinese position on AP is a purely bargaining tactic and has no real basis 🙂 ?
March 31st, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Buru Says:
March 31st, 2010 at 4:33 pm
#48 This is exactly the attitude which can destroy any hope of a compromise/negotiation.
..is this also a hint that the current Chinese position on AP is a purely bargaining tactic and has no real basis ?
+++++
Or it may be a hint that Aksai Chin and AP have about the same real basis, inasmuchas they were problems created by the British randomly drawing lines in the sand without regard to historical facts or ethnic composition, but for strategic reasons; the only difference of course, being the actors involved have actually voted with their feet on the ground and have taken what was important and defensible to them and not more. It wouldn’t be because they did not want more if offered on a plate, but they did not actually take more.
At least from the Chinese side, there is plenty of evidence that the status quo, perhaps with some minor adjustments, is acceptable. Matreiya has analyzed it extensively in this and the other post, but I’ll repeat one. For example, after the 1962 war, China withdrew to the current LAC and offered again to negotiate on those basis. China’s main concern, I believe, is indeed of simply legitimizing the Simla Accord (and thus Tibetan independence) by default, rather than have a new document with India defining the border casting aside the basis used by the two countries’ predecessors. Chris Devonshire-Ellis, on the other hand, believes AP is more important to China due to its fertility. Now that is something we do not find support in official discourse ever, but only in internet nationalist sentiment. So take what you will from that.
Is there a possibility they could still move borders by force, the two being nuclear powers? I don’t think so, unless you are counting on the collapse of one or the other. So even from a pragmatic point of view, the LAC has got to be very near the acceptable solution.
March 31st, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Trailer for 1904: The British Liberation of Tibet
The British army battles Chinese imbecility and Tibetan backwardness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xuZkXwR1M
March 31st, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Pt.8 1904: The British Liberation of Tibet
The British see their indomitable patience and tolerance tested to extreme by Tibetan recalcitrance and tricky backsliding. Again they are unable to find a friendly, peaceful solution and discover to their dismay that only force is understood on the roof of the world.
The video seem to be scrambled until 1:16 mark, enjoy the exploit for the glory of the Empire and her majesty’s government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFTCCTPVgxI
March 31st, 2010 at 7:04 pm
German Documentary about Idu Mishmi people indigenous to “Arunachal Pradesh”. Watch what they have to say about themselves, their relation to Chinese and Indians (Starting at 4:45, ending at 5:47 of the Video Segment):
http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/10457669-1347372447.html
I will provide rough translation:
We, Idu Mishimi people, we do not know what is the GOD, do not know what he looks like. We have many deities not just one, we don’t know what GOD can do. To us , Sun and Moon are gods. Idu Mishimi believe that everything has spirit and soul.
People that do not belong here, we call them Anou. Our ancestors and Anou’s ancestors are sisters and brothers, so Anou is our distant relative. But we share the same ancestor with the Chinese therefore Chinese are our brothers and sisters. We are very close to the Chinese. All other people, they are all descended from different ancestors.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Buru,
“.is this also a hint that the current Chinese position on AP is a purely bargaining tactic and has no real basis”
The same can be said of the Indian position then? India wants to keep both territories in dispute while claiming there is no dispute at all. So, if China follows the Indian approach, it means China would have real basis?
What you are suggesting is: don’t offer/hint at ANY compromise before and during negotiation, which only means that you have no real basis in your claim. I wonder if there is going to be any agreement reached through negotiation in this world if everybody is following this way of thinking.
Right or wrong, China’s claims are effectively compromised by Indian’s counter claims, but remember, vice versa!
April 1st, 2010 at 12:37 am
According to the Simla accord of 1914, the Tibetan plenipotentiaries give up South Tibet to the British Raj. Is this a valid reason for the central government of PRC to exchange South Tibet for Aksa Chin? I will like to hear Tibetan opinion on this matter.
Currently do Tibetan require Visa or passport to travel to Arunachal Pradesh from Tibet? Do Chinese require Visa to travel to India? I can never find these answers in the news or articles.
April 1st, 2010 at 1:06 am
@wuen
There are only three points of entry open to travel on Chinese-Indian border, most famous being Nathula pass on Sikkim-Tibetan border. Arunachal Pradesh / Linzi area is closed off to cross border traffic for obvious reasons.
Late 1980s, a Chinese author/explorer 古子文 (Gu Zi Wen) claimed to have cross the McMahon Line several time secretly with his Idu Mishmi (Lhoba) guide in his book 深入藏地 (Deep into Tibet). Apparently Lhoba people frequently cross the border to visit their relatives on the other side. Gu Zi Wen accompanied one Lhoba he befriended on such a trip. Of course, this was done without knowledge of either Chinese or Indian border patrols.
If you can read Chinese, here is a online excerpt on GuZiWen’s excellent adventure south of McMahon Line
http://www.uc321.net/main/?action_viewthread_tid_5587.html
April 1st, 2010 at 1:47 am
@CaoMengDe
Thank you for your information. I did not know Arunachal Pradesh / Linzi area is closed off to cross border traffic. Neither did I know how many point of entry exist between India and China.
It is good to know the current dispute between India and China does not affect the Lhoba people from visiting their relatives from the other side of McMahon Line.
I have problem understanding the travel log of GuZiWen because I cannot read Chinese fluently.
April 1st, 2010 at 5:27 am
@Wuen to Otto Kerner # 42
Hello Wuen!…you blogging from china or outside?well i highly reccommend you to read the history not dictated or designed by your PRC government drawing conclusion all the way to Han chauvinism. My friend, you are living in your own dream of middle kingdom and i urge you to consult beyond your state monitored history because in the history book available to you the sources portrayed most countries with whom the emperor of China had relations, not only Tibet, as vassals of the emperor. It’s highly appreciated to be patriotic, your country needs people like you, but be so knowing the real history.
Well Wuen! your concept of Middle Kingdom is like that of Nazi, full of chauvinism, “It is what drive the thinking of enlightening Chinese.”
“Enlightening ruler of China never have any though of expanded territory to increase wealth or prestige. It only need to expanded if it could bring peace to the land and to prevent war from falling into the town, village or city.”
Now you are contradicting yourself here, everybody knows that the ‘Great Wall of China’ was build for the protection of it’s citizen and territories from plunders and ravages by the OUTSIDE rulers or tribe, we can clearly see that it wasn’t build around whole of East Turkistan, Tibet and also Jilin province of China, are they not part of china, as you claim now???
“It is not the legal aspect that is important but the consequence of it. This point of view prevent any sane Chinese ruler from massacring Tibetan or destroying their culture.” Do you know the history of ‘the Great Wall of China’?? at what cost was it build? and do you know for the first time in Tibetan history, 2000 years old recorded history, from 1959 – 1961 thousands of Tibetan died thanks to the ‘Great Leap Forward’, do you know during that time 30 million chinese also died? With the invasion of Tibet, 1.2 million tibetans were killed and 6000 monasteries and educational centres destroyed. Check out Manchuria, they do have their own dialect and way of living!.. presently how many younger generation of Manchu knows their own culture and language??? everybody and every culture deserves to be given respect and right to function as yours too.
April 1st, 2010 at 6:22 am
@my mother “PRC recognized Indian sovereignty over Sikkim in 2003.”
DUDE, wake up!!!…if you are chinese it’s so sad to know that you don’t follow what and how your government is functioning or dealing with other countries. Everybody knows that in 2003, during the visit of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, china proudly claim that sikkim is part of India. But have you gone through various official map of chinese? well check both Indian and chinese official map and you’ll know the big difference.
Leave the map, do you know about the ‘Panchsheel Agreement’ (Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence) signed in 1954? and attacked India without any remorse or respect for the treaty in 1962.
April 1st, 2010 at 7:00 am
@ Wuen, here is a link to the treaty between Tibetan King and Chinese emperor during Tang dynasty for your kind reference, and the stone pillar mentioned is still there in front of Potala palace… http://www.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/821822TreatybetweenTibetanChina.pdf
April 1st, 2010 at 9:30 am
@ Wuen
“According to the Simla accord of 1914, the Tibetan plenipotentiaries give up South Tibet to the British Raj. Is this a valid reason for the central government of PRC to exchange South Tibet for Aksa Chin? I will like to hear Tibetan opinion on this matter.
Currently do Tibetan require Visa or passport to travel to Arunachal Pradesh from Tibet? Do Chinese require Visa to travel to India? I can never find these answers in the news or articles.”
for the above information kindly go through the India-Tibet Frontier 1914 – Exchange of notes between the British and Tibetan Plenipotentiaries, check the link below. hope it’ll be your good reference.
http://www.claudearpi.netmaintenanceuploaded_pics1914ExchangeofnotesbetweentheBritishandTibetanplenipotentiaries.pdf
Well China and India being totally different country they both needs visa to travel to each other country and Tibetan people inside Tibet needs visa from Indian embassy in Beijing to travel to Arunachal Pradesh.
Well my friend these issue will never be solved without great mutual understanding from both china and india government. there was no such actual map demarcating Indo-Tibet border, for centuries Tibetan consider India ‘GURU’ (Birth place of Lord Buddha) hence always lived as very good neighbor, other than Mcmohan Line and it was based totally on river and mountain ranges ‘cos it’s not possible to go to ground level and cross mountain to mountain to demarcate the boundary.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:42 am
@ cc #47
“Buru, Please note that NOBODY would make a compromise offer official unless they are sure that they will get some reciprocal offer. In this case, India has offered nothing.
So, I don’t think China could/would go beyond giving some hint of compromise/swap deal.”
CC India sell off it’s oldest and most trusted neighbor, Tibet, for their own National interest in 1954 with Panchsheel Agreement. India backed their newly found friend PRC for the seat in U.N at the cost of dismay to Formossa (Taiwan). what more do you want? how many times PRC promised to help India get permanent seat in UN, but never. That’s also fact my friend.
What do you think everytime Indian Prime Minister visit’s china they have to sign that ‘Tibet is an inalienable part of china’ and the interesting part is when Vajpayee Ji visited china in 2003, he changed his previous colleagues statement from ‘Tibet is an inalienable part of china’ to ‘Tibet Autonomous Region is inalienable part of China’ started all these PRC’s game of claiming Arunachal and Aksai chin. Because Indian consider TAR (created in 1965 by PRC, which Vajpayee Ji knows that Tibetan never recognise it) only the Tibetan area of U-tsang but the PRC’s TAR map shows part of Arunachal, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Jammu & Kashmir. well now the interesting part of this devious game is even if India give up lets say both Arunachal and Aksai Chin, they’ll further demand for Himachal and Uttarakhand !!!…haha…man you don’t know that PRC is good at claiming their neighbors land. In addition they only raise such issue when they fear their authority is getting question from within china. just cross check the timing of issuing such statements & creating hype and also domestic developments inside china.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:34 am
lobsang tenzin,
I don’t think there is anything either meaningful or constructive in your comment with regard to the issue in discussion (however dramatic and sensational it is). So, I am afaid that I have to disappoint you here that I won’t get myself involved in a street fight style of slogan shouting competition which you are surely eager to take part in.
Now, you can continue your “China is bad, Tibet is good” rangzen ranting.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:11 pm
@cc
truth always prevail !!! you got no argument to state here, hence it’s acceptable for such meaningless allegation.
April 1st, 2010 at 3:27 pm
@lobsang tenzin
Thank you for providing a translation of the treaty between Tubo and Tang kingdoms in AD 821-822.
This treaty is not valid anymore because all the condition in which they are base does not exist when the two kingdoms end. New treaty have been enacted since then and the border of both territories have change. This stone pillar is used to remind the good relationship between the Tubo Kingdom and Tang Empire. The relationship in the treaty describe as Nephew and Uncle.
Their are some mistakes in the translation. It used the word “countries” when is should be “kingdoms”. It also used the word Tibet and China which did not exist at that time. It should be Tubo Kingdom and Tang Empire. I wonder how authentic is the translation. I think the Tang Emperor would not accepted to be address as a King in the treaty.
April 1st, 2010 at 3:36 pm
@lobsang tenzin
“Well China and India being totally different country they both needs visa to travel to each other country and Tibetan people inside Tibet needs visa from Indian embassy in Beijing to travel to Arunachal Pradesh.”
How can Beijing issue a Visa for Arunachal Pradesh to Chinese citizen when Beijing also claim Arunachal Pradesh as South Tibet. I don’t believe your statement. I need proof or someone who is credible.
April 1st, 2010 at 3:42 pm
@lobsang tenzin
“CC India sell off it’s oldest and most trusted neighbor, Tibet, for their own National interest in 1954 with Panchsheel Agreement. India backed their newly found friend PRC for the seat in U.N at the cost of dismay to Formossa (Taiwan). what more do you want? how many times PRC promised to help India get permanent seat in UN, but never. That’s also fact my friend. ”
This statement is not a fact. You mixed fact with your opinion.
“CC India sell off it’s oldest and most trusted neighbor” and “newly found friend” and “the cost of dismay” and “how many times PRC promised to help India get permanent seat in UN, but never”
These phrases above express an opinion or point of view, it does not state a fact.
“Well Wuen! your concept of Middle Kingdom is like that of Nazi, full of chauvinism, “It is what drive the thinking of enlightening Chinese.” ”
I did not say all Chinese are enlightened. You can disagree with me, but saying I think like a Nazi without given concrete proof show your lack of sincere discussion. That then end of discussion with you. I don’t address to people with this type of thinking.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Cao Meng De
#53 “German Documentary about Idu Mishmi people indigenous to “Arunachal Pradesh”
for some reason the video is not opening 4 me..is it taken in Tibet or Arunachal? Idu Mishmi are called Yidu Lhoba in China.
#56 “Late 1980s, a Chinese author/explorer 古子文 (Gu Zi Wen) claimed to have cross the McMahon Line several time secretly with his Idu Mishmi (Lhoba) guide in his book 深入藏地 (Deep into Tibet)”
is the map given in your link(posted in 14th feb 2010) with 1988 written in bottom the routes of Gu Zi Wens travel( marked in red lines)?
if you are studying the Lhoba on your side I am very eager to exchange notes, as I am a ‘Lhoba’ from Arunachal Pradesh and am doing some study myself. Of course nobody call themselves ‘Lhoba’ ethnic here in AP, we have our own true names. Thanks for your input.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:51 pm
CC @ 54 said “The same can be said of the Indian position then?” absolutely pal…both China and India are bartering fruits from the stolen tree (to use Lobsang Tenzins words!) 🙂
April 1st, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Wuen,
I am afraid that you are getting yourself into a meaningless debate (assuming we can still call it a debate) with a guy whose only intention here is to divert the initial discussion of India/China border dispute to the Tibet Independence issue, where he/she will, surprise, surprise, start his/her highly beloved and opinionated rangzen ranting. You better prepare yourself to receive more personal and/or racial attack should you continue to “debate” with our rangzen fighter.
April 1st, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Wuen #66
“ How can Beijing issue a Visa for Arunachal Pradesh to Chinese citizen when Beijing also claim Arunachal Pradesh as South Tibet. I don’t believe your statement. I need proof or someone who is credible.”
Beijing simply issues a visa for India, then the Tibetans will make their way to Arunachal after landing in some airport 🙂
#57 “It is good to know the current dispute between India and China does not affect the Lhoba people from visiting their relatives from the other side of McMahon Line.”
it does affect friend..as only few cross the border at their own risk. Anecdotal stories I heard says that both sides let a little bit of unofficial crossovers, esp for the elderly people. Usu ppl goes from AP to Tibet for supplies or to meet relatives, and ppl from Tibet crossing stealthily to AP are usu political or criminal runaways. Throw in a few spies from both sides for good effect 🙂
April 1st, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Buru,
You could say that if you are a follower of the Tibet Independence movement. Other people may have different opinions. However, I don’t think this is irrelevant to what is being discussed. The issue is what is China’s offer in the border dispute which should be a matter of verifiable fact. You are talking about opinion, which can differ from person to person. Your god might be another person’s devil.
April 1st, 2010 at 5:33 pm
@ lobsang tenzin#58: Comparing wuen to the Nazis is way out of line. wuen is one of the most polite, well-mannered bloggers we have and certainly did not say anything that warrants the comparison. I’ll collapse similar comments in the future.
April 1st, 2010 at 6:31 pm
@cc #70
You are right, the discussion started at post #16 deviated from the original topic of discussion. I should have not participated in this deviation by answering back. Thank you for reminding me.
April 1st, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Buru,
It’s nice to make your acquaintence. Wow, I must say it’s refreshing to talk to the real owner of the land in dispute. Let’s definitely exchange notes!
What terms do your people use to refer to yourself, if I may ask because I am curious to know?
Chinese government adopted the term “Lhoba” from Tibetans, as I understand it’s kind of a blanket term for people living in the area, who are not either Tibetan or Monpa. “Lhoba” on Chinese side of the LAC actually composed of several groups:
崩尼（Bengni）、博嘎爾（Bokar）、納（Nga）、米古巴、米新巴（Misinba）、德根（Tagin）、希蒙（Shimong）、巴達姆（Padam）、民榮（Minyong）、尼西（Nishi）、迦龍（Bengni Gallong）、登尼（Tanii）， And 布瑞（Puroik；「蘇龍」，”Sulung”）、義都（Idu）等部落
Chinese ethnic classification scheme was carried out in 1950s under the new Communist government. I am not too familiar with the actual process, but let’s just say that it leaves a lot to be desired. Deng people (僜人) in the same region http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_%28ethnic_group%29 for example still falls under “Undistinguished” ethnic minority groups for political reasons.
I don’t know what happened to the linked video. It stop working for me as well, luckily there many Chinese video sharing site. Here is the same video hosted in another site:
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/QUL557qX1Do/
Above is the 2nd part of the documentary, following is the 1st part:
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/Z2SzCuEfwN0/
I actually translated from the Chinese subtitle on-screen, so I don’t know how accurate is the actually Chinese translation. Maybe you could tell us what the elder really said : )
is the map given in your link(posted in 14th feb 2010) with 1988 written in bottom the routes of Gu Zi Wens travel( marked in red lines)?
Yes.
FYI, I am just an amateur interested in the history and people of AP/Linzi area. They are quite a few knowledgeable people posting on that page if you read Chinese.
Btw, I have just watch some Chinese travel segment on Monpa and “Lhoba” settlement north of McMahon line. I could dig up the link if you are interested.
April 1st, 2010 at 6:52 pm
..is it taken in Tibet or Arunachal?
Arunachal, but I got some videos taken in Tibet if you are interested
April 1st, 2010 at 7:06 pm
The Tibet issue certainly deserves discussion, a lot of discussion. But perhaps it should be left for another post. I see this discussion is getting to nowhere and everywhere.
April 1st, 2010 at 8:12 pm
#75 Cao Meng De,
Thanks. To answer your questions:
1.Lhoba : you have yourself given a list of ‘Lhoba’ tribes in Chinese side.Bengni is a branch under Nyishi ( formerly called Dafla). Bokar is a branch under Adi (formerly called Abor). Nga is called Na , a branch under Tagin . Shimong , Padam and Minyong also come under Adi.Nish i= Nyishi. Tanii =probably Apatani. Bengni Gallong = probably a mistake, as there is Gallong ethnic, which is different from Bengni(Nyishi). Puroik/Sulung are called by same name here too.Idu= Idu Mishmi . I dont know what is Misinba ??
Deng/Dengba of China= called Digaru Mishmi here!
Note: Sulung/puroik is a totally distinct group; again Idus are totally distinct. The rest of above list are from same origin and has mutually intelligible languages(called Tani group). So grouping them all 3 groups under Lhoba is totally wrong.
2.Video: I am amazed u guys taking so much interest in it wow! Unfortunately I am from Tani group so the tongue in the video( Idu Mishmi) is as foreign to me as to you 🙂
3.GuZiWens map : wow I had heard rumors of Chinese ‘spies’ travelling in AP seems it had some basis 🙂 He seems to have entered AP via Kepang La near Gelling, then travelled down to Tato area then back up via Monigaon valley, crossed the Dom La into the Nanyi valley Tibet? In any case the travel is in Bokar & Ramo areas, far away from Idu Lhobas..
4.Travel segments/videos : I am very interested to have links from Tibetan side, esp from the Tani group ‘Lhoba’. If you can put me in touch with any English-speaking ethno-scholar dealing with the subject on your side I will give my mail..
April 1st, 2010 at 10:33 pm
lobsang tenzin Says:
@my mother “PRC recognized Indian sovereignty over Sikkim in 2003.”
DUDE, wake up!!!…if you are chinese it’s so sad to know that you don’t follow what and how your government is functioning or dealing with other countries. Everybody knows that in 2003, during the visit of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, china proudly claim that sikkim is part of India. But have you gone through various official map of chinese? well check both Indian and chinese official map and you’ll know the big difference.
+++++
I have to correct this. Search on the internet for Chinese map and Sikkim, you’ll see all sorts of people scratching their heads wondering what happened to China’s neighboring country “Sikkim”, which disappeared from maps like this one:
April 1st, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Wow, Thanks for the info bro!
It seems that I make a mistake about identity of the people that Gu Zi Wen visited. I re-read the passage, he called the tribe 达额木 (which in Chinese is pronounced DaLaMu or DaLoMu ). The place he visited is called 米古 (which in Chinese is pronounced MiGu) which he mentioned has a Indian airstrip nearby. There is a public house in the village where unmarried young people gather to socialize that’s where he spend the night with his ‘Lhoba’ friend as guest/visitor to the village. A ‘DaLoMu’ girl visiting his friend at night at the public guesthouse…
He mentioned big social tranformation in MiGu in last 60 years… Many young people left to go to big Indian cities like Mumbai or abroad…some history…King of 波密 (Bomi) …defeat by Tibetan Kashag government forces…
There seem to be a lot Indian influence, esp, in terms of youth culture. As guest Gu and his friend were entertained by a performance of Bollywood dance by local girls. He asked his friend why they didn’t perform traditional ‘Lhoba’ dance. His friend told him that traditional dances were usually performed by Shamans, every few common people does it and much less modern girls.
I am amazed u guys taking so much interest in it wow!
Well Sun Tsu says “know yourself and know your enemies, you will emerge victories in hundred battles!” Just Kidding!
If you can put me in touch with any English-speaking ethno-scholar
Unfortunately I am a complete amateur. the poster 找不到服务器 (Can’t find Server) seem very knowledgeable on that linked page but I don’t know if he speaks English or not. I will find out for you. Gu Zi Wen himself maintained a blog at http://sclsdengwei.blog.163.com/
I had heard rumors of Chinese ’spies’ travelling in AP
There is now a Chinese dude who seem to entered into AP thru official channels and posted some pictures in his blog
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_4043832_1.html
He claim to be the first Chinese in AP since 1962, haha, he didn’t know about previous ‘spies’
April 1st, 2010 at 10:59 pm
CaoMengDe,
In your link, people say Gu Zi Wen made up his account by using publicly available information, but it may be a competitor discrediting him.
“d001 (2010-2-13 13:46:47)
我问过古子文了，我说论坛上有人说他文章里所描述的这些章节是虚构的，我还想问问他更多的情况，怎奈此人爱理不理，最后他说是虚构的，也不知道是真是假。”
I guess more than spies, now that people are rich and leisurely, there is a little cottage industry of Chinese amateur travellers/explorers who try to visit various forbidding places before others.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Chinese ethno-scholar on “Lhoba”:
李坚尚, 刘芳贤, 姚兆麟
Above three are the top Chinese expert on “Lhoba”. One of their common gripe is that they are unable to do field research south of McMahon line where most of “Lhoba” actually lives.
米古巴(Miguba)、米新巴（Misinba） are terms used by Monpa to describe “Lhoba” people of a certain area. There is a debate on whether they are distinct group or just part of 达额木 (which in Chinese is pronounced DaLaMu or DaLoMu ) group.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Nimrod,
I saw that. Gu Zi Wen’s description of his travels is quite detailed. I am not gonna rush to embrace this allegation unless I see more definite proof that he fake the account.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:46 pm
For those that read Chinese, the comments in the following posts explain Yidu (Idu Mishmi) legend of sharing common ancestor with the Chinese.
义都部落和汉族是亲兄弟
http://www.uc321.net/main/?action_viewthread_tid_6996.html
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 am
Thanks Nimrod (79). I wasn’t going to respond. My sentiment mirrors that of cc(63). But I appreciate it nonetheless.
April 2nd, 2010 at 4:29 am
#80 Cao Meng De:
1. Thanks for details. Gu Wi Zen seems to have been near Dloma village which has an airstrip in Mechuka valley nearby.
2.Indian Influence yes. esp Hindi film culture.Too much in fact–it has spoilt the language and culture.To add to the woes, both Christian and Hindu missionaries have been overactive, esp the former.
3.”He claim to be the first Chinese in AP since 1962, haha, he didn’t know about previous ’spies’”
perhaps not? Some Chinese Petroleum engineers entered AP a few yrs back after initial dilly-dallying by our Govt. Also I am aware of Han ethnic( but not PRC citizen) entering AP several yrs back as a local guys fiancee..
4.Chinese scholars studying Lhoba: well even we would like to access our bretherns in China, but would PRC allow us physical access? Pl give me their contacts if u can dig out. Mine is gautamabuddha15@gmail.com
for ur interest several ppl from Arunachal have also visited PRC–Yunnan, TAR, Xian, Beijing etc –the feedback is said to be good 🙂
5.”or those that read Chinese, the comments in the following posts explain Yidu (Idu Mishmi) legend of sharing common ancestor with the Chinese. “
would you pl explain it if u got time? I think its not a big deal.Most of us here can directly trace our descent from Tibet..including geaographical features.
April 2nd, 2010 at 5:11 am
Buru,
The legend quoted in that post basically said there were two brothers (born of a father who initially refused to marry their mother and hid in a tree, long story, haha…), the elder representing the ancestor of the Chinese and the younger representing the ancestor of the Yidu, and they had a falling out so the elder brother took some of the belongings and left but said he would carve a mark on a tree wherever he passed. Later the younger brother discovered many old marks on trees so he knew the elder brother travelled very far already so he went back home. The main idea is that they parted ways in the region around western Sichuan, which is the putative ancestral homeland of the Sino-Tibetans several thousand years ago, and where one of the oldest Sinitic tribes of historical record, the Qiang, lived.
April 2nd, 2010 at 5:32 am
By the way, I think this is all very interesting stuff. There are many unexplored Sino-Tibetan languages in the Yunnan-TAR-Myanmar-AP corridor. I know historical linguists who try to look back in time to reconstruct Proto-Sino-Tibetan are keen to collect as much data on them before they go extinct. I think some Chinese scholars are particularly interested too from an anthropological perspective, because this region may hold the key to tell us the true beginnings of the Chinese and related peoples.
April 2nd, 2010 at 5:40 am
@ Nimrod: Cool legend. I agree, this is all very interesting, especially as I know so little about this area. I sure appreciate all your comments along with everyone else who’s contributed.
April 2nd, 2010 at 6:19 am
Buru,
Pl give me their contacts if u can dig out.
I will do my best.
well even we would like to access our bretherns in China, but would PRC allow us physical access
Well technically, you don’t need visa to go to China since China claims AP : ) But in practice you have to be a little resourceful to reach your bretherns.
Aforementioned Chinese dude wanted to go to Tawang. He flew to India but he found out that he needs a speacial permit to go to AP and the permit seem to be issued only to Indian citizens. He hang around eventually befriended an AP local who after some trials got him the permit.
You could probably do something similar.
You go to China, you can fly to the airport in Nyingchi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyingtri_Prefecture
You might need to get a special permit to visit Tibet (standard procedure just cost money). Once there on the ground, you are free to roam around. Need special permit to go really close to the border but if you have a local friend, might not be difficult to sneak around.
Following is a travel segment from a popular show from Guangxi Television where they seek out cute girls at each place for interview. The following clip had a Monpa man as guide, they first seek out a “Lhoba” girl:
http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/15434991-1502988561.html
She mentioned that in their tradition, girls are not suppose to shoot arrows but she made her brother teach her. She talks about being first girl from her village to go to school in Beijing, time spend there with her sister. She talked about her mother. About missing home when sing the Chinese song “Tibetan Plateau” Then she sings “Tibetan Plateau” in Chinese.
http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/15441885-1502988561.html
In the second clip, she show herbal gathering at a place full of medicinal herbs. Then they move on to interview a Monba girl who works at the Nyingchi airport
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:09 am
CMD
Aforementioned Chinese dude wanted to go to Tawang. He flew to India but he found out that he needs a speacial permit to go to AP and the permit seem to be issued only to Indian citizens. He hang around eventually befriended an AP local who after some trials got him the permit.
well, if he befriends a local he can coolly go into AP without anything, as persons with Mongoloid looks will be allowed entry without any questions, on presumption he is local from AP.Ur links does not open again 🙁
But ya, Nyingchi is where our ancestors come from..
Nimrod #87,88:
thanks 4 the insight. It always intrigued me as to how many of our religious images wear accoutrements resembling the ancient Chinese or Mongol warriors(esp hats, swords)..esp since we dont wear or knew such items in our present location..
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:13 am
Thanks Nimrod for the translation! I will do the long version.
There are actually two version of the story mentioned here.
First version:
Long time ago, around Batang region there lived two brothers.Elder bro is called DuoLong and Younger called DuDu. There were nine suns in the sky, Earth burned, Trees died and Rivers dried up. Two brothers couldn’t make a living. So they worked together to shoot down suns from the sky. Seven suns fell. One sun was blinded in the eye, only other one was left intact. So the blinded sun darkened and become the moon.
After only one sun was left, Moisture returned to Earth, Leaves sprout on trees, Rivers flow again. Two Brothers decide to split up to start new life. Elder brother stayed and his children became Chinese, Younger took long knives, grain and seeds started Southeast, Then West eventually settled in Anini in today’s AP. He had 6 sons. They are 占贡 (ZhanGong)、拉通(LaTong)、依什来(YiShiLai)、依流文(YiLiuWen)、依流蹦(YiLiuBeng) and 厄柯蒙莫(GeHeMongMo) All Yidu (Idu Mishmi) came from the 6 sons.
The first version sounds suspicious like the Chinese legend of Ho-Yi the archer
Second Version:
Long time ago, there was a huge earthquake. Only a Father and Son survived. The father buys a wife for his son from afar because no local females are around. Son does not want marry this woman. He went hiding in the tree. Father finally found him but son refuse to come down to marry the girl. Enraged, Father chopped down the tree.Son reluctantly marries the woman. He had two sons from this union. Elder one called DongOng who is the ancestor of the Chinese, Younger is called Dudu who is the ancestor of Yidu(Idu Mishmi). When both are grown, they hunt together. One day, they found a huge snake egg, They put the snake egg on fire and went out to hunt. The snake egg bursted open and turned to dust. When brothers came back, they all suspect the other one ate the egg. They had a falling out. The Elder took some of the best stuff and left, He left his brother two big knives. Before he left, Elder told the Younger, “I am going to faraway place, I will marked the trees on my path. When you miss me, just follow the white knife mark.” Many years past, Younger one missed his brother. He tried to followed the knife mark on the trees but the mark have turned dark with age and some became obscure. He knew his brothers had already gone far and will be hard to find. Younger one had to returned home. That’s why Yidu calls Chinese brother.
The above stories are taken from this book 赵胜启《走过藏东南》，193-195页，云南大学出版社，2005年5月
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:23 am
Buru,
hmm… the links worked for me. I think you gotta be a little patient for the video to load
Here is a very first test landing of aircraft at Nyingchi airport, shot from the cockpit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXJ-UZH998U
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:49 am
Here is a documentary put together by couple of film school students about Road to Medog (墨脱) the last County in China that’s not connected by all season roads.
Medog (墨脱) is very close to the MacMahon line.
The girl in the group is a Monpa borned in Medog (墨脱). She takes the crew to visit her home.
They started from Nanking, taking the Qinghai-Tibetan railway to Lhasa and then Sichuan-Tibetan Highway to Nyingchi and then walk on foot to Medog (墨脱).
There had been previous roads that were build to Medog but they keep on being washed away by floods and buried by landslide. China is currently burning lots of cash blasting a tunnel thru the Himalayan range to build a all-season road that would connect Medog (墨脱) to the outside world, should be complete probably next year.
Part I
http://v.ku6.com/show/ceg1-K3it0OAhHVR.html
Part II
http://v.ku6.com/show/54MWVHRCdioMVlcG.html
Buru, the links should work but it takes some time to load the video.
April 2nd, 2010 at 8:24 am
Note around 7:06 mark of part II video segment, they are getting close to the border, so they have to process border documents where they use the chance to interview the PLA soldier
April 2nd, 2010 at 8:59 am
@Chris (#36)
Again the same thing. Instead of all this, if you would just make some effort and VERIFY the facts for yourself using the internet, then it would save us both a lot of trouble.
“Which seems to mean you’re always right and never wrong”
When have I EVER said that I am ALWAYS right? Now you are simply putting words in people’s mouths. In fact, that statement actually applies to you. You seem to think that you are always right – You don’t admit your mistakes; and when someone points them out to you, you falsely label that person as thinking that he is “always right”!! To say that you are bringing up a strawman argument would be an understatement.
In fact you should be thanking us for pointing you in the right direction.
“I was expecting a bit more balanced debate on the issue”
So this is your idea of “balanced” – saying that “I don’t believe a word of it”!
Look around you – FM is full of open discussions with people arguing on both sides. But when someone comments on a thread, it is expected that they KNOW atleast the basics of the matter. If they don’t, then all they have to do is ask. You, on the other hand, simply “don’t believe a word” of the truth, and then say that you want to have a “balanced” argument!
So it appears that not only the word “ignorant”; but you don’t know the meaning of the word “balanced” too.
Needless to say, you are more than welcome to comment here, but it would be advisable to READ a bit on the matter before commenting. And if you don’t, well, you can simply ASK, instead of bringing up strawmans and simply dismissing others’ opinions.
——————————–
@Buru (#44) and all others who want evidence:
The Indian government has ADMITTED the fact that China is willing to drop its claims in the eastern sector if India does the same in the western sector.
There is plenty of evidence and documentation regarding the swap deal. But the sad fact that is that it has become mired in a sea of misinformation, especially in the Indian media.
1) I consider one of the most authoritative sources to be M. Taylor. Fravel, an MIT expert on China and China’s border disputes:
http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/oct/13/slide-show-1-china-has-settled-all-land-border-disputes-except-with-india-and-bhutan.htm#contentTop
2) A declassified 1964 CIA report on the dispute says:
[The Chinese] conveyed their message publicly by requiring of New Delhi a “mutual accommodation”–
apparently an exchange of claims to the NEFA and the Aksai Plain.
3) Neville Maxwell too says as much in his book, “India’s China War”.
There are many other sources too, but I think that these should suffice as a start.
———————
@davidpeng
Thanks for the comment. I see that your answers to the two questions are largely compatible with and in some agreement with the answers/points which I have raised in the article.
You are absolutely right in saying that the Simla convention is not a document about Tibetan independence.
“PRC used the word “traditional control line” while the line is not traditional at all”
What they meant is the Line of Actual Control, which coincides for the most part with the McMahon line in the eastern sector, which was the status quo then; which, with some minor changes, persists today too.
Regarding Tawang and other issues –
You might be interested in an earlier article of mine which discusses the negotiating stances in some further detail and perspective:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2010/03/10/you-scratch-my-back-but-i-won%E2%80%99t-scratch-yours/
Original here: http://indiaschinablog.blogspot.com/2010/03/you-scratch-my-back-but-i-wont-scratch.html
You also might want to check out the comment sections in both places.
Specifically this one on the FM link in which I reply about Tawang:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2010/03/10/you-scratch-my-back-but-i-won%E2%80%99t-scratch-yours/#comment-65668
In short, the negotiating stances of the two countries can be summed up, with tongue firmly in cheek, as follows:
INDIA: British India signed a treaty with Tibet, which we inherited. In that treaty, we get Arunachal Pradesh. Even if we don’t recognize Tibet’s sovereignity now, we still recognize the McMahon line. (Indian claims on Aksai Chin are even more dubious – MB)
Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India (a favourite line of the Indian government, with even the Left parties saying it – MB) and China is under illegal occupation of Indian territory (Aksai Chin).
To hell with compromise! We want to win votes! And we will only echo nationalistic sentiments. (voice lowered) If we compromise, we will surely be voted out. The public (which they brainwashed – MB) will never allow us to compromise, and we want to keep it that way (obviously – MB)
CHINA: Tibet was not an independent country in 1914 and hence the Simla agreement is illegal.
But we can keep arguing till eternity like this – about the historical claims of both countries.
But to hell with history! Let’s come to an agreement. We are willing to settle the dispute with the principle of “mutual compromise” (in fact, more mutual on our side than yours). We are willing to drop our claims on the POPULATED portion of the disputed territory, all 74% of it. You keep your population, and you keep your votes in that population. We only want the desert of Aksai Chin, which even Nehru described as a “barren tundra” and a place where “not even a blade of grass grows”; and more importantly, admitted that Indian claims on that territory were “not clear”. Yes – We only want THAT barren desert land, only 26% of the total disputed territory, and not the “fertile” land of AP. (We don’t give a damn about AP’s fertility.) In short – we are willing to let go of MUCH MORE territory than we get.
Needless to say, we can clearly see what’s happening here.
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:38 am
@Steve
“Matrieya, you called Chris ignorant yet you have not backed up your claim that China has proposed an Aksai Chin for Arunachal Pradesh swap. If you question his statement and ask him to back it up, why not apply the same standard to yourself?”
Naturally it is to be expected that a grown man, especially one who has written about the dispute, has travelled to “both regions extensively”, is a “UNDP advisor” to part of the region, should be able to look up the evidence himself, and hence I would have waited until he found it out. But now it has become abundantly clear that he is not interested in having a healthy debate, and won’t do any research on his own.
Also, I didn’t give the evidence earlier because Chris did not ask me for the evidence per se, but simply dismissed it and “didn’t believe a word of it”.
In fact, the swap deal is a very BASIC thing and is the centerpiece of the negotiations.
As far as the people who regularly frequent FM are concerned (like Buru etc.), I was assuming that they knew about it, since no one raised any questions about this in my earlier article/thread, where I had discussed this issue in even more detail.
In any case, refer to my previous comment for the evidence.
April 2nd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
@ MB#97: Thanks for the response. I read the rediff article in your comment #96 and I found it to be very informative. I knew that the basic compromise had been offered to Nehru but I did not know that Deng had also offered it during his time in power. That article offered an explanation why China would push stronger claims to AP; they are simply responding to India’s sector by sector negotiating tactic.
April 2nd, 2010 at 5:16 pm
CMD #92:
The Tani group of tribes have a very similar story( of Ho-Yi archer)..but there were 2 suns scorching everything on earth…thus one sun was shot down by the best archer( a spirit) after which the remaining sun refused to rise leading to total darkness .The sun which was shot down lost its radiance and became the moon.This is the gist..its a long story.
Also we have similar story re origin of 2 brothers–one went south and the other stayed north( which we presume to be Tibetan)..
CMD # 93: Nyingchi airport: whew..the approach-path seems scary .In Arunachal we dont have a single commercial airstrip..but we do have commercial chopper services in the main towns (after one try I decided against a repeat–as choppers were rickety n rusting)
CMD #94 &95 : Medog/tunnels/pemako et al : wow..I like the decisive way in which Chinese make roads on their side. Our side the road-making is very tentative and patchy. In fact the only road reaching the McMahon line on northern side is Tawang-Bumla road..and this road was made by China in less than 2( yes two) months during 1962 war hoohoo! (after PLA retreated the Indian army is using it..and its still in its original state)
April 2nd, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Maitreya,
thanks for your effort. Hope the dispute is settled early–one way or the other. The cleft-stick is starting to get weary for us.
April 2nd, 2010 at 6:06 pm
@Buru:
“Also we have similar story re origin of 2 brothers–one went south and the other stayed north( which we presume to be Tibetan)..”
A research paper that explains the relationship between the Sino-Tibetan people and the other Asian groups: Migration of Sino-Tibetan people:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8dkq1943nr0xrmp3/fulltext.pdf
The study of the paper suggests that the Tibetans and the Hans split around 5000-6000 years ago. So I think the two brothers were Han and Tibetan, where Lhoba split from Tibetan later time.
April 2nd, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Al 101″The study of the paper suggests that the Tibetans and the Hans split around 5000-6000 years ago. So I think the two brothers were Han and Tibetan, where Lhoba split from Tibetan later time.”
Grrr..u need to purchase the article. But I personally feel the ‘Lhoba’ split from the Han if appearances are anything to go by– having seen plenty of Tibetans and Tibetan-kin races( eg Bhutanese, Sikkimese, Monpas, Membas, Khambas)–I can form a sort of stereotype ‘Tibetan’-origin as being relatively tall & wellbuilt, with typical round facial profile & chubby cheeks. The Han-origin types ( eg Zhang/Manchu/many Yunnanese/dai) are relatively shorter and lightly built, with a more elongated oval face..and the Lhoba is closer in looks to latter than former.Hope i am not appearing ridiculous here 🙂
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Being that the story of the two brothers is mythological, that would suggest that there were strong trade relations between the two regions during the time the myth was created to explain the bond between the cultures. I’d think the mythology would be different than the actual migration from one area to another if that happened such a long time ago.
April 2nd, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Buru,
To my untrained eye, Dress and custom of Tani/“Lhoba”/Idu seemed to be closer to the people of Northern Burma (esp. the area ceded to Burma by China acknowledging southern section McMahon line) and Western Yunnan than Tibetans. Geographically these regions are connected and share the same features.
Nyingchi airport was build because China is promoting tourism in the area, esp Nyingchi as a “soft” entry point to Tibet. Because of the lush vegetation and lower altitude (Nyingchi airport is 3000 meters above sea level vs Lhasa airport which is 4000 meters above), there is more oxygen so Lowlander Chinese do not suffer high-altitude sickness unlike in Lhasa. There are plans to extend the Qinghai-Tibetan railway to Nyingchi from Lhasa. Long term plans is to connect Nyingchi to railways to Yunnan or Sichuan province.
Nyingchi airport approach is indeed bit hairy, here is another clip of the test flight. You can hear the plane’s alarm system going off (In English!) due to the proximity of Mountains nearby. Apparently after this they had to custom made a special approach procedure just for landing at the Nyingchi airport. Anyway this was done in 2006. By this year, there are two type of passenger aircraft certified for Nyingchi airport (Boeing 757 and Airbus A319).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0AECb0if9M&feature=related
Medog/tunnels/pemako is part of the huge Chinese stimulus package designed to cushion Chinese economy from the global recession and build infrastructure. Almost 2/3 of the package went to building of national high speed railways. On purely economic basis, it will be hard to justified the investment into Medog/pemako/tunnels. Same can be said of the Qinghai-Tibetan rail. But of course more than economic reasons are factored into these infrastructure developments.
One side effect of 1962 border war is the that Nyingchi now hosts a large PLA garrison. Infusion of Han Chinese soldiers has had an impact on the local culture. Seat of Nyingchi county is Bayi town (八一镇), becomes the only Chinese town to name after PLA (Bayi/八一 means august 1st, is the founding day of the Chinese Communist Army, a symbol of PLA). The Monpa girl in the second video link of post #90 for example have served in PLA as well as her mother before her.
Because in the old days, members of 18th army of PLA were required to station in Tibet for extended period of time (basically for life because since they enter Tibet in 1950, they had to put down Tibetan rebellions in late 1950s, fought 1962 war etc.), it’s not uncommon for soldiers to marry local women. Famous Tibetan blogger Woeser and Tibetan-Chinese singer Han Hong, for example, are products from such union. Mandarin is now the lingua franca in the region.
Chinese government pairs different region in Tibet with other Chinese provinces whereas the latter will be responsible for infrastructure improvement of the paired region. Nyingchi is paired with wealthy provinces of Guangdong and Fujian. Consequently Nyingchi have been build up by Cantonese and Hokkienese in much the same style as Guangdong and Fujian. Many visitors have commented that Nyingchi (really Bayi town) looks like any other Chinese city rather than having its own ethnic flavor.
Just curious what are the impact of Indian Army garrisons on local population of AP?
April 2nd, 2010 at 9:48 pm
We are all from Africa!
I think the most common confusion is that people tend to mix language groupings with DNA inheritance. The two are NOT necessarily correlated. Sino-Tibetan and Indo-European are language groupings. There is something called elite-dominance theory which states that small number of elite could impose their language and culture on the subject population. Example is Turkey and Iran. The historical and cultural consequences of the Turkic invasion of Anatolia were profound while the genetic contribution of the Turkic people to the modern Turkish population seems less significant. Even though Persian is archetypal Indo-European language, recent genetic discovery surprisingly shows that Persian-speaking Iranian do not exhibit the archetypal Y-chromosomal markers of Indo-Europeans. Mostly likely reason is that population density of West Asia was already sufficiently high enough at the time of Turkic and Indo-European invasion that the invaders couldn’t drastically change the DNA makeup of the local population unlike the case of say North America.
National Geographics has a excellent site on human migration of different patrilineal and matrilineal descent.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html
80%-90% of males of East Asia has Haplogroup O maker on their Y chromosome. O group (M175) is known as East Asian Clan , and is subdivided into O1, O2 and O3. O1 and O3 are prototypical Chinese patrilines (80%-90% of Han Chinese males) and O2b is associated with Korean and Japaneses (20% of Korean and Japanese male).
O3 is actually most widespread across entire East Asia. Other than Han Chinese, 40% of Manchurian, Korean, and Vietnamese males, about 33.3% of Filipino males,.., 16% to 20% of Japanese males etc..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O3_%28Y-DNA%29
While 40 % of Tibetan males are of O3 lineage, 60% are of lineage D (M174) the Coastal Clan.
Of course, matrilineal descent is a whole another story, for example Han Chinese do not have an uniform matrilineal descent.
April 2nd, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Buru Says:
Grrr..u need to purchase the article. But I personally feel the ‘Lhoba’ split from the Han if appearances are anything to go by
+++++
I’ve uploaded the article. Don’t tell Springer 🙂
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/fulltext.pdf
It’s not a particularly well written article in my view, and some stuff is pretty speculative, but the genetic comparisons are there at least for those interested.
Now a bit of personal musing:
One thing I try to keep in mind is that what we know as Chinese and Tibetan today have been influenced a lot by other groups beyond the original Sino-Tibetan core both culturally and genetically. For example, Chinese history proper probably started out as a tribal union between several different kinds of people in East Asia, though the Sino-Tibetans came to dominate culturally, probably due to having a written language and political organization. They then continued to interact with Altaic (today’s North Asian), and Austroasiatic (today’s SE Asians) peoples throughout history. Tibetans too have probably encountered some Central and South Asians once they entered the Himalayas. The same probably happened with groups in AP and Yunnan since those are areas where many different groups of ethnicities meet. So the original phylogenetics may not correspond exactly to modern appearance.
The prehistory of East Asia is, I believe, not very well studied because of complex interactions. Nobody really knows where Sino-Tibetans came from. We just guess that they gathered for a time near southwest China, then dispersed along different river valleys — and this may have happened multiple times — which led some to the north and east along the Yellow River basin (Chinese), some to the south along the Yangtze (Qiang) and Lancang basins (Burmese and Karen), and some to the west along the Yarlong Tsangpo basin (Tibetan). Some didn’t go very far; others went through minor passages and ended up in some remote place in the area. Yidu, Tani, and various Himalayan mountain groups are basically unclassified under the Sino-Tibetan umbrella, so we don’t really know where they fit.
As to legends, the two-separating-brothers motif is interesting. It seems of a more recent (and probably historical) origin if it is shared among several border-area minorities. Whether the “other” brother is Chinese, Tibetans or just other closer tribes we don’t really know. The sun-shooting creation myth is more ancient and widespread however, present even in North Asia (see here under Mongol and Orok). It seems like there was a severe and hot drought and great climate change in the early history (e.g. archery/hunting) of all of these peoples, kind of like the Biblical flood. Now where was this drought? We know Qinghai became a lot drier starting at about 6000 years ago and northwest China’s big deserts used to be much wetter… Then again they may have just borrowed each others’ stories.
April 2nd, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Nimrod, Thanks for the upload!
The article is dated 2000 which is kind of last century in terms of progress of the Mapping of Human Genome in last few years. 17 people is also a small sample size.
It’s not very conclusive in mapping the Sino-Tibetan language group to the Y haplogroup. Given what we known today, I think we can safely ignore this research paper.
Latest sampling shows that about 60% of Tibetan males belong to the Haplogroup D(M124) , 40% belong to Haplogroup O3. Whereas over 50% of Han Chinese males belong to Haplogroup O3 but occurrence of Haplogroup D is extremely low among Han Chinese.
Here I have the most detailed explanation (non-academic) that I came across about Y DNA in East Asia date from 2006:
http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=2&i=5701&t=1746
April 3rd, 2010 at 7:24 am
CMD #104:
“Just curious what are the impact of Indian Army garrisons on local population of AP?”
the Q could easily have been what are the impact of Indians on locals– because the overwhelming majority of locals FIRST time ever saw an Indian( as in Indian race, as is understood in East & SEA)face was after 1947, when after Britains departure the Indian govt officials moved in.I have an old uncle, about 75yrs old, and he told me the first time ever he saw an ‘Indian’ face was when he went down to the Assam plains as a young boy for marketing( prob early1940s).He said the first Indian ever to come to their area was prob 1947( the white British had visited with armed escort b4that).
A chronology of events may illustrate the effect of IA garrisons on locals(AFAIK):
1.pre-1947: The only permanent British post within AP was in Pasighat,on the plains.Ocassionally temporary posts were created within AP( eg Ziro 1944-45); armed escorts sometimes visited the areas near plains, but a large chunk of upper Arunachal was never set foot on even by British. Se La pass( Tse-La) was considered the British-Tibetan boundary.
2.1947-62 : Indian officials and troops moved in and set up permanent bases.
1949: Apatanis attacked Indian army garrison in Ziro for interfering in local affairs.IA operation succeeded in punishing offending villages.Tawang annexed in 1951 after forcibly evicting Dalai Lamas tax collectors. 1953: Tagins massacre Indian army column in Taliha( upper Subansiri).First Indian air-operation within the country launched against hostile Tagins( a Lhoba)–its called operation Mop.Surrounding hostile tribes subdued by show of firepower–usu in form of assembling villagers and shooting up a prominent local landmark/tree with machineguns/mortars etc–locals awed by firepower.
post1962 war: 1963—Nyishis massacre IA in Chayangtajo( East Kameng district) and spears the Indian govt rep.Heli-dropped troops defeat hostile natives.
There has been no major incidents since then.
Other effects of IA garrisons:
1.Since IA are staffed by Indians locals learnt Hindi and it became the lingua franca. Locals also benefitted as in early years IA garrisons used to provide medical care to locals, road maintenance,canteen and cinemas.
2.ex-IA settled by Indian govt in AP– of late lot of local resentment re this.Some intermarriages too.
3.As expected there will be frictions with locals– for eg just a couple months back there was a major confrontation between the locals and an Indian militia garrison in Daporijo( Upper Subansiri, Tagin area).
overall I think the garrisons were mixed blessings.
The discussions on race/migrations will req some more time..
April 3rd, 2010 at 11:32 am
@Chris Devonshire-Ellis # 41,… i second
April 4th, 2010 at 8:11 am
@lobsang tenzin : I agree, Chris Devonshire-Ellis was make good contribution until hes been insulted shouted down called ignorant and flamed. He’s a UNDP representative for goodness sakes. This piece and Maitreyas handling and commenting on it leave a lot to be desired its degenerated into shouting matches and we lost someone who could have given us valuble insights. Chris Devonshire-Ellis left the debate some 69 comments ago after his insulted and its been rubbish and shouting ever since. Its shame and not a credit to the author or the moderators to have this carrying on.
April 4th, 2010 at 10:39 am
@Steve, @Buru: Your most welcome
@Rohin Shrivastava
Chris Devonshire-Ellis was most certainly not “shouted down”. Nobody stopped him from contributing. However, he had no interest in debating ON THE TOPIC, dismissed others’ opinions by “not believing a word of it”, and kept advertising himself. If a “UNDP representative” doesn’t know about the swap deal, he should simply ASK for the evidence (like others did), instead of dismissing others’ opinions. The only “good contribution” he was making was “not believing a word” of the truth, and then not making any effort to find it out. Not to mention trying to falsely portray himself in an innocent light, when in fact, I think that he had no intention to find out what the truth actually is. He was simply not man enough to admit his mistakes.
“we lost someone who could have given us valuble insights”
The “valuable insights” which he would have given us are these: China wants the “fertile” land of Arunachal Pradesh, and not Aksai Chin, simply because it is a desert.
“Chris Devonshire-Ellis left the debate some 69 comments ago after his insulted and its been rubbish and shouting ever since”
It has most certainly not been “rubbish and shouting ever since”. My last comment was comment # 33 before he “left” and I didn’t reply to his comment for about 2-3 days because I was busy and didn’t get the time. Hardly any comments in between (except a few) addressed him or this issue.
Just have a look at the other comments which reply to his.
I think its shameful of Chris to be so narrow minded, specially since he is a “UNDP advisor”. If he would have simply ASKED for the evidence (like others did), I would have gladly given it to him. Instead, he abruptly barged in and declared – “I don’t believe a word of it”. And when someone points out the truth to him, he simply says “I was hoping for a more balanced discussion” and puts words in people’s mouths by saying – “Which seems to mean you’re always right and never wrong”. So his idea of a balanced discussion is this – He states his view (which is wrong) without verifying it, and when someone points this out to him, he still keeps on saying his wrong view, and simply dismisses others’ opinions, and then portrays himself as innocent.
Since you are pointing fingers at “the author and the moderators”, let me make a couple of things extremely clear about commenting –
1) FM encourages open discussions – All viewpoints are welcome.
2) It is advisable (in fact, it is common sense) to atleast know something about the topic of the thread before commenting.
3) Try doing some research before dismissing others’ opinions.
4) If you don’t know something, you have to simply ask, and we’ll gladly point you in the right direction.
5) Try to have an open mind.
I don’t see how I could have been any more clearer in this matter.
April 4th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Has anyone considered the possibility that the CDE who wrote the comments was not the CDE that he claimed to be and provided an identity for? Can anyone verify this?
April 4th, 2010 at 10:55 am
“He’s a UNDP representative for goodness sakes. This piece and Maitreyas handling and commenting on it leave a lot to be desired its degenerated into shouting matches and we lost someone who could have given us valuble insights. Chris Devonshire-Ellis left the debate some 69 comments ago after his insulted and its been rubbish and shouting ever since. Its shame and not a credit to the author or the moderators to have this carrying on.”
I don’t believe a word of it.
April 4th, 2010 at 11:03 am
I won’t be surprised if we discover some impersonating act here.
April 4th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I side with Maitreya Bhakal. Calling someone ignorant is not a uncivil act. The person who call another person ignorant in this case have fact to backup his point of view. For the person to defend against being pointed as ignorant, he should provide argument in which the basis of Maitreya Bhakal fact is false or do not apply.
To used the word ignorant on a person is to incite this person to do some research or challenge him to prove own fact or premise to be false.
April 5th, 2010 at 4:27 am
@ CIUK #112: I had the same suspicion and that is why I asked CDE why he was writing from HK rather than Beijing. I’ll take him at his word that he was traveling. I prefer to give most commentators the benefit of the doubt but on the internet, it’s not uncommon for someone to impersonate someone they are not.
Recently, we had someone call themselves “Raj” who wasn’t Raj but someone from Long Island so I deleted their comments but it did reflect negatively on Raj and was unfair to him. As a moderator on this blog, it’s sometimes hard to play the balancing act of being fair yet allowing unfettered comments. That’s why we established blog rules in the first place. I guess I’ve censored just about every long time contributor with a few exceptions, on both sides, over the last year or two. I try to be as fair as possible, regardless of how I personally feel about a subject. I also try to keep my personal comments and opinions separate from my editorial responsibilities. I want to hear from CDE but as Maitreya wrote, I also expect substantiation when “facts” are given.
April 5th, 2010 at 6:47 am
Steve #116 re impersonation:
I contacted CDS in the website http://www.dezshira.com/chris-devonshire-ellis.html given by CDS himself above. I had to ask him certain queries re border areas of Tibet-South Tibet/AP which may not have been appropriate in a forum crawling(presumably) with Indian and Chinese spies 🙂
I did get a reply. Since there is talk of impersonation I will reproduce his message in toto( he has permitted me to quote him), esp as his post does not seem to have sensitive info which will endanger China or Indias security( and hence his business too 🙂 )
” Dear Buru;
Thanks for your email. I’ve been in the militarized area on the Tibetan side overlooking India. It’s well maintained with good roads and infrastructure on the Tibetan (Chinese side). This is about 250 km (?) south of Nyingtri. I haven’t been so close on the Indian side, so can’t comment first hand on that but I understand the infrastructure is poor.
Sorry I don’t have any Lhoba contacts. But I will look out for any books for you on the Lhoba and if I find some I’ll let you know.
I’m afraid the Fools Mountain website appears to have degenerated into a free for all. A lesson learnt. It seems full of students, and Maitreya appears a very angry person. I’ll steer clear of that, I have businesses to run!
We did run articles on the subject on our 2point6billion blog though, you can see here:
http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2010/02/17/china-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-as-tibet-refuses-to-go-away-4093.html
http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2009/10/27/china%e2%80%99s-real-india-position-dismantle-dharamsala-2735.html
In fact if you type in “Arunachal” into the search function a whole history of various articles we’ve written appear.
My understanding of the position is that China had “suzerainty” over Tibet, but that didn’t include Sikkim or AP, and the Dalai Lama maintained control over religion (ie: internal affairs). The book by Francis Younghusband “India & Tibet” first published in 1910 gives an account of the treaties signed, including the Simla accord and the historical background. It seems fairly comprehensive. Obviously that position with China now controlling both international and domestic affairs is different from the original suzerain treaty signed between Tibet and Imperial China, and that’s where the sticking points lie. Tibet was doomed once Mao declared China atheist, however the Chinese have treated the Tibetans very poorly. But those complaints (if you read the Younghusband book) also go way back to the mid 1700’s. Nothing much has changed except the Dalai Lama is no longer there and the Chinese control religion. The latter was never part of the deal.
If you wish you may quote me on that. Meanwhile, I’d love to get up to AP so keep in touch.
Best wishes
Chris”
1. I also noted that the postscript of his article dated Oct2009 says he is presently based in Mumbai( tho he says here he lives in Beijing)… so though CDE is 4 real, he may be an Indian/US/Chinese double agent hahah ha 🙂
2.A person who purposefully posts his articles in a public forum to be debated should be a little more thickskinned and or more civil with disagreements methinks…is MBK a Chinese or Indian(just my curiosity,no offence)?
April 5th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Isn’t that typical! Falsely labeling someone as “angry” when one proves his view wrong.
Only Chris found the comments which proved him wrong as “uncivil” and “angry”, even though they were not, because a) He didn’t want to admit his mistakes, b) He wanted a strawman to hide behind, c) He is unable to except constructive criticism, and most importantly, d) The truth hurts.
It is all the more funny and surprising that he has written quite a few articles on the subject, and still doesn’t know about the swap deal. Moreover, I think it reflects a very narrow-minded approach on his part to simply dismiss the truth.
One analyzes the evidence, writes an article about the topic, and then a chap comes along and says “I don’t believe a word of it” without offering any evidence of his own. Now what does that tell you about that person?
None of us have anything against Chris personally, its just that he is a bit misinformed, and is refusing to admit the same. I think that he must have formed his opinions by reading the biased Indian media. He should in fact be thanking us for clearing his misconceptions.
He is unsuccessfully trying to portray a false halo around himself, but people here are smart enough to see through it. I don’t think we should waste anymore time on him, because whatever we say, he is simply going to reply – “I don’t believe a word of it”!
April 5th, 2010 at 9:06 am
@Nimrod # 79
I can provide the chinese map (in 2008 official publication) showing Sikkim being an independent country but i’m confused how i can put it here? ‘cos i tried few times but not working, as the map is in image (JPEG)…I’m not that good with computer stuff…hence, it’ll be helpful if you can guide me.
May be you can check out, as it seems you guys are resourceful, i’ll provide the ISBN number of the official book distributed by Chinese Embassy in New Delhi, India. I’ve scanned copy of the map and also first three pages of it in PDF.
The ISBN nr of this book is 978-7-80113-022-8
April 5th, 2010 at 9:24 am
@Buru:
“……should be a little more thickskinned and or more civil with disagreements methinks…”
Again – the word “ignorant” is NOT uncivil, it is merely a statement of fact, as I’ve already explained; and I’m not the only one who thinks so. Only Chris found it “uncivil”, because of the reasons which I have stated in my previous comment. You know that I always appreciate constructive criticism, unlike Chris.
This is not the first article which I have posted on FM. Show me one comment where I have been uncivil to any commenter. Everyone here knows that I welcome and acknowledge all types of comments.
“….in a public forum to be debated..”
All the more reason for a commenter not to arrogantly “not believe a word and it” and do some reading on the topic before commenting. And as I said earlier, if one is doubtful about something, all he has to do is simply ask.
…..is MBK a Chinese or Indian(just my curiosity,no offence)?
I’m Indian.
And don’t worry – no offence taken whatsoever 🙂
April 5th, 2010 at 9:57 am
@Steve # 73
Small mistake here, I’m sorry Wuen, Steve I’m talking about the concept of ‘Middle Kingdom’ here, not Wuen…i’ve visited many chinese blogger and shared views with few of them and compare to them he is really polite and wise i should say.
April 5th, 2010 at 9:59 am
lobsang tenzin Says:
@Nimrod # 79
I can provide the chinese map (in 2008 official publication) showing Sikkim being an independent country … i’ll provide the ISBN number of the official book distributed by Chinese Embassy in New Delhi, India. I’ve scanned copy of the map and also first three pages of it in PDF.
The ISBN nr of this book is 978-7-80113-022-8
+++++
Are you talking about this?
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?article=Sikkim+is+still+a+country+for+China&id=22644
I did an ISBN search on this and got this. It appears to be a paperback book published in 1995, so…. Maybe it had a reprinting in 2008, but it definitely isn’t a new edition, as every revised edition requires a new ISBN. It appears to be some pamphlet-type material for foreign language consumption and hardly any official atlas. Nothing to be worked up about. Of course it’s par for the course for an Indian newspaper to be hypersensitive about it, but Phayul?
What do you exiled Tibetans think about the McMahon Line anyway, especially Tawang? DL seems to have given up on Southern Tibet, but for the sake of argument, suppose you guys got your independence, would you still be happy about this?
April 5th, 2010 at 10:03 am
@ Wuen # 67
“CC India sell off it’s oldest and most trusted neighbor, Tibet, for their own National interest in 1954 with Panchsheel Agreement. India backed their newly found friend PRC for the seat in U.N at the cost of dismay to Formosa (Taiwan). what more do you want? how many times PRC promised to help India get permanent seat in UN, but never. That’s also fact my friend. ”
This statement is not a fact. You mixed fact with your opinion.
Wuen, That’s what Indian and Tibetan mind set, hence I’m sharing it with you myself being Tibetan and living in India. Sharing doesn’t mean you should believe what I said. Well as for India’s hand in recognizing newly found PRC, government, well it is a fact which you cann’t deny, I thought you are good at research do little more and you’ll know that India is the second country other than Burma to appeal the UN.
“I did not say all Chinese are enlightened. You can disagree with me, but saying I think like a Nazi without given concrete proof show your lack of sincere discussion. That then end of discussion with you. I don’t address to people with this type of thinking.”
Well I think I’ve the right to share my view here, hence, I was just talking about the concept of Middle Kingdom that you shared. “All Under the heaven” then “It is what drive the thinking of enlightening Chinese.” These are few example on which I totally disagree thus I used the word “Chauvinism”
@cc # 70
Wuen, “I am afraid that you are getting yourself into a meaningless debate (assuming we can still call it a debate) with a guy whose only intention here is to divert the initial discussion of India/China border dispute to the Tibet Independence issue, where he/she will, surprise, surprise, start his/her highly beloved and opinionated rangzen ranting. You better prepare yourself to receive more personal and/or racial attack should you continue to “debate” with our rangzen fighter.”
Wake up brother, Tibet is the core issue in the border dispute between India and China. You really need to know the mindset of the other side of border, as their words is also accounted to and for settling the dispute between the two. I’m just providing you the facts from both Tibetan and Indian side, since I’m not that good with the history and mindset of Chinese but not the PRC.
April 5th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Well CDE has is own China-India blog, on http://www.2point6billion.com maybe thats why Maitreya is so uptight about him. He’s well known in China-India biz circles, and there’s similar previous debates to this one on his site. I guess he flies about a lot he has plenty of offices in the region. I’d forget him he’s not here but there seems to be some steam caused by his comments. Maitreya – you ARE still here though and YOU still haven’t yet explained or backed up why the Chinese want Aksai Chin instead of AP. Which was the exact point CDE raised. So while hes not here now you have the opportunity to back up your statement with some facts. (which you haven’t done yet). Maybe instead of getting worked up about him you can calmly support your statement that China prefers “a high altitude desert” to “agriculatural land in AP” and when this “Swap Deal” you talk about as proving your point was made and some references to it. Thats fair. So lets hear your side.
April 5th, 2010 at 10:41 am
@ Nimrod # 122
Thanks for sharing, that’s the same map i had, i didn’t know that it was in Indian paper. anyway, Phayul.com is wide spread in Tibetan diaspora and the site provides all the news related to Tibet. So don’t worry, it’s not filtered or monitor by any organisation for propaganda purpose.
Well if what you say is true regarding it being reprinted in 2008, is it really a reprint of 1995?? then it’s really sad. The book was made available by the chinese embassy that too in India, i hope you understand what i meant here.
Frankly speaking Nimrod, Tibet had religious influence over not only Tawang but lots of other Himalayan regions such as Spitti in Himachal, Ladakh in Jammu & Kashmir and also Sikkim and Bhutan. The main problem with us is our country was too much involved in religious pursue that’s why we are facing the repercussion.
Tibetan duly accepted the Mcmohan line, hence I don’t see any point of claiming Tawang and other himalayan regions beyond the line.
April 5th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Secondly, that’s what I said in # 28. Well what is most irritating is whenever I meet with the activist or leaders of RSS ( Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), Hindu fundamentalist, largest organisation in India. They also have same concept like Middle Kingdom, they call it ‘Purniya Bharat’. They think that Tibet was vassal region of Bharat (India), since Tibet’s first king Nyatri Tsenpo (127 B.C) ruled Tibet and started the kingdom of ‘Bod’ ( Tibet in Tibetan language) which ruled Tibet over a thousand years. The king was not Tibetan but they belief that he was one of the Kaurava Prince, who lost the battle against their kin Pandava during ‘Mahabharata’, Hindu epic story.
That doesn’t mean that they will claim Tibet to be part of India, but just sharing to let you know that such concept is also there in Indian side.
April 5th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Oh! I just learned that MBK is an Indian, may be he knows about old Hindu concept of ‘Purniya Bharat’, being an Indian and good with the issue I think he should share fellow people about it.
April 5th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
lobsang tenzin,
I don’t know if that book was re-printed or not, I just see that it was published in 1995 and not edited again afterwards. I guess the embassy should check its materials if it’s still handing out this stuff. But I think it’s an honest mistake even if it is. On the issue of Sikkim, I’m pretty sure China has recognized it as part of India and, as much as some people distrust China, I don’t think it should go to this degree of distrust. Same with any future border settlement.
Nyatri Tsenpo was semi-mythical, wasn’t it? Anyway, that sounds like a Tibetan name, so how could he be Indian?
April 5th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
lobsang tenzin,
What MBK is presenting here is the swap deal proposed by China. The existence of the deal has nothing to do with the topic which you are passionate about. Period.
April 5th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
@lobsang tenzin
Apology accepted. The concept of the Middle Kingdom is not a Nazi concept because everyone who wish unity and peace share the same though of the people from the Middle Kingdom. The people who cherish the old concept of 天下 from the Middle Kingdom does not discriminate and wish to live with different ethnics and tribe side by side peacefully. One instance of this is during the Tubo and Tang dynasties. The King of Tubo and the Emperor of Tang respected each others and maintain good relationship like in the treaty of 821-822 you show me. Both King and Emperor share the same thought of unity and peace over their land. The Tubo kingdom is a different culture from the Tang empire — Both could live peacefully.
“CC India sell off it’s oldest and most trusted neighbor, Tibet, for their own National interest in 1954 with Panchsheel Agreement. India backed their newly found friend PRC for the seat in U.N at the cost of dismay to Formosa (Taiwan). what more do you want? how many times PRC promised to help India get permanent seat in UN, but never. That’s also fact my friend. ”
I disagree with you by saying the above statement is a fact, because you mix your opinion with fact.
“how many times PRC promised to help India get permanent seat in UN, but never. ”
India failed to become a permanent members of the UN Security Council because China and others countries did not want Japan to become a permanent members of the UN Security Council because of it past aggression in East Asia without apologizing correctly. India and Japan jointly bid which mean India had no chance of becoming a permanent members of the UN Security Council. But this is irrelevant to the topic of discussion about China India borders. CC is right you go off topic. I will not continue with your discussion unless it is on the topic.
April 5th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
@wuen,
My understanding of Middle Kingdom and Tianxia:
++ The word Zhongguo or Centralized/Middle Country was used during the Zhou dynasty, but evidence in writing existed only sometime during the Spring and Autumn period (about 600 BC). It’s not surprising that the highly cultured peoples of that civilization saw themselves as “central” – this was the land of Lao Tzu, Confucius, Mo Tzu, Mencius, Sun Tzu, etc. Here, for the next few centuries, orality would give way to a highly literate culture because of the invention of paper, and soon afterwards, printing. The former, printing, was recently shown to have existed even before Cai Lun (perhaps Cai Lun was given the credit because of his very modern process involving the smashing of plant materials into pulp, then adding binding substances to produce thin sheets of paper). Regarding their country as central or middle isn’t unique to old civilizations – Germanic and other northern Europeans used to call their lands “midgard” or “Middle Land” (this term became a political hot potato during the time of Chancellor Schmidt [?], when he called East Germany “Middle Germany” – hinting at German lands inside Russia). The word “Zhongguo” was also used for the Southern Song dynasty and the modern official revival of this word took place when Dr. Sun established the Zhonghua Minguo (Republic of China).
The Chinese never called themselves “Chinese” – this was a term used by her neighbors (after the Chin dynasty, about 200 BC). Today, that term (“China”)is used only in other languages – the Chinese still call themselves “Zhongguo Ren,” a reminder of their ancient heritage. Thus there’s no such thing as a Chinese race. The vast majority called themselves “Han” or “Tang” because of their pride in those two great dynasties. However, there’re over 50 minorities in China, including the Man, Mongolians, and Russians. So a Heilongjiang ethnic Russian who’s a Chinese citizen is also “Chinese.” The term “Chinese” therefore refers to a nationality of China, not ethnic origin.
Historically, “race” – as the West conceives it – didn’t exist in China until the early 20th century. You’re either in the Tian-Xia (“all under heaven” or Empire) or outside it, in which case you’d probably be considered a barbarian, except for Indians which was placed in a special category because they were from the “holy land” of the Buddha. ++
In your view, Tibet is inside or outside the Tianxia?
April 5th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Except from Chris
“My understanding of the position is that China had “suzerainty” over Tibet, but that didn’t include Sikkim or AP, and the Dalai Lama maintained control over religion (ie: internal affairs). The book by Francis Younghusband “India & Tibet” first published in 1910 gives an account of the treaties signed, including the Simla accord and the historical background. It seems fairly comprehensive. Obviously that position with China now controlling both international and domestic affairs is different from the original suzerain treaty signed between Tibet and Imperial China, and that’s where the sticking points lie. Tibet was doomed once Mao declared China atheist, however the Chinese have treated the Tibetans very poorly. But those complaints (if you read the Younghusband book) also go way back to the mid 1700’s. Nothing much has changed except the Dalai Lama is no longer there and the Chinese control religion. The latter was never part of the deal.”
The British did used the word suzerainty over Tibet, but only with foreigner who are not Chinese like the Russian. The treaty signed with China did not contain the word suzerainty. The Simla accord of 1914 is the first treaty with China that contain the word suzerainty. China did not signed the Simla accord of 1914. The British are playing a game with different rule when it come to signing treaty. The Imperial British are not honest and it show in the signing of these treaties. The treaties the British signed with China on Tibet (1890, 1906) are treated as sovereignty not suzerainty.
Chris state: “China now controlling both international and domestic affairs is different from the original suzerain treaty signed between Tibet and Imperial China”. I like him to show me this original suzerain treaty.
Chris state many facts but does not give proof like Maitreya Bhakal. Since he have does not give proof, it will be meaningless to refute his statement.
There are proof to show AP was part of Tibet from David Rumsey Collection map of 1884 or French map of 1889.
1889 ANTIQUE FRENCH MAP OF INDIA / NEPAL TIBET CHINA
http://cgi.ebay.com/1889-ANTIQUE-FRENCH-MAP-OF-INDIA-%2F-NEPAL-TIBET-CHINA-_W0QQitemZ400112860793QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20100404?IMSfp=TL1004040010018r28413
The Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 and the Simla Convention of 1914 are concrete proof Tibet require the central government of China to deal with foreign government.
Chris is using a excuse to exit the debate without proving his statement. I guy like Chris is in position to know the word ignorant is not uncivil unless the guy is a petty person.
April 5th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
@Rhan
The Middle Kingdom received many different name over the century from it neighbors. To the people living in the region of China, it will always be the Middle Kingdom.
The concept Tianxia is everyone under heaven including the barbarian. In ancient time the concept Middle Kingdom include only the civilize region. As long the region is civilize according to the person who held this belief, it part of the Middle Kingdom. That how the concept of Middle Kingdom grow without war. Modern concept of the Middle Kingdom have change since then to reflect UN perception of nation because people from the Middle Kingdom discover others civilizations.
The Middle Kingdom is not a empire. The dynasties of the Middle Kingdom are an empire. The concept of Middle Kingdom can become popular without conquest. The modern day concept of nation have destroy the concept of Middle Kingdom, but one day it will be revive when the Chinese realize the concept of nation will only lead to war and segregation while the concept of Middle Kingdom provide unity and peace.
April 5th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Wuen,
Chris is just parrotting the imprerial British position with regard to Tibet vis-a-vis China. “A suzerainty treaty” signed without the party (i.e. China) which it refers to? A bit of nonsense I am afraid.
Rhan’s point about Chinese makes some sense.
April 5th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
The meaning of Middle Kingdom is dynamic and fluid over time. Originally ‘Middle Kingdom’ only refers to the land directly administered by Zhou King as oppose to Duke of Zhen or Duke of Qi. Because Zhou was a true feudal period in China comparable to Medieval Europe, ‘Middle Kingdom’ is surrounded by the fiefs of Zhou nobles and vassals. In a sense, it’s literally ‘Middle Kingdom’.
Later the concept of Middle Kingdom has expanded to include all Central Plain (traditional cultural heartland of China). In the Record of Three Kingdoms (not Romance of Three Kingdoms which is a historical novel), Zhou Yu of Wu(Southland) have been quoted to say that “Cao Cao has brought the army of Middle Kingdom to bear upon us”. While Wu and Shu are both Chinese kingdoms, only Cao Cao ‘s Wei Kingdom is refer to as ‘Middle Kingdom’ because it occupied the Central Plain.
Only much later the concept of ‘Middle Kingdom’ has been expanded to imply entire land of China.
April 5th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
@CaoMengDe
I will like to continue this discussion about Middle Kingdom but it is off topic, so this will be my last post about this subject.
Cao Cao hold the Emperor hostage. The emperor is consider to be the true ruler of the Middle Kingdom because of the mandate from heaven. I think this is the reason why Zhou Yu refer the soldier of Cao Cao as the Middle Kingdom. The Middle Kingdom include the state of Wu and Shu. At that time the state of Wu and Shu did not declare it independent from the Han empire. It is still part of the Han empire. The Wei Kingdom did not exist when Cao Cao was the prime minister until in AD216, Cao Cao was promoted to Wei Wang (King of Wei).
If the novel refer only the Wei Kingdom as the Middle Kingdom, then it is a mistake according to historical document I had read. You should not refer the novel as historical fact because it is a story, not a historical document.
I like to reply to CaoMengDe at post #140. I never said the concept of Middle Kingdom did not grow with conquest. It could also grow with conquest and also grow without conquest. When the Chinese said Tibet is part of the Middle Kingdom since ancient time, this instance show the Middle Kingdom grew without conquest. It is not important if the King of Tubo say it or not if Tubo Kingdom is part of the Middle Kingdom. What is important is the people from the Tang Empire accept the King of Tubo to be part with the Middle Kingdom and treat the King of Tubo true to their concept of the Middle Kingdom. The treaty of Tubo Kingdom and Tang Empire of 821-822 state this fact; “On both sides they shall be treated with customary honour and respect in conformity with the friendly relations between Nephew and Uncle.” This reflect the thinking of the Chinese to accept Tibetan as an extended family.
I believe without the concept of Tianxia and Middle Kingdom, Chinese society would have been as much fragmented as others part of the World. It is this concept which maintain the unity among different ethnics and tribes of China and seek common ground for unity and peace. Not every Chinese share this concept but as long the majority accepted it, unity and peace will prevail.
April 5th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
@Rhan
Tian-Xia (all under heaven) is equivalent to “World” in English, it does not imply the limit of Imperial Authority. So everybody is included.
April 5th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
wuen
Please read the full Record of Three Kingdoms (NOT the novel) in original classic Chinese form. It’s quite clear. ‘Middle Kingdom’ had been used interchangably with Wei on multiple occasions, way after the abdication of Han emperor. There is no need to foist our modern concept of ‘Middle Kingdom’ upon our ancestors.
April 5th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
The emperor is consider to be the true ruler of the Middle Kingdom because of the mandate from heaven
The emperor is consider to be the true ruler of Han empire which is comprised of ‘Middle Kingdom’ and other parts.
April 5th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I do think this is somewhat relevant.
When Manchu established Qing empire, they brought together territories of Ming empire (what would be previously considered ‘Middle Kingdom’), Manchuria, Inner Mongolia and Taiwan under the same mantle.
Qing conquest of Zunghar Khanate or Zungharian empire brought vast territories of Central Asia (including Xinjiang, Outer Mongolia, Qinghai and Tibet) into the imperial fold. It’s only after the Western concept of Nation-State was introduced to China, we started to refer to all above areas as part of ‘Middle Kingdom’.
“Middle Kingdom’ did in fact grew with war and conquest. Just ask Zunghars, if you could find any.
April 5th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
@Rohin (#124)
“Well CDE has is own China-India blog, on http://www.2point6billion.com maybe thats why Maitreya is so uptight about him”
“there seems to be some steam caused by his comments”
Quite frankly, or to borrow Obama’s phrase, Let me be clear – I don’t care about Chris’s website.
Nobody is getting “uptight”and there is no “steam” caused by his comments.. Nobody cares about Chris that much. I tried to help him by showing him where he was mistaken, but he chooses to ignore the truth. Fine by me.
Read comment #118
“So while hes not here now you have the opportunity to back up your statement with some facts. (which you haven’t done yet). Maybe instead of getting worked up about him you can calmly support your statement that China prefers “a high altitude desert” to “agriculatural land in AP” and when this “Swap Deal” you talk about as proving your point was made and some references to it. Thats fair. So lets hear your side.”
You are not reading my previous comments carefully. I have given ample evidence to back up my statements.
Nobody here is getting “worked up” about him. Personally, I don’t care about Chris enough to get worked up. I think you are the one who is getting worked up and agitated.
It is a bit ironic that you, of all people, are talking about being “calm”. Show me one comment of mine where I have not been “calm”. I have “calmly supported” my statements on numerous occasions.
“Maitreya – you ARE still here though and YOU still haven’t yet explained or backed up why the Chinese want Aksai Chin instead of AP. Which was the exact point CDE raised.”
This was NOT the point which CDE raised. In fact, All he raised was “I don’t believe a word of it”, and that China wants Arunachal Pradesh simply because it is ‘fertile’.
BTW, as to WHY China wants Aksai Chin instead of AP,
1)The historical reason is that the Chinese have a strategic military highway in that area (China National Highway 219).
There are also a few minor reasons:
2) They want the dispute resolved as quickly as possible, and are prepared to make substantial concessions.
3) The geography of the region also dictates that the east-west swap deal is most conducive and accommodating to both countries.
4) They might not want to disturb settled populations.
In any case, WHY they want Aksai Chin is a separate issue. The fact is that they WANT Aksai Chin only, and not Arunachal Pradesh per se.
—————
It is again abundantly clear that you too, like Chris, is simply using this thread as a propaganda forum and not as a healthy debating ground, and have not made a single valuable contribution.
April 5th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Chairman Mao says :
To behave like “a blindfolded man catching sparrows” or “a blind man groping for fish”, to be crude and careless, to indulge in verbiage, to rest content with a smattering of knowledge — such is the extremely bad style of work that still exists among many of comrades in our Party”
CDE should reflect on this.
The video that I uploaded on # 94 show the state of infrastructure near the border in Medog/Pemako section which contradict his statement about good existing infrastructure in the region. Of course if he make the same statement in 2012, he may be right. See, maybe we just misunderstood him. CDE is actually a visionary quite ahead of his time!
Being ‘UNDP advisor’ apparently leaves little time to ponder the strategic importance and military implication of Xinjiang-Tibetan highway which cut cross Aksai Chin, and the fact that it’s much faster to deploy troops from Kashgar to Ali district of Tibet via this roadway than any other part of China.
@Wuen
Don’t be like CDE, I strongly encourage you to learn to read classic Chinese. Record of Three Kingdom is a historical document as oppose to Romance of Three Kingdoms which is the novel. Here is a excerpt from the Book of Jin:
《晋书·宣帝纪》：“盂达于是连吴固蜀，潜图中国。”
Tang and Tubo are Independent entities, often competitors/enemies with some period of peace and cooperation in between. Tang-Tubo treaty is a treaty between equals. There are no evidence that people of Tang considered Tubo part of the ‘Middle Kingdom’.
“On both sides they shall be treated with customary honour and respect in conformity with the friendly relations between Nephew and Uncle.” This reflect the thinking of the Chinese to accept Tibetan as an extended family.
Uh, No. Nephew and Uncle reference reflect the fact that Tang and Tubo royal houses are related by marriage, specifically Tubo King is the son of Tang princess. Such is the way of political alliance of old days.
It’s a stretch to say that Tibet has been part of China since ancient times. We should not believe our own propanganda!
Qing incorporate Tibet into the empire after 1750s. What really made Tibet part of Modern China is the entry of 18th army of PLA into Tibet in 1950s, battle of Chamdo, 17 point Agreement, Suppression of Tibetan Rebellion etc.
Chairman Mao says: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”
@Maitreya Bhakal,
Thanks for the well researched and well articulated article. I will refrain from further hijacking this discussion thread by going off tangent.
April 6th, 2010 at 12:49 am
@CaoMengDe
Through your good argument, I am impel to give you my answer.
I made the mistake of mixing the Record of the Three Kingdom with the novel. I cannot read the Record of the Three Kingdom in Chinese because my level of Chinese is rudimentary. I like to add that the Record of the Three Kingdom could contain inaccuracy. All historical records should be revise when new fact present itself. My point of view would also be revise if new truthful fact is added to my understanding of historical event.
We have different interpretation of the concept Middle Kingdom. This is to be expected because we study from different source and in the history of China it is constantly changing. I tried to find a common characteristics through Chinese history and to establish the reason why some Chinese view Tibet as part of China since ancient time.
You show me you have a good understanding of Chinese history. Your view is fair and balance relating to Chinese politic. I appreciate your posts.
April 6th, 2010 at 2:37 am
@Buru
I think garrisons anywhere is a mixed blessing. Due to relaxed social mores in China as oppose to Puritan Maoist days (1949-1980), whereas in 1950s Chinese Communist Government would recruit tens of thousands of young Chinese women for the explicit purpose of mating …er..marrying PLA soldiers posted in Xinjiang, nowadays there is large prostitute population around garrison towns in Tibet to service the brave men of PLA. Mostly migrant Han Chinese women from Sichuan (where also most soldiers came from) seem to have dominated this trade in Tibet. This seems to be the case in Nyingchi as well. Not quite sure how locals feel about this development but I guess that’s better than letting loose sex starved army men on locals like US Marines in Okinawa.
@wuen
I have to say that you are probably one of the most polite and respectful posters here, I apologize if I come across as bit of arrogant jackass sometimes. I must say that I appreciate your posts as well, you seem to have very good intentions.
April 6th, 2010 at 5:31 am
@ CaoMengDe #142: Since you mentioned not wanting to get off topic, I thought I would address this to you and to others wondering about that part of our policy.
In general, I think it is respectful to the blog author to stay on topic for the first 100 posts or so, then after that it is really up to the author himself. Personally, I don’t mind if people go off topic once the initial subject has been explored in depth, but that’s really the call of each individual author. MB can run his thread as he sees fit.
I do appreciate that you were cognizant and respectful of his feelings. I also second your high opinion of wuen; he is a real gentleman. 🙂
April 6th, 2010 at 6:59 am
@Nimrod # 128
“Nyatri Tsenpo was semi-mythical, wasn’t it? Anyway, that sounds like a Tibetan name, so how could he be Indian?”
Well I agree it’s semi mythical but Tibetans and historian belief he was the first king of Tibet. ‘Nyatri Tsenpo’ is a Tibetan words and Tsenpo means “sovereign or king”, while nyatri means “enthroned by the neck”. His palace is called Yumbulhakang, one of the first building in Tibet.
He is believed to be son of a king in distant Eastern India, in Ujani (today’s Ujjain).
April 6th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Here a short summary about the East-West swap
India can lower the border barrier with China
By Sudha Ramachandran
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EH12Df01.html
According to the following report:
Why China’s playing hardball in Arunachal
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_why-china-s-playing-hardball-in-arunachal_1096493
The report suspect the Chinese politician of abandoning the East-West swap deal with the Indian. It said the land of Aksai Chin does not hold as much importance is once used to when numerous road or rail link is completed from the inland to Lhasa.
The above report miss the point about PRC politic strategy. The PRC is using the strategy of entering into unclear demarcated border of AP to wake up the Indian politician to solve the disputed border as quickly as possible. The Indian politician seem to be sleeping in their comfort of a couch with the fire alarm making noise next door. By increasing Chinese patrol into the gray area of the border in AP, the Chinese hope the Indian politician will start to recognize the absence of a clearly demarcated border will create trouble and start to negotiate on a settlement of the boundary. The East-West swap deal is still on the table, but for how long?
April 6th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
@everyone
Since their exist a dispute cause by the word ignorance label on a member of this blog. I think it is my responsibility to clear this dispute because I am the first person to used the word ignorant on a member of this blog.
To understand how others people feel about this word, I searched on the internet. What I found might surprise a few.
Warning, the following passage might hurt the pride of some people.
In condense form
The person who are ignorant of the word “ignorance” think it is a insulting word.
The person who are not ignorant of the word “ignorance” think it is not a insulting word.
This is the conclusion I have reach by searching in the internet.
End of warning
By definition the word ignorant or ignorance is not a insulting word. Of course if this word is taken into context like “you ignorant fool” or “you are always ignorant”, then it do insult. When it is taken in the right context like “you are ignorant on the law on Criminal procedure” this should pin point the domain of lack of knowledge to the person.
The person who send this word and the person who received it have their own reason to defend their action. The people who take side also have their own reason to do so. This should not divide the members of the blog.
Their are much to learn in this blog from others people. If one person unintentionally insult someone else, the victim should not take it out on all members of this blog.
Would I used this word again? After seeing the effect of using this word, of course not.
I wish Mr President Obama or Mrs Clinton could press the reset button and everything will go back to normal.^_^
April 7th, 2010 at 3:32 am
@ wuen: I agree with your definition of “ignorant” but I guess my comment would be that if someone feels another blogger is ignorant, rather than making the accusation, why not ask them to tell us in more detail why they have their opinion? In that case, the person will either explain why they made their comment and we may find out they aren’t ignorant after all, or else they’ll just dig the hole of their ignorance even deeper. I just don’t want people to jump to conclusions before all the facts are in so let’s give everyone the benefit of the doubt until there is no longer any doubt. BTW, I’m not writing this as an editor, it’s just my opinion. 😉
April 7th, 2010 at 4:31 am
@steve
There is one reason I don’t ask for their opinion. If I ask A for his opinion, then B will give me a counter opinion to A, and then A will give me a counter counter opinion to B and then B will give me a three time counter opinion to A. How would it end. My original goal is to end the dispute and not give them a reason to continue. The solution to the problem is to do not ask. I hope you find this helpful.^_^
April 7th, 2010 at 5:39 am
@ Wuen
I agree with you that we should leave history of Tibet & China, as we all agree it’s quite messy. As I stressed before, being in India, I’m sharing the Indian mindset on the topic of the discussion. Now think of me as an Indian, not Tibetan and I would like to share my arguments on the Sino-India Politik in vis a vis to border dispute.
After 1962 skirmish Sino-India war, first time ever in the history of both countries, Indian were petrified and they were haunted by the Sino phobia. They belief or think that the newly found PRC, whom they considered friend and started the 1950’s well known slogan of ‘Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai’ (India – China brotherhood), is no more friendly neighbor but a regime of expansionist. That mindset is still thrives in the mindset of Indian masses. Do you agree with me MBK ?
In the 1950s and 1960s, when Tibet wasn’t as well-connected by road-and-rail networks as it is today, control of Aksai Chin was of strategic importance to China in order to establish its authority in the combustible erstwhile kingdom. Likewise, for India, control of the ‘eastern tract’ was critical for it to maintain its hold on the fissiparous northeastern region.
http://www.boundaries.com/India.htm
a brief history or analyse on the topic, may be it’ll provide more points to discuss on.
April 7th, 2010 at 8:05 am
@CaoMengde: Your most welcome.
@Steve (#149):
“if someone feels another blogger is ignorant, rather than making the accusation, why not ask them to tell us in more detail why they have their opinion? In that case, the person will either explain why they made their comment and we may find out they aren’t ignorant after all, or else they’ll just dig the hole of their ignorance even deeper.”
He had already given us the ‘detail’. His opinion had no basis in fact. Of course he was never going to accept that. In this case, his opinion was typical of the Indian media, and hence there was no way that we would have found out that he wasn’t “ignorant after all”, since his comment clearly indicated that he was.
“I just don’t want people to jump to conclusions before all the facts are in….”
Neither do I. That’s why I give evidence for all my statements. In CDE’s case however, the facts were already in, which were that he didn’t know much about the border dispute, and more correctly, didn’t want to know. Not to mention his dismissing others’ opinions.
—-
I feel that there is no point in wasting any time on the CDE issue anymore. It is very clear that he is interested only in boasting about himself and pointing fingers at others, and has no intention of discussing the border dispute or its history. People like him have a narrow mindset and have difficulty accepting even the slightest bit of constructive criticism, and are incapable of coming to terms with their mistakes. If he would have written an article on his website expressing his wrong views, he would have been embarrassed. His visit here might have saved him from that potential embarrassment. He should in fact be thanking us for clearing his misconceptions.
I don’t think we should let him interrupt our discussions any further.
It’s not that any of us has anything against him personally, it’s just that he is a bit misinformed, as I said earlier.
This is not the first time that I have found his views appalling. In fact, I refrained from saying this earlier, but I suspect that the very reason that he came here and commented on my article was this:
http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2010/03/15/the-exclusiveness-of-being-chinese-4478.html
see my comment on that article, and note the dates.
BTW, I wasn’t the only one who was appalled at that article of his.
A critique of it is also posted here, which became very popular at Hao Hao report too:
http://www.modernleifeng.com/?p=176
——
@wuen (#147)
I had explained the fallacies in the DNA article which you have linked here:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2010/03/10/you-scratch-my-back-but-i-won%E2%80%99t-scratch-yours/#comment-65076
The Asia Times article also has traces of bias.
For example, the Chinese did not “seize Indian land in Aksai Chin.”. That land was not Indian in to begin with. (Notice how Indian authors and analysts always refer to disputed territory as ‘Indian’. By contrast, Chinese analysts and government officials refer to the territories as ‘disputed’ and not ‘Chinese’). There has never been any clear demarcation of the area. Even Nehru admitted as much.
However, it is true that the area was disputed, and hence when India found out that China had build a road through it, it became one of the main causes of the war.
It is also not true that “China had never administered the southern slope”, because it was part of Tibet, which was a Chinese province during that time. The thief analogy is completely erroneous.
The author assumes that the Chinese have not offered “the swap in the 1990s and thereafter” because of the declining importance of the Aksai Chin road. However, I think that the reasons for that are:
a) China is simply responding to India’s sector by sector negotiating tactic, as I explained earlier.
b) With the passage of time, China is simply getting frustrated. Why should only China offer concessions? It is worthwhile to note that India has not even offered any concessions whatsoever.
Also, I disagree with the following statements of the author,
Unlike in the past when regaining every square inch of Indian territory from the Chinese dominated discussions on the border dispute, there is a recognition that the border needs to be settled in a spirit of give and take and that the two countries should look for a “pragmatic solution”.
” The Congress Party is unlikely to oppose a reasonable settlement.”
There has not been any substantial change in the Indian mindset. The government always keeps saying: Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India and that China is under illegal occupation of Indian territory of Aksai Chin.
The Indian PM Manmohan Singh (who is from the Congress party) recently said that there will be “no redrawing of borders in Kashmir”. (The Indian definition of Kashmir includes Pakistan occupied Kashmir + Indian occupied Kashmir + Aksai Chin)
The “pragmatic solution” etc. is just talk. Everybody knows that if the government even contemplates settling the dispute, it will fall within 24 hours, maybe even before that!
As far as the whole issue of intrusions is concerned, I’ve explained about in my earlier article:
http://indiaschinablog.blogspot.com/2010/03/you-scratch-my-back-but-i-wont-scratch.html
A commenter on my blog also pointed out this interview: http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/mar/25/slide-show-1-india-china-border-dispute-insights.htm, in which an Indian diplomat admits that incursions take place on both sides since the border is not defined, exactly as I had said in my article.
In fact, the media is acting so irresponsibly in this matter that S.M.Krishna, the Indian minister of External Affairs, in his ongoing visit to China, said that people should not believe the Indian media in forming conclusions about India’s position, calling the media an “independent body”.
@lobsang tenzin (#151)
“That mindset is still thrives in the mindset of Indian masses. Do you agree with me MBK ?”
Yes, that mindset still thrives. It was created by Nehru and his government in order to hide their mistakes during the Sino-Indian war. Along with the media, they succeeded in portraying India as the innocent ‘victim’ of Chinese ‘aggression’; and that China had “betrayed” India.
Such an asymmetrical, unbalanced and biased mindset can wreak havoc at any attempt at resolving the dispute.
After all, the Sino-Vietnam war, which was much bloodier and had much more casualties than the Sino-Indian war, did not prevent China and Vietnam from coming to a peaceful settlement of their own border dispute (by dividing the territory equally) and maintaining quite friendly relations.
The ball is in India’s court.
April 7th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Maitreya; for someone who posted ages ago I have to say you do seem to have an obsession with Mr.CDE. Can you get back on the subject please and stop trying to explain how stupid/ignorant/arrogant/totally unlike you he is. Its getting rather tiresome.
You’re also highly critical of the Indian PM and his current, democratic govenment. Perhaps you’d care to label Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Indian people who voted him in ‘ignorant’ too?
April 7th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Seema,
“Can you get back on the subject please and stop trying to explain how stupid/ignorant/arrogant/totally unlike you he is. Its getting rather tiresome.”
I reckon that you are the one who is showing some interesting obsession here.
“You’re also highly critical of the Indian PM and his current, democratic govenment.”
Oh, holy holy democratic cow, how dare you to be critical?
April 7th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
@Seema
You are putting words in my mouth. When have I ever called him “stupid”?
BTW, I called his actions ‘arrogant’, not him. There is a HUGE difference.
I find it rather amusing that you think that I (or anyone, for that matter) cares about CDE enough to be “obsessed” with him!
I was simply replying to the various other comments which were about him, which you would have known if you had read the thread carefully.
I would advise you to read my earlier comments again, were I have repeatedly stressed that he doesn’t deserve that much attention and that it is pointless to pursue this issue further.
As I said earlier, I think that the very reason he came here was simply because of my comment on a recent appalling article of his, in which I had proved how he had twisted facts and had come to all the wrong and biased conclusions (see #152). That is part of the reason why I called him “ignorant”. And it seems he simply couldn’t handle the truth.
“Can you get back on the subject please”
When did I ever get ‘off’ the subject? I’ve never stopped discussing about the main topic.
“You’re also highly critical of the Indian PM and his current, democratic govenment. Perhaps you’d care to label Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Indian people who voted him in ‘ignorant’ too?”
You are going off-topic and being overtly pedantic.
Are you saying that anyone who is critical of the ‘democratic’ government should label the people who voted for it as ‘ignorant’? And how is calling Chris ‘ignorant’ because he lacks knowledge of basic facts even remotely related to this?
Countless people are critical of the government and its policies, regardless of whether they voted for it or not. Isn’t that what ‘democracy’ is all about?
April 7th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
This “Seema” jumped out of nowhere and suddenly picked up a rather irrelevant issue with regard to the discussion. Hehe, nobody is a fool.
April 7th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
@ cc: I checked to make sure we weren’t being spammed and actually, both Seema and Robin Shrivastava are from MB’s neck of the woods and not the same person, so your suspicions aren’t correct. It’s normal for us to bring in new bloggers when the topic involves countries besides China so this isn’t unusual. I’m sure that MB would agree with me that we don’t mind multiple viewpoints, we just want people to stay away from ad hominum attacks and to be able to back up their viewpoints with specifics.
April 7th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
@Maitreya Bhakal #152
You show your ability in the assessment of these two articles. You manage to see through the lies or errors of these articles and correct it with an explanation base on fact. Few people could dissect these articles like you do. Your analysis reflect a profound understanding of the India China border dispute.
Your insight into India affair is a valuable knowledge. I thank you for sharing your knowledge. It is regrettable some people do not see your work as a reflection of an aggregation of pertinent information about India and China border dispute and trouble relationship.
April 8th, 2010 at 6:50 am
@Steve
“MB’s neck of the woods…..”
That’s quite irrelevant. Different viewpoints can exist within the same geographical area or city, can’t they? Does everyone from your neck of the woods have the exact same viewpoint?
“I’m sure that MB would agree with me that we don’t mind multiple viewpoints…..”
Of course we don’t. I’ve always said that ALL viewpoints are always welcome.
Since you bring up the issue of spamming, I might mention that while both those comments are from different computers, they may or may not be from the same person. They are from the same city and their networks/subnets are quite close.
There were two comments, one from ‘Rohin Shrivastava’ and one by another name, which used quite foul language and ad hominem attacks and amounted to flaming; and hence were deleted. Those comments were also from the same city and belonged to a very close network too.
See for yourself: 115.0.0.0, 117.0.0.0, 125.0.0.0.
So – three comments under different names – all from the same city and nearby networks, all arguing the same viewpoint. One wonders……
But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, as long as people stay within commenting guidelines.
@wuen: Thank you.
I’ve often had occasion to appreciate your useful insights on my articles and am looking forward to your feedback on my future ones.
April 8th, 2010 at 7:03 am
@MB
“Yes, that mindset still thrives. It was created by Nehru and his government in order to hide their mistakes during the Sino-Indian war. Along with the media, they succeeded in portraying India as the innocent ‘victim’ of Chinese ‘aggression’; and that China had “betrayed” India.”
Like you said,” back up your statement” !
I agree that Nehru did created all these never ending dispute…thanks to his naive appreciation of PRC’s rise and friendship.
April 8th, 2010 at 7:23 am
@MB
“Such an asymmetrical, unbalanced and biased mindset can wreak havoc at any attempt at resolving the dispute.”
Well, I’m quite confused and very critical about your stand here, when you talk about the chinese you are all o.k, and in acceptance. But when we talk about the Indian side, you are like very critical and demeaning to others when they don’t agree with you. You are always valid !!!
C’mmon budy, I doubt your claim of being an Indian as you answer to fellow blogger Buru.
Give me one good reason why you’ve to check where these people are blogging from and their network area. I’m sure you know mine, but for your kind record and saving you guys the trouble…My name is Lobsang Tenzin, Tibetan, blogging from New Delhi, India.
@MB, steve, wuen – Are you guys name really what you blog in as??? i’m quite doubtful here, sorry i’ve to be critical here, ‘cos I hide nothing and been truthful thinking that all you guys are like me with the zest to know and share knowledge with fellow human beings.
April 8th, 2010 at 7:37 am
@lobsang tenzin (#160):
That’s my opinion; and it seems that you agree with me too.
Of course such an opinion is very difficult to prove per se, but if you want to look into it, just search the keyword – ‘Henderson Brooks Report’.
Also, many people have that opinion, most notably,
1) Neville Maxwell, writes, in the article. Henderson Brooks Report: An Introduction, in the Economic & Political Weekly, that,
“When the Army’s report into its debacle in the border war was completed in 1963, the Indian government had good reason to keep it Top Secret and give only the vaguest, and largely misleading, indications of its contents. At that time the government’s effort, ultimately successful, to convince the political public that the Chinese, with a sudden ‘unprovoked aggression’, had caught India unawares in a sort of Himalayan Pearl Harbour was in its early stages and the report’s cool and detailed analysis, if made public, would have shown that to be self exculpatory mendacity.”
………..
“So by now only bureaucratic inertia, combined with the natural fading of any public interest, can explain the continued non-publication – the report includes no surprises and its publication would be of little significance but for the fact that so many in India still cling to the soothing fantasy of a 1962 Chinese ‘aggression’.”
and in ‘India’s China War’, he writes,
” It was years before anyone in India was bold enough to suggest mending relations with China. In 1969, when Mrs. Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister, made the suggestion, she was criticized in Parliament. The Chinese showed no interest in improving relations with India. Chinese maps continue to ignore the McMahon Line. Presumably Peking’s long-standing offer to negotiate a boundary settlement on the basis of the status quo when India is ready to do so still stands. But thus to go back to the beginning would mean India’s tacit admission of error, and recantation of the deeply cherished belief that in 1962 she was the innocent victim of unprovoked Chinese aggression. That will never be easy. “
2) And this attitude, of China being the aggressor, was also prevalent among western governments too. Gregory Clark, an Australian diplomat, who for much of 1962 was the official directly in charge of Chinese affairs within the East Asia division of Australia’s former department of external affairs; and was previously stationed in Hong Kong as second secretary for two years, says, (He had also written a book, but it was initially rejected by many publishers and he hard a hard time getting it published.)
“At the time, in any dispute involving China, Canberra’s usual assumption was that Beijing was in the wrong.”
….
“Taiwan was still a hot issue at the time, with China once again seen as an aggressor following the very dangerous 1958 Taiwan Straits crisis involving the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu (the civil war nature of Beijing’s dispute with Taiwan had conveniently been forgotten). ”
……
“In the NEFA, China seemed tacitly to have accepted the Indian claim and the fact of Indian occupation, even though this meant the loss of a very large and valuable territory populated by Mongoloid people and which in the past had clearly belonged to Tibet. It had come into Indian hands only as a result of British expansionism during China’s period of historical weakness, a fact firmly suggested by the very name of the frontier Beijing had tacitly accepted as the line of control — the McMahon Line”
……..
“In short, it was obvious that Beijing was preparing for a very reasonable compromise settlement to the frontier dispute, namely giving up the NEFA claim in exchange for India accepting China’s Aksai Chin claim. ”
……..
“China was clearly on the defensive. But none of the people around me at the time seemed very interested in this kind of reliable inside evidence of Chinese thinking. They had already decided that Beijing was aggressive, and that was that. “
……
“Extremely detailed and seemingly objective material coming out of Beijing, including copies of the original McMahon Line agreement, complete with maps, seemed to confirm that both the Dho La Strip and the Thag La Ridge were indeed north of where the McMahon Line was supposed to be. In which case, India was clearly the aggressor. ”
……
“During a 1963-5 Moscow posting I had got to know India’s top China expert, also posted there at the time, and he had confirmed my feeling that Tibet was indeed the key to Nehru’s aggressive frontier policies. ”
“As Henry Kissinger is reported to have said at the time, if he had known the facts of the dispute earlier, his image of Beijing as inherently aggressive would have weakened, together with his support for US intervention in Indochina. “.
“Former US secretary for defence Robert McNamara has also confirmed that the Washington view of China as aggressive was the key factor behind that intervention, with its three million deaths in Vietnam plus another million or so deaths elsewhere in Indochina. “
http://www.gregoryclark.net/redif.html
April 8th, 2010 at 7:58 am
@lobsang tenzin (#161):
Now this is getting downright boring.
“when you talk about the chinese you are all o.k, and in acceptance. But when we talk about the Indian side, you are like very critical and demeaning to others when they don’t agree with you. You are always valid !!!”
Again the same thing. Please explain and point out where I have been “demeaning” to anyone.
Also – “always valid”??!
You are forgetting that I always supply all the relevant facts when I make a factual statement.
“I doubt your claim of being an Indian”
Do you think I care what you doubt or don’t doubt?
Are you saying that ALL Indians should confirm strictly and blindly to the Indian governments’ point of view, regardless of what the truth is?
This might come as a surprise to you, but they do not.
“Give me one good reason why you’ve to check where these people are blogging from and their network area.”
I thought that was pretty obvious – Because cc raised a suspicion and Steve also replied. see #156 and #157.
I think you will agree that editors and authors have a duty to keep the site spam-free.
“MB, steve, wuen – Are you guys name really what you blog in as??? i’m quite doubtful here, sorry i’ve to be critical here, ‘cos I hide nothing and been truthful thinking that all you guys are like me with the zest to know and share knowledge with fellow human beings.”
None of us are hiding anything. What’s your point?
People blog under different aliases. But what if a single person blogs under different aliases on the same thread? That amounts to spamming.
I would advise you to read my earlier comment carefully – #159, where I said – let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, as long as people stay within commenting guidelines.
In any case, I had called CDE “ignorant” because this was not the first time that he had displayed his ignorance of Indian and Chinese issues, as you already know.
April 9th, 2010 at 6:56 am
So MB, what you are suggesting is that New Delhi government should raise up the issue of “swap” suggested by the PRC. Kindly, give us one good reason, now with the Indian foreign Minister in Beijing, why it is good for both the country. What about the rest of other disputed area, which is bound to surface after the settlement of Arunachal and Aksai Chin??? Indian claim of chinese occupying 40,000sq miles of Indian territory (Aksai chin, the Pangong area and Demchok in Ladakh, the Spitti area, Shipki pass and the Nilang-Jadhang area in Himachal Pradesh, Bara Hoti area in U.P, Khinzemane, Shatse, Longju and Mingyitun in Arunachal Pradesh.) In your opinion Aksai chin and Arunachal is the sole problem of the border dispute???
April 9th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
@ lobsang tenzin #161: Yes, I am who I say I am. Everyone who’s followed this blog for some time knows where I live and have lived, where I went to university, where my wife is from, etc. But that’s just me. I don’t mind if others want to be more discreet about their lives and pasts. However, I AM skeptical when I read posts from people who say they have been to a certain place or talked with certain kinds of people, yet have no personal experiences to relate from their travels except typical boilerplate anyone can pull from the web. Frankly, I don’t believe a word they say.
April 10th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
NOTE: Some comments, which were ad hominem attacks and used inappropriate language and childish remarks, have been deleted. One comment in fact – seemed to be the complete spam package – including factual errors too! It was abundantly clear that that person was only interested in hijacking and diverting the thread (even more than it already is), and had no interest in having a serious and healthy debate.
This goes on to indicate that this thread may be being spammed, or in danger of being so.
——————————
Some people might be wondering why, more than a hundred comments later, this CDE issue is still being debated. Now, personally, I would want nothing more than to stop all discussions about this fruitless issue, and I have already made my point in earlier comments; and so have others. But its just that people keep ASKING and commenting about that topic; and hence I am obliged to reply to them. THAT is why this issue has been stretched so long. I have never brought up the issue unilaterally. I have brought it up only if and when someone has asked about it. Very often the same questions keep getting asked again and again. (Many commenters don’t even know the meaning of basic English words.)
Same thing with others. People keep asking, and other people keep replying. That needs to stop. Such comments are not even worth replying to.
——————————–
I think that, as I have said earlier on numerous occasions, that’s about enough discussion on this topic.
We should go back to the topic at hand.
@lobsang tenzin (#164)
All the questions which you have raised have already been asked before and answered by me, either in the comments section or in the article. If you read them carefully, you will find answers to all your queries.
April 11th, 2010 at 8:02 am
comment hidden due to low quality
April 11th, 2010 at 9:26 am
seema#167,
I feel your personal attacks on Maitreya uncalled for.
I, for one, am grateful for Maitreya’s article, his/her well structured and evidenced further explanations & comments in this thread and his/her background information on CDE. Together with comments from other bloggers, both here and at sites that Maitreya provided links for (and those sites that I discovered from there), they helped me to understand the topic of the article and form a much better understanding of what CDE has written elsewhere in the cyberworld and what he seems to be as a person.
Thanks again, Maitreya.
April 11th, 2010 at 10:44 am
@ChineseInUK: Your most welcome.
I don’t think we should care much about those comments. Those people are simply jealous and can’t make their (non) point without getting immature. Its just that they don’t have much of a point to make. They are only interested in converting this thread into an episode of South Park.
They keep repeating the same wrong things over and over again – in accordance with Hitler’s dictum, “Repeat a false statement a thousand times, and it becomes the truth”. A child can see through their intentions.
Those people simply don’t deserve our attention.
In fact, according to her submitted email ID, her full name is Seema Bhende, and two seconds of googling will tell you that she works with CDE, just as some people suspected. So there you have it, mystery solved. For one, I’m surprised to know that she is an adult!
April 11th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I’m getting really fed up with this Maitreya. Seema does not work for me, she left our firm several months ago to return to the US. I suspect someone has been going into our website and retrieving information and I very much doubt she would post commentary. I am going to have to complain again about your behavior. This is online harrassment on your part and I am sick and tired of your stupid comments, behavior and impersonations of people “who work for me”. I haven’t commented here since post 41 because of your nasty attitude and you just can’t leave people in peace. What is wrong with you? I am going to write to the moderator here again. This is intolerable.
April 11th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
@Chris (#170):
What? Are you suggesting that I am impersonating your friends? Well, I didn’t expect that even you could stoop so low.
If one really wanted to impersonate one of your colleagues, why would one choose one of your past colleagues, and not a present one?
Why would I post comments targeted at myself using another name? That doesn’t even make sense.
After this remark, what I previously doubted about you has now turned into a certainty – that whatever you say is simply beneath contempt.
Name one comment where I, or anyone else here, for that matter, have shown ‘nasty’ attitude, ‘stupid’ comments or have ‘harassed’ anyone. Nobody here thinks that but you. And of course your cronies and friends, who post obscene comments.
I don’t want this issue to go any further, and have repeatedly tried to conclude it. People have tried to forget about this issue, but your cronies and friends keep showing up again and again and attempt to divert the thread and spam it. If they wouldn’t have commented so obscenely, this issue would have been concluded long ago.
Everyone, including the moderators, know why you came here; that you and your friends have continuously tried to spam this thread, and have tried to divert a healthy debate. Everyone else here has been completely civil.
—————————————
@ALL(including Chris)
On the whole, I think that it would be wiser to drop this matter now.
As Kelsey Grammer would say, Frasier has left the building.
April 11th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
I am closing down this thread since it is clearly out of control. As a reminder, this blog is for civil discussions, not for personal feuds.