Thread
In the current LAC standoff between India & China all kinds of theories have been given in the Indian press from a COVID-19 angle to a desire in Beijing to teach India a lesson for getting too close to the west.
However, a fundamental Chinese motivation has been ignored.
In the current LAC standoff between India & China all kinds of theories have been given in the Indian press from a COVID-19 angle to a desire in Beijing to teach India a lesson for getting too close to the west.
However, a fundamental Chinese motivation has been ignored.
China’s underlying claims are based on historical extent of the Tibetan Empire of 7th to 9th A.D & subsequent old Tibet from 10th century on.
Ironically a Tibetan empire in constant conflict with its arch-enemy in Imperial China & China’s greatest threat on its western flank.
Ironically a Tibetan empire in constant conflict with its arch-enemy in Imperial China & China’s greatest threat on its western flank.
Imperial Tibet at one point even invaded & briefly occupied the Tang Dynasty capital of Changan & installed a puppet Chinese Emperor in 763 AD.
Both countries also had regional allies with China frequently allying with the Arab Caliphate on Tibet’s Western flank to pressure it.
Both countries also had regional allies with China frequently allying with the Arab Caliphate on Tibet’s Western flank to pressure it.
Important point is Imperial Tibet extended boundaries of the empire to its maximum extent in all directions towards Central Asia, South Asia & even East Asia.
It also exercised suzerainty.
Then came a collapse due to internal power struggles & assassination of its last King.
It also exercised suzerainty.
Then came a collapse due to internal power struggles & assassination of its last King.
Period of 9th to 10th century was one of fragmentation of the old Empire where independent Kingdoms emerged.
One of them was Ladakh established by Nyima-Gon or descendant of a Royal Tibetan Family lineage.
Such links to the Imperial past strengthened claims of the new Kings.
One of them was Ladakh established by Nyima-Gon or descendant of a Royal Tibetan Family lineage.
Such links to the Imperial past strengthened claims of the new Kings.
From 10th to 12th century AD there was a huge cultural and religious renaissance as Buddhist Kings and regions in Tibet patronized Buddhist masters and artists.
Then as the Mongols rose under Ghengis in the 13th Century much of Asia was put under Mongol rule or suzerainty.
Then as the Mongols rose under Ghengis in the 13th Century much of Asia was put under Mongol rule or suzerainty.
Tibet along with Song China & many other countries (Korea etc) came under a larger Mongol Empire.
However, Tibet was administered separately by Mongols who granted a certain autonomy & appointed Tibetan Sakya sect head as head of Tibet.
Political clout lay with Mongols though.
However, Tibet was administered separately by Mongols who granted a certain autonomy & appointed Tibetan Sakya sect head as head of Tibet.
Political clout lay with Mongols though.
As Yuan Dynasty (Mongols) declined by 13th century Tibet from 14th to 18th Century was largely run by indigenous Tibetan leaders and families.
The 17th century saw the rise of the Gelugpa sect or Dalai Lama aided by Khoshut Mongols but this was still largely a local show.
The 17th century saw the rise of the Gelugpa sect or Dalai Lama aided by Khoshut Mongols but this was still largely a local show.
Like their Mongol cousins the nomadic Manchus of the North invaded, coerced and established the Manchu or Qing Dynasty in China.
China’s new Manchu Dynasty expanded Imperial China to its greatest territorial extent ever from the 18th to 20th century.
China’s new Manchu Dynasty expanded Imperial China to its greatest territorial extent ever from the 18th to 20th century.
The Qing sent a military expedition to Tibet in 1720 against the Dzunghar Mongols.
From then on the Qing became an important player in Tibet though Tibet was still governed by the Dalai Lamas.
The Qing control though varied on events and it’s influence waned ending in 1911.
From then on the Qing became an important player in Tibet though Tibet was still governed by the Dalai Lamas.
The Qing control though varied on events and it’s influence waned ending in 1911.
A lot of China’s basis of the 1950 invasion of Tibet and subsequent border and LAC claims comes from this Qing period.
To complicate the matter the Qing period of influence in Tibet was when India was under the British who was exploring the frontiers with Tibet.
To complicate the matter the Qing period of influence in Tibet was when India was under the British who was exploring the frontiers with Tibet.
Meanwhile, the once independent Ladakh Kingdom had become a part of Jammu and Kashmir in 1842 after a Dogra invasion and failed rebellion.
Jammu and Kashmir in turn was effectively under British suzerainty who exercised power over the Sikhs and Dogras.
Jammu and Kashmir in turn was effectively under British suzerainty who exercised power over the Sikhs and Dogras.
For Tawang & AP, British under Simla Convention of 1914 signed with Tibet (boycotted by China)came up with MacMohan line that brought Tawang& AP under British India in exchange for recognizing Central Tibet &Western Kham as being under Tibetan govt with some Chinese suzerainty.
The British initially did not accept the 1914 Shimla convention thinking it would go against the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention.
Tibet then rejected the MacMohan line.
In 1921 the British ignore the Convention with Russia and stressed Shimla convention & the MacMohan line.
Tibet then rejected the MacMohan line.
In 1921 the British ignore the Convention with Russia and stressed Shimla convention & the MacMohan line.
So British did lay claim to Tawang and AP under this but apart from some occasional British attempts it was only in 1951 that Tawang & AP was brought under India with a military detachment as invading PLA forces started overrunning Tibet.
China now claims AP as Southern Tibet.
China now claims AP as Southern Tibet.
India from 1950s recognized that it did not have military ability to help Tibet & so Nehru took the militarily practical path of accepting Tibet as an autonomous region of China.
But, Nehru was outraged with the invasion & so secured what india got from British & it’s frontiers.
But, Nehru was outraged with the invasion & so secured what india got from British & it’s frontiers.
So a newly Communist China asserting Qing claims over old Tibet came up against a newly independent India securing its interpretation of the frontiers with Tibet.
The difference from Qing era was suzerainty changing into territory consolidation.
This led to 1962 Sino-Indian war.
The difference from Qing era was suzerainty changing into territory consolidation.
This led to 1962 Sino-Indian war.
In 2003 Indian govt under PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee in hopes of improving ties with China & getting PRC recognition for Sikkim said ‘Tibetan Autonomous Region is a part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China.’
This was a major change in the Indian position on Tibet.
This was a major change in the Indian position on Tibet.
This stand was a big change from the earlier Indian position till 2003 which said, ‘Tibet is an autonomous region of China’.
India’s new position was now a complete acceptance of China’s position over Tibet and all its territories with no recognition of even the 1950 invasion.
India’s new position was now a complete acceptance of China’s position over Tibet and all its territories with no recognition of even the 1950 invasion.
On hindsight India did not get much from that subtle but important change in position in 2003, but it considerably solidified all Chinese territorial claims of Old Tibet along the entire LAC from Arunachal Pradesh (claimed as South Tibet by PRC) to Ladakh etc.
PRC invasion of Tibet was based primarily on wavering Manchu influence over Tibet.
But PRC modern approach is a complete amalgamation and sinicization.
So for the PRC/CCP view it feels it has given up on a lot of Imperial Tibet/Old Tibet territory claims and cannot backdown now.
But PRC modern approach is a complete amalgamation and sinicization.
So for the PRC/CCP view it feels it has given up on a lot of Imperial Tibet/Old Tibet territory claims and cannot backdown now.
So in the unofficial CCP worldview or sentiment it already feels too much of Imperial Tibet or now ‘Chinese Territory’ has been lost and so there is a readiness and willingness to push the claim lines and the LAC so that it can hold on to or claim as much as it can.
The problem in essence now is quite a modern one where 2 powerful nations/armies meet on a frontier where earlier neither had direct historical contact but are trying to assert each nation’s claims along a tenuous and complicated border tied to now ignored historical events.
Thread broke here for some reason
