Jump to content

Tibetan Declaration of Independence


zen

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

If India could show instrument of accession and its matter over, then why would the UN ask for a plebiscite, because India always had the instrument of accession in the back pocket.

 

The fact that India had the instrument of accession and the UN STILL asked India for referendum means the instrument of accession is irrelevant to the reason UN asked for referendum.

 

now, do you think India would've won the referendum in whole of Kashmir ?

 


IN what list is Kashmir taken off by the UN exactly ?

 

Because Ind acceped the terms with Nehru assuming things (miscalculation)would be sorted out in this way 

 

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Jammu-and-Kashmir-out-of-U.N.-list-of-disputes/article15687886.ece

 

^ Kashmir is off UN list

 

I don't know what you are going on and on about 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Pak didnt care for Junagarh. It didnt fight 1% as much for it

2. UN resolution indicates that if PAK or India had raised the issue, they'd have gone for the plebicite option anyways. I don't see what dots you are thinking of, when India basically went to the UN to de-legitimize Pak's invasion and ended up with that plus the UN demanding referendum.

3. Nehru doing 30 dumb things doesn't negate the one smart thing he did, neither does he doing one smart thing negate the 30 dumb things he did.  Indians like you are too used to simple third world mentality of seeing things in pure black and white, instead of seeing things individually and being objective about it. 

 

 

PS: 'Gave up on Tibet' ? Shows how little you know of international law and being brainwashed by the hinduvta crowd. Even USA gave up on tibet, when China was 'the red terror', way, way before Nixon.

Why ? Because ALL world powers recognized Tibet as integral part of China during Qing Dynasty. British India did, British Empire did, Russia did, USA did. Everyone did. Tibet never officially declared independence, they simply operated as a 'de-facto' country as the Qing dynasty collapsed and China was engulfed in war. After WWII, China came back, claimed what is rightfully theirs and everyone agreed. 
So get your head out of your rear end. There never was a case for Tibet's independence in the first place. Because not even the Dalai Llama asked for it.

 

1. Pak fighting for Kashmir in UN has no bearings on Ind having to accept anything that UN says. Ind had to accept UN conditions because Ind went to UN .... Did Pak go to UN for BD? 

 

2. Again, does not matter what UN Resolution says if Ind had not approached it. And Kashmir issue is off UN now

 

3. What Nehru did in Kashmir wasn't smart 

 

4. Once again, Nehru gave up on Tibet, more specifically its people .... And it is funny that you say China came back and took what was theirs as it is also termed as an "invasion", which itself should say something, and when China could not take back Taiwan 

 

Additionally, if you think China could just take Tibet, it shows that with UN too, if Pak had approached it,  would not have intervined in Kashmir if Ind did not want its intervention (instrument of accession) - point 1, 2 and 3!

 

/checkmate 

 

So again, you are making comical points .... I have time for those who make intelligent points or genuinely want to discuss something ..... not for the crap that you post. Enough time has been wasted on you 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zen said:

1. Pak fighting for Kashmir in UN has no bearings on Ind having to accept anything that UN says. Ind had to accept UN conditions because Ind went to UN .... Did Pak go to UN for BD? 

 India has to accept UN conditions if UN imposes conditions on India. Whether PAK went to UN over BD is irrelevant to the scenario playing out in 1948- which is, what would happen to a newly formed country and newly formed UN, if Pak went to the UN after India took control of Kashmir.

 

Quote
 

2. Again, does not matter what UN Resolution says if Ind had not approach it. And Kashmir issue is off UN now

 

Disagree. we are talking 1948 here. Just after WWII, before Korea, with rest of the world still massively militarized. India was in no position to stand against the UN with zero friends. It mattered greatly what the UN said in Korea for eg. 

 

Quote
 

3. What Nehru did in Kashmir wasn't smart 

 

Depends on if you think that India would actually hold on to Kashmir without losing it in the medium-long term.Something similar to East Timor for e.g.. A divided territory that is not resolved, is a frozen conflict. No risk of status quo changing, except by direct military force only. If Nehru & the think tank at that time legitimately thought that the risk to Kashmiri independence movement arising or the UN taking unilateral action against India on behalf of Kashmir was great in a 'total Indian control Kashmir', then it made sense to go keep the most populated areas of Kashmir under our control and 'freeze the conflict'. 

 

Quote
 
4. Once again, Nehru gave up on Tibet, more specifically its people .... And it is funny that you say China came back and took what was theirs as it is also termed as an "invasion", which itself should say something, and when China could not take back Taiwan 

What you say does not matter. No nation in the world agrees with you on this, because you don't invade your own land that didn't declare independence. Its like if  India descends into anarchy and Tamil Nadu becomes 'outside centre's direct control'. But TN doesnt declare independence (Tibet didnt declare indepdence !). years later, when India is back on its feet again, it returns to TN. India wouldn't call it 'invasion' in such a case. This is exactly what happened in Tibet. Ofourse the Dalai Llama was not happy taking orders from the Chinese, after doing what he wants over Tibet for a few decades. Nobody likes their autocratic power nixed. But there was no declaration of Independence, nobody disputed China's claim over Tibet for hundreds of years, so China did not invade. 
Stop drinking the hinduvta Koolaid and listen to facts.

 

Quote
 
Additionally, if you think China could just take Tibet, it shows that with UN too, if Pak had approached it,  would not have intervined in Kashmir if Ind did not want its intervention (instrument of accession) - point 1, 2 and 3!

 

No, it shows no such thing, because you are comparing something very different.

Tibet has been LEGALLY part of China for hundreds of years. Kashmir was not legally part of India during 1947. it was a post-indepdence merger.

Nobody disputed China's claim over Tibet over these hundreds of years. Pakistan disputed India's claim over Tibet.

Tibet did not declare independence at any point in the last several hundred years, nobody recognized an independent Tibet for the last several hundred years. Kashmir was independent as of 1947.

Big difference there.

 

Quote
 
/checkmate

:laugh::facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 India has to accept UN conditions if UN imposes conditions on India. Whether PAK went to UN over BD is irrelevant to the scenario playing out in 1948- which is, what would happen to a newly formed country and newly formed UN, if Pak went to the UN after India took control of Kashmir.

 

Disagree. we are talking 1948 here. Just after WWII, before Korea, with rest of the world still massively militarized. India was in no position to stand against the UN with zero friends. It mattered greatly what the UN said in Korea for eg. 

 

 

Depends on if you think that India would actually hold on to Kashmir without losing it in the medium-long term.Something similar to East Timor for e.g.. A divided territory that is not resolved, is a frozen conflict. No risk of status quo changing, except by direct military force only. If Nehru & the think tank at that time legitimately thought that the risk to Kashmiri independence movement arising or the UN taking unilateral action against India on behalf of Kashmir was great in a 'total Indian control Kashmir', then it made sense to go keep the most populated areas of Kashmir under our control and 'freeze the conflict'. 

 

What you say does not matter. No nation in the world agrees with you on this, because you don't invade your own land that didn't declare independence. Its like if  India descends into anarchy and Tamil Nadu becomes 'outside centre's direct control'. But TN doesnt declare independence (Tibet didnt declare indepdence !). years later, when India is back on its feet again, it returns to TN. India wouldn't call it 'invasion' in such a case. This is exactly what happened in Tibet. Ofourse the Dalai Llama was not happy taking orders from the Chinese, after doing what he wants over Tibet for a few decades. Nobody likes their autocratic power nixed. But there was no declaration of Independence, nobody disputed China's claim over Tibet for hundreds of years, so China did not invade. 
Stop drinking the hinduvta Koolaid and listen to facts.

 

 

No, it shows no such thing, because you are comparing something very different.

Tibet has been LEGALLY part of China for hundreds of years. Kashmir was not legally part of India during 1947. it was a post-indepdence merger.

Nobody disputed China's claim over Tibet over these hundreds of years. Pakistan disputed India's claim over Tibet.

Tibet did not declare independence at any point in the last several hundred years, nobody recognized an independent Tibet for the last several hundred years. Kashmir was independent as of 1947.

Big difference there.

 

:laugh::facepalm:

My friend, the point is that UN would have not intervened at all if Ind had not gone to it so there is no point in speculating what UN or world or your cousins or whoever would have done to Kashmir, legally a part of Ind .... If "instrument of accession" can be challenged, one can challenge the formation of Pak too 

 

The points against your argument on Tibet are already made if you "read" and "connect dots" .... There is a UN resolution passed on Tibet in 1961 (google it) .... Based on association during a certain time period in our long history, Mongolia can lay claims to a number of territories 

 

 

I get it that you want to believe Nehru to be someone who was smart and played by rules, someone who, on one hand,  ran to UN to turn the region that legally joined Ind in to disputed one,  and, on the other hand, did not do anything on Tibet (and its people) believing that since China thinks it has claims on Tibet, it can rightfully invade it :phehe:

 

 

The dope you smoke to imagine all that, manufacture crap to justify that and also believe that you can still play the game despite the checkmate must be effective .... (you don't even realize what has happened on this thread. It is like a runner, who finished last, continuing to run in the 100 mts alone thinking that the race is not over despite the medals being handed out)

 

Once the effect of dope disappears and you realize that the game was over a long time ago,  you will probably go on to waste time on some random post by picking out lines to debate the literal meaning of something used figuratively 

 

Thanks for the comedy though :rotfl:

 

/enough said

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zen said:

My friend, the point is that UN would have not intervened at all if Ind had not gone to it so there is no point in speculating what UN or world or your cousins or whoever would have done to Kashmir, legally a part of Ind .... If "instrument of accession" can be challenged, one can challenge the formation of Pak too 

You are speculating, so am I. You think India winning the war, everyone would've gone home quietly. I think UN would've made it a korea-like situation. So stop pretending that yours is not a speculation and mine is. 

Quote
 

The points against your argument on Tibet are already made if you "read" and "connect dots" .... There is a UN resolution passed on Tibet in 1961 (google it) .... Based on association during a certain time period in our long history, Mongolia can lay claims to a number of territories 

 

The point you made against Tibet were false. Go check your facts. And it has nothing to do with Mongolia laying claim on us either. 
As i said, everyone recognized China's claim on Tibet for hundreds of years, nobody considered Tibet disputed territory, Tibet didn't declare independence. Those are the facts.

 

Quote

The dope you smoke to imagine all that, manufacture crap to justify that and also believe that you can still play the game despite the checkmate must be effective

Checkmte is against you bhai. Because you are speaking nonsense and have not given a single reason on why Chinese return to Tibet is an 'invasion' or how 'Nehru and the world let Tibet down'. 

You are just repeating BS ideas that come from BJP's basement, that we should do something about Tibet because of 'tit for tat' mentality. Forgetting that, the situations are different and there is nothing to be done about Tibet, legally. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You are speculating, so am I. You think India winning the war, everyone would've gone home quietly. I think UN would've made it a korea-like situation. So stop pretending that yours is not a speculation and mine is. 

The point you made against Tibet were false. Go check your facts. And it has nothing to do with Mongolia laying claim on us either. 
As i said, everyone recognized China's claim on Tibet for hundreds of years, nobody considered Tibet disputed territory, Tibet didn't declare independence. Those are the facts.

 

Checkmte is against you bhai. Because you are speaking nonsense and have not given a single reason on why Chinese return to Tibet is an 'invasion' or how 'Nehru and the world let Tibet down'. 

You are just repeating BS ideas that come from BJP's basement, that we should do something about Tibet because of 'tit for tat' mentality. Forgetting that, the situations are different and there is nothing to be done about Tibet, legally. 

 

Let's answer the questions below:

 

  • Does Ind have the instrument of accession for Kashmir? 
  • Is there UN Resolution 1961 on Tibet? 
  • So if Mongolia cannot claim territory despite having one the biggest empires, how come you are ready to accept China's claims on Tibet?
  • Did China have instrument of accession willingly signed by Tibet? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zen said:

Let's answer the questions below:

 

  • Does Ind have the instrument of accession for Kashmir? 
  • Is there UN Resolution 1961 on Tibet? 
  • So if Mongolia cannot claim territory despite having one the biggest empires, how come you are ready to accept China's claims on Tibet?
  • Did China have instrument of accession willingly signed by Tibet? 

 

1. Yes, but instrument of accession didnt matter when the UN demanded referendum, so i don't think it will matter either way. Either side going to the UN would lead to the referendum cry.

 

2. The UN resolution on Tibet does not ask for Tibet's official independence or claim its independence. Read the bloody resolution!

 

3. Irrelevant. I am ready to accept China's claim, along with any other country's claim to pieces of its land if :  a) It has been part of the country for hundreds of years b) Nobody has laid claims to those territories, i.e. undisputed territorries  c) At no point did the territory in question declare independence. 

 

4. Yep. Almost 600 years before now. And since then, no Tibetan government has declared its independence from China.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Yes, but instrument of accession didnt matter when the UN demanded referendum, so i don't think it will matter either way. Either side going to the UN would lead to the referendum cry.

 

2. The UN resolution on Tibet does not ask for Tibet's official independence or claim its independence. Read the bloody resolution!

 

3. Irrelevant. I am ready to accept China's claim, along with any other country's claim to pieces of its land if :  a) It has been part of the country for hundreds of years b) Nobody has laid claims to those territories, i.e. undisputed territorries  c) At no point did the territory in question declare independence. 

 

4. Yep. Almost 600 years before now. And since then, no Tibetan government has declared its independence from China.

 

1. Again, the instrument of accession did not matter because Ind which had that went to UN 

 

2. UN Resolution on Tibet:

 

Legal Materials on Tibet
United Nations

United Nations G.A. Resolution 1723 (XVI) on Tibet (1961) [p.10]

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 1723 (XVI)

NEW YORK, 1961

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1353 (XVI) of 21 October 1959 on the question of Tibet,

Gravely concerned at the continuation of events in Tibet, including the violation of the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and the suppression of the distinctive cultural and religious life which they have traditionally enjoyed,

Noting with deep anxiety the severe hardships which these events have inflicted on the Tibetan people, as evidenced by the large-scale exodus of Tibetan refugees to the neighboring countries,

Considering that these events violate fundamental human rights and freedoms set out in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations, and have the deplorable effect of increasing international tension and embittering relations between peoples,

1) Reaffirms its conviction that respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essential for the evolution of a peaceful world order based on the rule of law;

2) Solemnly renews its call for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination;

3) Expresses the hope that Member States will make all possible efforts, as appropriate, towards achieving the purposes of the present resolution.

 

3) Taiwan has been part of China too, no?

 

4) https://freetibet.org/about/china-argument

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zen said:

1. Again, the instrument of accession did not matter because Ind which had that went to UN 

 

2. UN Resolution on Tibet:

 

Legal Materials on Tibet
United Nations

United Nations G.A. Resolution 1723 (XVI) on Tibet (1961) [p.10]

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 1723 (XVI)

NEW YORK, 1961

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1353 (XVI) of 21 October 1959 on the question of Tibet,

Gravely concerned at the continuation of events in Tibet, including the violation of the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and the suppression of the distinctive cultural and religious life which they have traditionally enjoyed,

Noting with deep anxiety the severe hardships which these events have inflicted on the Tibetan people, as evidenced by the large-scale exodus of Tibetan refugees to the neighboring countries,

Considering that these events violate fundamental human rights and freedoms set out in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations, and have the deplorable effect of increasing international tension and embittering relations between peoples,

1) Reaffirms its conviction that respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essential for the evolution of a peaceful world order based on the rule of law;

2) Solemnly renews its call for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination;

3) Expresses the hope that Member States will make all possible efforts, as appropriate, towards achieving the purposes of the present resolution.

 

3) Taiwan has been part of China too, no?

 

4) https://freetibet.org/about/china-argument

 

 


Yea. None of this says China does not have a right to be in Tibet. It says 'China has been a jacka$$ in tibet, china must respect Tibet or GTFO' . 
Which is what makes sense and nobody here is opposing either. 


But bhai, it is NOT the same situation as Kashmir and i have said why. You don't even touch those facts with a ten-foot pole.

 

I think people need to actually ask themselves, what would've happened in 1948 if Pakistan went full whine-mode to a newly formed UN, after their buddying-up with USA immediately ( much clearer foresight than India re: Cold war). Nehru may've wanted to accomplish in Kashmir, on a much, much larger scale (proportionately speaking), as Putin is doing in Ukraine: create a frozen conflict. 

 

PS: Taiwan, is different. Its actually the former govt. of China with full legitimacy, which officially never surrendered to the Commies. And it happens to do just fine in Taiwan. Again, not comparable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:


Yea. None of this says China does not have a right to be in Tibet. It says 'China has been a jacka$$ in tibet, china must respect Tibet or GTFO' . 
Which is what makes sense and nobody here is opposing either. 


But bhai, it is NOT the same situation as Kashmir and i have said why. You don't even touch those facts with a ten-foot pole.

 

I think people need to actually ask themselves, what would've happened in 1948 if Pakistan went full whine-mode to a newly formed UN, after their buddying-up with USA immediately ( much clearer foresight than India re: Cold war). Nehru may've wanted to accomplish in Kashmir, on a much, much larger scale (proportionately speaking), as Putin is doing in Ukraine: create a frozen conflict. 

 

PS: Taiwan, is different. Its actually the former govt. of China with full legitimacy, which officially never surrendered to the Commies. And it happens to do just fine in Taiwan. Again, not comparable.

 

:rotfl: 

 

On one hand, you say  none of that says China has no right to be in Tibet (when self-determination clause states otherwise), basically stating that China can do whatever it pleases w/o any legal stand .... On the other hand, despite having instrument of accession, you believe that Ind would have suffered at the hands of UN / Pak, when Pak never dared to attack Ind. It had attacked Kashmir which made Kashmir join Ind

 

You write about chaddis doing this or that, but remember wearing chaddis in public > wearing underwears in public (libtards) 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, zen said:

:rotfl: 

 

On one hand, you say  none of that says China has no right to be in Tibet (when self-determination clause states otherwise), basically stating that China can do whatever it pleases w/o any legal stand .... On the other hand, despite having instrument of accession, you believe that Ind would have suffered at the hands of UN / Pak, when Pak never dared to attack Ind. It had attacked Kashmir which made Kashmir join Ind

 

You write about chaddis doing this or that, but remember wearing chaddis in public > wearing underwears in public (libtards) 

 

 

 

 

 

That is flawed logic. Otherwise known as a non sequitur.

I never said/implied that.

i said, you can ask/clamor for Tibet's independence/referendum in Tibet and that is legitimate. Asking for a referendum anywhere,in a non-representational government, is always a legitimate demand. But that does not mean Tibet isn't legally part of China and has been, for much,much longer than Kashmir has been with India. You said 'we gave up on Tibet', i pointed out , that not just us, the whole world gave up on Tibet, because nobody has ever has challenged china's sovereign claim on Tibet. including Tibet. You do realize, that Tibet wants to be an autonomous province, not independent, correct ? 

 

Regardless, the day you will answer my questions as to how you can say 'we gave up', when there was no fight for independence in the first place and we are discussing 'sovereign rights' issues, not 'how exactly a sovereign rules its domains'. 

The entire point of Kashmir, is sovereign rights. We are in the correct to the letter of the law. The 'humanitarian' angle, is to have referendum there. 
However, there cannot be a referendum till 'letter of the law' has been established-ie, China and Pakistan return what is technically, 'acceded parts of India awaiting UN-mandated referendum'. 

Familiarize yourself with both sides of the Tibet narrative before you go bull-horning around. its largely a pop-media Indian wishful thinking that something happens in Tibet. Well, for that something to happen, India would have to be ahead of China in every department. Because short of 'being the Pakistan to China's Tibet', there is jack we can do about it. Because of the simple fact Tibet never officially demanded idependnce. 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

That is flawed logic. Otherwise known as a non sequitur.

I never said/implied that.

i said, you can ask/clamor for Tibet's independence/referendum in Tibet and that is legitimate. Asking for a referendum anywhere,in a non-representational government, is always a legitimate demand. But that does not mean Tibet isn't legally part of China and has been, for much,much longer than Kashmir has been with India. You said 'we gave up on Tibet', i pointed out , that not just us, the whole world gave up on Tibet, because nobody has ever has challenged china's sovereign claim on Tibet. including Tibet. You do realize, that Tibet wants to be an autonomous province, not independent, correct ? 

 

Regardless, the day you will answer my questions as to how you can say 'we gave up', when there was no fight for independence in the first place and we are discussing 'sovereign rights' issues, not 'how exactly a sovereign rules its domains'. 

The entire point of Kashmir, is sovereign rights. We are in the correct to the letter of the law. The 'humanitarian' angle, is to have referendum there. 
However, there cannot be a referendum till 'letter of the law' has been established-ie, China and Pakistan return what is technically, 'acceded parts of India awaiting UN-mandated referendum'. 

Familiarize yourself with both sides of the Tibet narrative before you go bull-horning around. its largely a pop-media Indian wishful thinking that something happens in Tibet. Well, for that something to happen, India would have to be ahead of China in every department. Because short of 'being the Pakistan to China's Tibet', there is jack we can do about it. Because of the simple fact Tibet never officially demanded idependnce. 

If you yourself were familiar with Tibet issue, you would know that China forced Tibet to sign some 17 point document and occupied the territory w/o any means to fight back .... Not everyone wants Tibet to be an autonomous province. Those who want that is because they can't see themselves freeing from the clutches of China and therefore have proposed the middle way .... And there is a UN resolution so don't know why you would think that Tibet people are not officially asking for independence 

 

We gave up on Tibet because we did not stand up for it. Nehru got influenced by Hindi-Chini bhai bhai tagline. The link here outlines the blunders of Nehru - http://indiafacts.org/nehru-and-the-china-tibet-blunder/  (which was posted earlier and you are still asking this question?)

 

Now you agree that Ind is correct with the letter of the law 

 

Next step would be to accept that Nehru screwed up in Kashmir and Tibet. 

 

 

 

PS from the link:

 

In the year 1950, two momentous events shook Asia and the world. One was the Chinese invasion of Tibet, and the other, the Chinese intervention in the Korean War. The first was near, on India’s borders, the other, far away in the Korean Peninsula where India had little at stake. By all canons of logic, India should have devoted utmost attention to the immediate situation in Tibet, and let interested parties like China and the U.S. sort it out in Korea.

But Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s Prime Minister did exactly the opposite. He treated the Tibetan crisis in a haphazard fashion, while getting heavily involved in Korea. India today is paying for this folly by being the only country of its size in the world without an official boundary with its giant neighbor. Tibet soon disappeared from the map. As in Kashmir, Nehru sacrificed national interest at home in pursuit of international glory abroad.

India at the time maintained missions in Lhasa and Gyangtse. Due to the close relations that existed between India and Tibet going back centuries and also because of the unsettled conditions in China, Tibet’s transactions with the outside world were conducted mainly through India. Well into 1950, the Indian Government regarded Tibet as a free country.

tibetThe Chinese announced their invasion of Tibet on 25 October 1950. According to them, it was to ‘free Tibet from imperialist forces’, and consolidate its border with India. Nehru announced that he and the Indian Government were ‘extremely perplexed and disappointed with the Chinese Government’s action...’ Nehru also complained that he had been ‘led to believe by the Chinese Foreign Office that the Chinese would settle the future of Tibet in a peaceful manner by direct negotiation with the representatives of Tibet…’

This was not true, for in September 1949, more than a year before the Chinese invasion, Nehru himself had written: “Chinese communists are likely to invade Tibet.” The point to note is that Nehru, by sending mixed signals, showing more interest in Korea than in Tibet, had encouraged the Chinese invasion; the Chinese had made no secret of their desire to invade Tibet. In spite of this, Nehru’s main interest was to sponsor China as a member of the UN Security Council instead of safeguarding Indian interests in Tibet.

Because of this, when the Chinese were moving troops into Tibet, there was little concern in Indian official circles. Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador in Beijing, went so far as to pretend that there was ‘lack of confirmation’ of the presence of Chinese troops in Tibet and that to protest the Chinese invasion of Tibet would be an “interference to India’s efforts on behalf of China in the UN”. So Panikkar was more interested in protecting Chinese interests in the UN than India’s own interests on the Tibetan border! Nehru agreed with his Ambassador. He wrote, “our primary consideration is maintenance of world peace… Recent developments in Korea have not strengthened China’s position, which will be further weakened by any aggressive action [by India] in Tibet.” So Nehru was ready to sacrifice India’s national security interests in Tibet so as not to weaken China’s case in the UN!

It is nothing short of tragedy that the two greatest influences on Nehru at this crucial juncture in history were Krishna Menon and K.M. Panikkar, both communists. Panikkar, while nominally serving as Indian ambassador in China, became practically a spokesman for Chinese interests in Tibet. Sardar Patel remarked that Panikkar “has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions.” India eventually gave up its right to have a diplomatic mission in Lhasa on the ground that it was an ‘imperialist legacy’. This led to Nehru’s discredited ‘Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai’. Mao had no reciprocal affection for India and never spoke of ‘Chini-Hindi Bhai Bhai’— or its Chinese equivalent. Far from it, he had only contempt for India and its leaders. Mao respected only the strong who would oppose him, and not the weak who bent over backwards to please him.

Sardar Patel warned Nehru: ‘Even though we regard ourselves as friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as friends.” He wrote a famous letter in which he expressed deep concern over developments in Tibet, raising several important points. In particular, he noted that a free and friendly Tibet was vital for India’s security, and everything including military measures should be considered to ensure it.’

On November 9, 1950, two days after he wrote the letter to Nehru, he announced in Delhi: ‘In Kali Yuga, we shall return ahimsa for ahimsa. If anybody resorts to force against us, we shall meet it with force.’ But Nehru ignored Patel’s letter. The truth is that India was in a strong position to defend its interests in Tibet, but gave up the opportunity for the sake of pleasing China. It is not widely known in India that in 1950, China could have been prevented from taking over Tibet.

Patel on the other hand recognized that in 1950, China was in a vulnerable position, fully committed in Korea and by no means secure in its hold over the mainland. For months General MacArthur had been urging President Truman to “unleash Chiang Kai Shek” lying in wait in Formosa (Taiwan) with full American support. China had not yet acquired the atom bomb, which was more than ten years in the future. India had little to lose and everything to gain by a determined show of force when China was struggling to consolidate its hold.

patelIn addition, India had international support, with world opinion strongly against Chinese aggression in Tibet. The world in fact was looking to India to take the lead. The highly influential English journal The Economist echoed the Western viewpoint when it wrote: ‘Having maintained complete independence of China since 1912, Tibet has a strong claim to be regarded as an independent state. But it is for India to take a lead in this matter. If India decides to support independence of Tibet as a buffer state between itself and China, Britain and U.S.A. will do well to extend formal diplomatic recognition to it.’

So China could have been stopped. But this was not to be. Nehru ignored Patel’s letter as well as international opinion and gave up this golden opportunity to turn Tibet into a friendly buffer state. With such a principled stand, India would also have acquired the status of a great power while Pakistan would have disappeared from the radar screen of world attention. Much has been made of Nehru’s blunder in Kashmir, but it pales in comparison with his folly in Tibet. As a result of this monumental failure of vision—and nerve—India soon came to be treated as a third rate power, acquiring ‘parity’ with Pakistan. Two months later Patel was dead.

Even after the loss of Tibet, Nehru gave up opportunities to settle the border with China. To understand this, it is necessary to appreciate the fact that what China desired most was a stable border with India. With this in view, the Chinese Premier Zhou-en-Lai visited India several times to fix the boundary between the two countries. In short, the Chinese proposal amounted to the following: they were prepared to accept the McMahon Line as the boundary in the east—with possibly some minor adjustments and a new name—and then negotiate the unmarked boundary in the west between Ladakh and Tibet. In effect, what Zhou-en-Lai proposed was a phased settlement, beginning with the eastern boundary. Nehru, however, wanted the whole thing settled at once. The practical minded Zhou-en-Lai found this politically impossible. And on each visit, the Chinese Premier in search of a boundary settlement, heard more about the principles of Pancha Sheela than India’s stand on the boundary. He interpreted this as intransigence on India’s part.

China in fact went on to settle its boundary with Mayammar (Burma) roughly along the McMahon Line following similar principles. Contrary to what the Indian public was told, the border between Ladakh (in the Princely State of Kashmir) and Tibet was never clearly demarcated. As late as 1960, the Indian Government had to send survey teams to Ladakh to locate the boundary and prepare maps. But the Government kept telling the people that there was a clearly defined boundary, which the Chinese were refusing to accept.

What the situation demanded was a creative approach, especially from the Indian side. There were several practical issues on which negotiations could have been conducted—especially in the 1950s when India was in a strong position. China needed Aksai Chin because it had plans to construct an access road from Tibet to Xinjiang province (Sinkiang) in the west. Aksai Chin was of far greater strategic significance to China than to India. (It may be a strategic liability for India—being expensive to maintain and hard to supply, even more than the Siachen Glacier.) Had Nehru recognized this he might have proposed a creative solution like asking for access to Mount Kailash and Manasarovar in return for Chinese access to Aksai Chin. The issue is not whether such an agreement was possible, but no solutions were proposed. The upshot of all this was that China ignored India—including PanchaSheel—and went ahead with its plan to build the road through Aksai Chin.

This is still not the full story. On the heels of this twin blunder—abandonment of Tibet and sponsorship of China with nothing to show in return—Nehru deceived the Indian public in his pursuit of international glory through PanchaSheel. PanchaSheel, which was the principal ‘policy’ of Nehru towards China from the betrayal of Tibet to the expulsion of Dalai Lama in 1959, is generally regarded as a demonstration of good faith by Nehru that was exploited by the Chinese who ‘stabbed him in the back’. This is not quite correct, for Nehru (and Krishna Menon) knew about the Chinese incursions in Ladakh and Aksai Chin but kept it secret for years to keep the illusion of PanchaSheel alive.

menonGeneral Thimayya had brought the Chinese activities in Aksai Chin to the notice of Nehru and Krishna Menon several years before that. An English mountaineer by name Sydney Wignall was deputed by Thimayya to verify reports that the Chinese were building a road through Aksai Chin. He was captured by the Chinese but released and made his way back to India after incredible difficulties, surviving several snowstorms. Now Thimayya had proof of Chinese incursion. When the Army presented this to the Government, Menon blew up. In Nehru’s presence, he told the senior officer making the presentation that he was “lapping up CIA propaganda.”

Wignall was not Thimayya’s only source. Shortly after the Chinese attack in 1962, I heard from General Thimayya that he had deputed a young officer of the Madras Sappers (MEG) to Aksai Chin to investigate reports of Chinese intrusion who brought back reports of the Chinese incursion. But the public was not told of it simply to cover up Nehru’s blunders. (I heard this not once but twice: first at a lecture in Bangalore and the next day when I visited him personally.) He was still trying to sell his PanchaSheel and Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai to the Indian public. Even today, Nehru’s family members exercise dictatorial control over the documents pertaining to this crucial period. Even documents in the National Archives are not available to scholars without permission from the Nehru-Gandhi family heirs. This is to protect his reputation from being damaged by the truth (But many of the same documents are available in the British Museum and Library in England).

The sorry catalog of blunders continued after Nehru’s death. In the Bangladesh war, India achieved one of the most decisive victories in modern history. More than 90,000 Pakistani soldiers were in Indian custody. The newly independent Bangladesh wanted to try these men as war criminals for their atrocities against the people of East Bengal. The Indian Government could have used this as a bargaining chip with Pakistan and settled the Kashmir problem once and for all. Instead, Indira Gandhi threw away this golden opportunity in exchange for a scrap of paper called the Shimla Agreement. Thanks to this folly, Pakistan is more active than ever in Kashmir.

 

 

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, zen said:

If you yourself were familiar with Tibet issue, you would know that China forced Tibet to sign some 17 point document and occupied the territory w/o any means to fight back .... Not everyone wants Tibet to be an autonomous province. Those who want that is because they can't see themselves freeing from the clutches of China and therefore have proposed the middle way .... And there is a UN resolution so don't know why you would think that Tibet people are not officially asking for independence 

Not everyone matters. China matters & Tibet matters. Because it concerns China and Tibet. And until Tibet *ACTUALLY* demands independence, how can anyone else get involved, is my question. Sure, i mean we can ask China to do human rights commission in Tibet, do independent UN tribunals all that- but sovreignty- we cant challenge China's sovereignty over Tibet, before Tibet itself declares it. 


Sure, if India accepted Tibet as independent, the rest of the world would've followed. But for India to accept Tibet's independence, Tibet or someone from Tibet's government with authority to represent party/people/having mandate/etc. to declare independence. So the blame doesn't lie on Nehru or India, it lies on The Dalai Llama. Without him declaring independence, we were in no position to do anything about it, except piss of all the chinese and chinese-allies as 'mindless aggressors'.
And it is no 'lack of nationalism' to say that in 1950s, I don't think India was prepared for a long war. The Chinese, particularly the Maoists, had already shown that they were willing to fight a war in the long term or atleast, maintain a state of war for a long time. 


That is all i am trying to say here. 
And that is why, i keep saying, stop clouding the issue with Tibet. Tibet and Kashmir are two completely different situations.


As i said, Tibet would be more like my Tamil Nadu example. 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not everyone matters. China matters & Tibet matters. Because it concerns China and Tibet. And until Tibet *ACTUALLY* demands independence, how can anyone else get involved, is my question. Sure, i mean we can ask China to do human rights commission in Tibet, do independent UN tribunals all that- but sovreignty- we cant challenge China's sovereignty over Tibet, before Tibet itself declares it. 


Sure, if India accepted Tibet as independent, the rest of the world would've followed. But for India to accept Tibet's independence, Tibet or someone from Tibet's government with authority to represent party/people/having mandate/etc. to declare independence. So the blame doesn't lie on Nehru or India, it lies on The Dalai Llama. Without him declaring independence, we were in no position to do anything about it, except piss of all the chinese and chinese-allies as 'mindless aggressors'.
And it is no 'lack of nationalism' to say that in 1950s, I don't think India was prepared for a long war. The Chinese, particularly the Maoists, had already shown that they were willing to fight a war in the long term or atleast, maintain a state of war for a long time. 


That is all i am trying to say here. 
And that is why, i keep saying, stop clouding the issue with Tibet. Tibet and Kashmir are two completely different situations.


As i said, Tibet would be more like my Tamil Nadu example. 

Bolded lines in your post is the right track 

 

Tibet was under a lot of pressure and forced to sign the document by China. Dalai Lama himself had to escape Tibet so that should tell you something. Below are some of the letters exchanged b/w DL and Nehru:

 

To Pt Jawaharlal Nehru
Prime Minister of India

 

Ever since Tibet went under the control of Red China and the Tibetan Government lost its powers in 1951, I, my Government officers and citizens have been trying to maintain peace in Tibet but the Chinese Government has been gradually subduing the Tibetan Government.

 

The Tibetans have great love for and faith in Buddhism and their religion is more precious to them than their lives. In order to root out Buddhism, the Chinese published some articles in the press against Lord Buddha’s teachings and circulated them widely. This has created unhappy atmosphere amongst the Tibetans and they have started disliking intensely the Chinese Administration. 
 

On 10.3.1959, I, members of the Kashag and other high ranking officers were invited to the Chinese Army Headquarters in Lhasa ostensibly to attend a cultural show. The people of Lhasa came to me and requested me not to attend the function as they suspected foul play. They announced openly in the streets that they would not remain any longer under China and would become independent. After this a large armed party came to my residence to guard me.
 

The Government of Tibet have tried their best to maintain good relations with China but the Chinese have been trying to take away powers from the Tibetan Government and in some areas they are making preparations for war. On 17.3.1959 at 4 p.m. the Chinese fired two shells in the direction of my residence. They could not do much damage. As our lives were in danger, I and some of my trusted [word missing] manage to escape the same evening at 10 p.m. and moving south to reach Lhuntse Dzong .. 
 

 
 
 
 
Letter from the Dalai Lama to Prime Minister Nehru

July 25, 1960 

Time and again you have been kind enough to express, both publicly and in private, your deep sympathy for the people of Tibet in their sad and sorry situation, and this has given strength and courage to all of us, whether living in Tibet or outside. You have generously accorded us asylum in this holy land. You have given, and are still giving, all possible help for the rehabilitation of the unfortunate Tibetans in India. I have already addressed several letters to Your Excellency in this behalf and am most grateful to you for the kind interest you are taking in the matter. 

Your Excellency has also evinced abiding interest in "the cultural kinship between the people of India and the people of Tibet." We have always believed that Tibet is a child of Indian civilisation and the people of India must be vitally concerned in the preservation of Tibet's distinct personality. I have, therefore, ventured to address this letter to you. Your Excellency must be fully aware of the grim tragedy that is now being enacted in Tibet. I have been receiving with profound sorrow harrowing accounts of oppression and murder. Hundreds of Tibetans, who have recently been pouring into India and Nepal, bear witness to this sad and distressing state of affairs. There are thousands of others who cannot escape and are threatened with death and destruction. I, therefore, feel, and feel very strongly that something must be done, and done now, to save the lives of these people. As Your Excellency is aware, I have unflinching faith in non-violence and have throughout the last ten years made earnest endeavour to pursue the path of peace. Unfortunately, all my efforts have ended in failure, and I am at present not in a position to help my people in any way. I believe, however, that a wise and far-sighted statesman like Your Excellency may be able to do something to bring about a speedy end to this unnecessary and indiscriminate shedding of innocent blood and a just and peaceful settlement of the Tibetan problem. 

I fully appreciate the difficult position of the Government of India in this matter and have, therefore, no other alternative than to take such steps as may be necessary to appeal once again for mediation by the United Nations. I confidently hope that even if the Government of India cannot themselves raise the issue, they will kindly agree to help us in securing the support of other countries and in prosecuting our appeal. Your Excellency, my heart is heavy with sorrow, and I have written to you frankly and freely. I have every confidence that this letter will be taken in the same spirit in which it has been written. 
 
 
Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, zen said:

Bolded lines in your post is the right track 

 

Tibet was under a lot of pressure and forced to sign the document by China. Dalai Lama himself had to escape Tibet so that should tell you something. Below are some of the letters exchanged b/w DL and Nehru:

LOL.

Yes, strike out people's points instead of addressing them. I guess so, because you can't and you still want to save face. 
The Dalai Llama has spent more time outside China than inside China. 

he has had ALL THESE YEARS to declare Tibet's independence. 


As i asked and you've continued to run away,

How is India to demand Tibet's independence or recognize it so, if there is NOBODY INSIDE TIBET WILLING TO DECLARE INDEPDENCENCE ?

The official government of Tibet (China's) and the former government of Tibet (Dalai Llama)-neither have declared independence. So who is India supposed to recognize ?

Answer these questions, before running away. 


A few people demonstrating in the streets mean nothing- thats exactly what you say towards Kashmir, the same is valid for Tibet. There has to be a declaration of independence first, by some legitimate party (Dalai Llama's government or internal Tibetan government defectors') who have to officially declare independence.


TO say, we recognize independent Tibet or should've recognized independent tibet, when tibet itself didnt declare Independence, is the stupidest thing I've heard so far.

But keep drinking that hinduvta Koolaid. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

LOL.

Yes, strike out people's points instead of addressing them. I guess so, because you can't and you still want to save face. 
The Dalai Llama has spent more time outside China than inside China. 

he has had ALL THESE YEARS to declare Tibet's independence. 


As i asked and you've continued to run away,

How is India to demand Tibet's independence or recognize it so, if there is NOBODY INSIDE TIBET WILLING TO DECLARE INDEPDENCENCE ?

The official government of Tibet (China's) and the former government of Tibet (Dalai Llama)-neither have declared independence. So who is India supposed to recognize ?

Answer these questions, before running away. 


A few people demonstrating in the streets mean nothing- thats exactly what you say towards Kashmir, the same is valid for Tibet. There has to be a declaration of independence first, by some legitimate party (Dalai Llama's government or internal Tibetan government defectors') who have to officially declare independence.


TO say, we recognize independent Tibet or should've recognized independent tibet, when tibet itself didnt declare Independence, is the stupidest thing I've heard so far.

But keep drinking that hinduvta Koolaid. 

 

Are you implying that Tibet declare independence while under occupation of China? :shock:

 

Talking about wanting independence, the letter clearly says that people of Tibet want independence:  They announced openly in the streets that they would not remain any longer under China and would become independent. 

 

And they have gone to UN too ....  plus the links posted about people fighting for Tibet's independence like free Tibet (just google it) 

 

If you can't see that, you are indulging in dishonesty (and that too for someone like Nehru) 

 

 

 

World Tibet Network News

Monday, May 17, 1993


 

2. Dalai Lama Asks Poles to Back Tibet's Independence


WARSAW, May 16, Reuter - The Dalai Lama, exiled spiritual and political 
leader of Tibet, on Sunday urged Poles to support his campaign for his 
country's independence from China, state television reported on Sunday. 


He made the appeal shortly after arriving at Warsaw airport at the start 
of a five-day unofficial visit, during which he is scheduled to meet Polish 
political, religious and cultural leaders. 


The Buddhist leader is expected to meet President Lech Walesa during 
morning mass at the presidential chapel, to give their encounter what 
Walesa's office called "the proper spiritual dimension." 

Poland's biggest daily newspaper said that before the Dalai Lama's 
arrival a Chinese diplomat visited its offices to present Beijing's views on 
Tibet. 

"Tibet has been part of China since the 13th century...The incursion of 
the Chinese army (in 1950) was to safeguard our borders and protect 
democratic reforms," it quoted him as saying. 

The visit is part of an international tour by the Dalai Lama, designed 
to call world attention to what he describes as China's cultural genocide 
against the Tibetan nation. 

Last week, China's foreign ministry sharply criticised U.S. and British 
leaders for meeting the Dalai Lama, who was awarded the 1989 Nobel peace 
prize for his non-violent campaign to restore Tibet's independence. 

 

http://www.tibet.ca/en/library/wtn/archive/old?y=1993&m=5&p=17_2

 

So China is bullying / bullied so many on Tibet including Nehru 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zen said:

OK tell me did Ind declare independence before it was granted one? 

 

The letter clearly says that people of Tibet want independence:  They announced openly in the streets that they would not remain any longer under China and would become independent. 

 

And they have gone to UN too ....  plus the links posted about people fighting for Tibet's independence 

 

If you can't see that, you are indulging in dishonesty (and that too for someone like Nehru) 

1. India's independence is between India and its sovereign. Did anyone barge in to allow Indias independence before India asked ? No.

 

2. Yes, everyone has people demonstrating in the streets over something or another. But no Tibetan government or official or functionary declared independence. Until a government or political party formally declares Tibet's independence, nobody outside of China and Tibet can do anything. Its a pretty simple point you keep running away from.

 

3. Sure, they went to the UN. And UN did squat. Because nobody from the Dalai llama govermnet or Tibet's internal government, declared independence. 

You want Nehru to've declared Tibet independent. That is impossible to do, without TIBET ITSELF DECLARING INDEPDENDENCE!

 

Can you show a single example of a nation and part of the nation not declaring independence and a third party recognizing independence ? 

 

:facepalm:

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Can you show a single example of a nation and part of the nation not declaring independence and a third party recognizing independence ? 

 

:facepalm:

 

OK, one more try to see if this penetrates your dumb grey matter. Below is Dalai Lama's statement in 1961, which coincides with Nehru's tenure as PM:

 

 

1961

Statement of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the Second Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day

 

 

On the 10th of March 1959 the Tibetan people reasserted their Tibetan independence suffering almost nine years of foreign domination. Foreign rule, alas, still continues in Tibet but I know that I am proud to know that the spirit of our people remains uncrushed and unshaken in their resolve to fight on till independence is regained. I know that the struggle, which began a few years ago is still being waged in Tibet against the invader and the oppressor who masquerades under the name and guise of ‘liberator'. I can confidently assert that the civilized world is, every day, becoming more and more aware of those, who, in the name of liberation, are crushing out the freedom of defenceless neighbours.

 

The world has been made aware of the terrible happening in Tibet by the two illuminating reports of the International Commission of Jurists. These reports have pointed out that the Chinese have, ruthlessly, trampled on the elementary human rights of our people, that thousands of our people have been killed for the only reason that they asserted their right to live in the manner they desired to do, following their cultural and religious heritage. The reports have further pointed out that the Chinese have been guilty of genocide by reason of their killing many Tibetans with the intent of destroying the Tibetan religion and by deporting thousands of children to China.

 

The sympathy aroused in the world was evidenced by the fact that the United Nations by their Resolution in 1959 appealed for the cessation of practices depriving the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and their traditional autonomy. I assert that it is not autonomy but independence of which we have been deprived. Anyway, so far as the Chinese are concerned, the appeal fell on deaf ears. Things have become worse as is clear from the steady and unceasing flow of refugees from Tibet.

 

As further evidence of that sympathy, we had in New Delhi in April 1960, a Convention by representatives of 19 nations, convened by the respected Indian leader, Shri Jayaprakash Narayan. This Convention brought to the notice of the world the happenings in Tibet. The Afro-Asian Council, established by the Convention sent its representatives to New York to support the Tibetan appeal in the World Assembly in 1960. On behalf of the Tibetan people, I express my sincere thanks to the Afro-Asian Council for the great interest they have taken in our cause and the valuable help they have rendered. I am glad to learn that the Council is deputing Shri Pushottam Trikamdaas to be in New York when the Assembly reconvenes.

 

Shortly the question of Tibet will come up for discussion in the plenary session of the U.N. Assembly. I appeal to the sponsors and to the Assembly to get the Chinese to vacate their aggression and to help restore the independence of Tibet. Any half measures will be of little avail. Our gratitude is due to the federation of Malaya, Thailand, Ireland and El Salvador for sponsoring our cause. May I appeal to India, our great neighbour, which has given refuge to thousands of us, to lend its powerful support to our cause.

 

Recently the United Nations passed a resolution on the declaration of the grant of independence to colonial possessions. Our country, which was till recently independent, has been reduced to the status of a colonial possession. We cannot in any event be denied the right to self-determination.

 

I am aware that the Tibetan people, inside Tibet, are undergoing the travail, that foreign rule brings in its wake. I appeal to them to keep up their spirit and their resolve to regain their independence. On my part, I need hardly say, I am far from happy to be away from my country and my beloved and brave people. I want to tell them that I share with them their hopes and their agony.

 

To the thousands of my countrymen in India, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, I want to say that a heavy responsibility devolves on all of us to prepare ourselves for the day when we can return to our country and build a happier and greater independent Tibet. New Tibet will need thousands of trained and skilled men and women, necessary to bring Tibet in consonance with the spirit of democracy without losing our cultural and religious heritage or our soul.

 

During the Chinese occupation before I was compelled to leave Tibet, the Kashag and myself made efforts to introduce land and other reforms in Tibet but as is well known our efforts were blocked by the Chinese. The Communists are today forcing what they call reforms down the throats of our people. I have given careful consideration to these so-called reforms and I have come to the conclusion that at the end of the reforms the Tibetan people will be reduced to the state of mental and economic serfdom.

 

Such reforms are not in consonance with the Charter of the U.N. nor with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The reforms that I visualise must, while preserving the intellectual, moral and religious freedom, bring about an equitable distribution of wealth of the country. In this connection I shall repeat what I said sometime back in Dalhousie: “In order to make Tibet a rich, strong and vigorous nation, the special privileges and the large estates enjoyed, whether by monasteries or aristocratic families, will have to go and every one will have to learn and live with and help the common people.” I further said, “Changes must come in all spheres. The government structure will also have to undergo far-reaching reforms so that the people are more intimately associated with the policies of the government and the administration of the country. The task and responsibility of establishing improved political and religious institutions lies upon all of us.”

 

I am preparing a draft of the constitutional and economic structure, which I visualise for our country and I shall place it shortly before the representatives of the Tibetan people in India and neighbouring countries for their consideration. Ultimately it will be the whole Tibetan people will have to decide.

 

The world has become very rightly concerned by recent murders in the Congo. I join my voice in condemning these murders whether in the Congo or in Algeria or elsewhere. I would, however, ask the world not to forget that thousands of Tibetans have been and are being killed for the only reason that they refused to accept foreign domination.

 

I want to remind my countrymen inside and outside Tibet that God's ways are inscrutable and the travail of Tibet cannot be to no purpose. The cause of Truth and Justice must prevail and out of this night of horror and suffering a bright day for Tibet and its people is bound to dawn.

 

I want to express my deep gratitude to India, Bhutan, Sikkim and Nepal for the hospitality and the kindness in which we have received from these neighbours of ours. I must also express my gratitude to the various international and Indian institutions and individuals, who have been given generous aide for the relief of our refugees. Since refugees are still pouring in I shall appeal to everyone to continue to help us in the same generous way they have done so far.

 

Finally, I request my people to join me in my prayer for peace in the world.

 

The Dalai Lama
March 10, 1961

 

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/tibet/10th-march-archive/1961 

 

 

This only shows that you are making arguments for the sake of it and/or lack the common sense to put 2+2 together 

 

As I said, you did not realize that the game was over a long time ago .... And remember dishonesty is not the best policy my friend

 

Better luck next time (but as I said even luck might not be able to help you) :p:

 

/case closed

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zen said:

 

OK, one more try to see if this penetrates your dumb grey matter. Below is Dalai Lama's statement in 1961, which coincides with Nehru's tenure as PM:

 

This only shows that you are making arguments for the sake of it and/or lack the common sense to put 2+2 together 

 

As I said, you did not realize that the game was over a long time ago 

 

Better luck next time (but as I said even luck might not be able to help you) :p:

Yup. As i said, lot of whining from the Dalai Llama, but nowhere does he state that Tibet is independent or that he is declaring its independence.

Feel free to point out the words where he declares Tibet independent or claims it, on any document. He claims Tibet was free until recently- which it wasn't, since nobody declared independence at any given point. See, it is the Dalai Llama who dropped the ball on this.

 

As i asked, show us the declaration of Tibetan independence. Without it, no third party can do anything. Or if you think they can, show us an example of parent country refusing to give independence, region wanting independence doesnt declare it and still a third party gets involved and declares them independent. just one example of such a thing would do.

 

The one making dishonest argument is you.

Or else you'd have showed us, where is the declaration of independence from Tibet. Or any official document from any nation declaring Tibet to be independent 

You have nothing. None, nada, zip.


And moreover, you've fallen for the idiotic hinduvta line that Nehru could've done something about it but didn't. No, the only thing Nehru could've done, is illegally invade Tibet and set up a proxy government, committing India to war for years. A war we most probably would've lost anyways. 

And i am glad, he didn't do something that foolish.

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yup. As i said, lot of whining from the Dalai Llama, but nowhere does he state that Tibet is independent or that he is declaring its independence.

Feel free to point out the words where he declares Tibet independent or claims it, on any document. He claims Tibet was free until recently- which it wasn't, since nobody declared independence at any given point. See, it is the Dalai Llama who dropped the ball on this.

 

As i asked, show us the declaration of Tibetan independence. Without it, no third party can do anything. Or if you think they can, show us an example of parent country refusing to give independence, region wanting independence doesnt declare it and still a third party gets involved and declares them independent. just one example of such a thing would do.

 

The one making dishonest argument is you.

Or else you'd have showed us, where is the declaration of independence from Tibet. Or any official document from any nation declaring Tibet to be independent 

You have nothing. None, nada, zip.


And moreover, you've fallen for the idiotic hinduvta line that Nehru could've done something about it but didn't. No, the only thing Nehru could've done, is illegally invade Tibet and set up a proxy government, committing India to war for years. A war we most probably would've lost anyways. 

And i am glad, he didn't do something that foolish.

Once again:

 

1961

Statement of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the Second Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day

 

 

On the 10th of March 1959 the Tibetan people reasserted their Tibetan independence suffering almost nine years of foreign domination. Foreign rule, alas, still continues in Tibet but I know that I am proud to know that the spirit of our people remains uncrushed and unshaken in their resolve to fight on till independence is regained. I know that the struggle, which began a few years ago is still being waged in Tibet against the invader and the oppressor who masquerades under the name and guise of ‘liberator'. I can confidently assert that the civilized world is, every day, becoming more and more aware of those, who, in the name of liberation, are crushing out the freedom of defenceless neighbours.

 

The world has been made aware of the terrible happening in Tibet by the two illuminating reports of the International Commission of Jurists. These reports have pointed out that the Chinese have, ruthlessly, trampled on the elementary human rights of our people, that thousands of our people have been killed for the only reason that they asserted their right to live in the manner they desired to do, following their cultural and religious heritage. The reports have further pointed out that the Chinese have been guilty of genocide by reason of their killing many Tibetans with the intent of destroying the Tibetan religion and by deporting thousands of children to China.

 

The sympathy aroused in the world was evidenced by the fact that the United Nations by their Resolution in 1959 appealed for the cessation of practices depriving the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and their traditional autonomy. I assert that it is not autonomy but independence of which we have been deprived. Anyway, so far as the Chinese are concerned, the appeal fell on deaf ears. Things have become worse as is clear from the steady and unceasing flow of refugees from Tibet.

 

As further evidence of that sympathy, we had in New Delhi in April 1960, a Convention by representatives of 19 nations, convened by the respected Indian leader, Shri Jayaprakash Narayan. This Convention brought to the notice of the world the happenings in Tibet. The Afro-Asian Council, established by the Convention sent its representatives to New York to support the Tibetan appeal in the World Assembly in 1960. On behalf of the Tibetan people, I express my sincere thanks to the Afro-Asian Council for the great interest they have taken in our cause and the valuable help they have rendered. I am glad to learn that the Council is deputing Shri Pushottam Trikamdaas to be in New York when the Assembly reconvenes.

 

Shortly the question of Tibet will come up for discussion in the plenary session of the U.N. Assembly. I appeal to the sponsors and to the Assembly to get the Chinese to vacate their aggression and to help restore the independence of Tibet. Any half measures will be of little avail. Our gratitude is due to the federation of Malaya, Thailand, Ireland and El Salvador for sponsoring our cause. May I appeal to India, our great neighbour, which has given refuge to thousands of us, to lend its powerful support to our cause.

 

Recently the United Nations passed a resolution on the declaration of the grant of independence to colonial possessions. Our country, which was till recently independent, has been reduced to the status of a colonial possession. We cannot in any event be denied the right to self-determination.

 

I am aware that the Tibetan people, inside Tibet, are undergoing the travail, that foreign rule brings in its wake. I appeal to them to keep up their spirit and their resolve to regain their independence. On my part, I need hardly say, I am far from happy to be away from my country and my beloved and brave people. I want to tell them that I share with them their hopes and their agony.

 

To the thousands of my countrymen in India, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, I want to say that a heavy responsibility devolves on all of us to prepare ourselves for the day when we can return to our country and build a happier and greater independent Tibet. New Tibet will need thousands of trained and skilled men and women, necessary to bring Tibet in consonance with the spirit of democracy without losing our cultural and religious heritage or our soul.

 

During the Chinese occupation before I was compelled to leave Tibet, the Kashag and myself made efforts to introduce land and other reforms in Tibet but as is well known our efforts were blocked by the Chinese. The Communists are today forcing what they call reforms down the throats of our people. I have given careful consideration to these so-called reforms and I have come to the conclusion that at the end of the reforms the Tibetan people will be reduced to the state of mental and economic serfdom.

 

Such reforms are not in consonance with the Charter of the U.N. nor with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The reforms that I visualise must, while preserving the intellectual, moral and religious freedom, bring about an equitable distribution of wealth of the country. In this connection I shall repeat what I said sometime back in Dalhousie: “In order to make Tibet a rich, strong and vigorous nation, the special privileges and the large estates enjoyed, whether by monasteries or aristocratic families, will have to go and every one will have to learn and live with and help the common people.” I further said, “Changes must come in all spheres. The government structure will also have to undergo far-reaching reforms so that the people are more intimately associated with the policies of the government and the administration of the country. The task and responsibility of establishing improved political and religious institutions lies upon all of us.”

 

I am preparing a draft of the constitutional and economic structure, which I visualise for our country and I shall place it shortly before the representatives of the Tibetan people in India and neighbouring countries for their consideration. Ultimately it will be the whole Tibetan people will have to decide.

 

The world has become very rightly concerned by recent murders in the Congo. I join my voice in condemning these murders whether in the Congo or in Algeria or elsewhere. I would, however, ask the world not to forget that thousands of Tibetans have been and are being killed for the only reason that they refused to accept foreign domination.

 

I want to remind my countrymen inside and outside Tibet that God's ways are inscrutable and the travail of Tibet cannot be to no purpose. The cause of Truth and Justice must prevail and out of this night of horror and suffering a bright day for Tibet and its people is bound to dawn.

 

I want to express my deep gratitude to India, Bhutan, Sikkim and Nepal for the hospitality and the kindness in which we have received from these neighbours of ours. I must also express my gratitude to the various international and Indian institutions and individuals, who have been given generous aide for the relief of our refugees. Since refugees are still pouring in I shall appeal to everyone to continue to help us in the same generous way they have done so far.

 

Finally, I request my people to join me in my prayer for peace in the world.

 

The Dalai Lama
March 10, 1961

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...