Why India deploys so many troops in Assam and Arunchal Pradesh ?

[nrj]

At least,tawang belonged to tibet for hundreds of years ,before indian troops drove off tibetab administration during 1945~1950.

Hold tight. If India tomorrow recognizes Tibet as independent territory, your problems will only worsen.

 

[badguy2000]

India deploys troops on the border and Assam, Arunachal are border states.

Something unusual?

More so, when hegemonic countries abound the periphery?

It is an overaction to deploy several corps in assam ans arunachal,when pla just deploys several brigades in tibet.

 

[Ray]

It is an overaction to deploy several corps in assam ans arunachal,when pla just deploys several brigades in tibet.

It is normal reaction when one perceives a forked tongue reptile and having been bitten once with all the false bonhomie of Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai.

China continues its forked tongue 'cuteness' with claiming to be doing a Peaceful Rise, while at the same time, arming itself to the teeth and intimidating neighbours, to include armed action!

 

[Ray]

I am surprised that notwithstanding China's great claims of being nearly equal to the US in armed forces and better than US in their economy, China still quails at the thought of any country beefing up their defence on the borders.

 

[badguy2000]

Tibet did not repudiate the Simla Accord and the McMahon Line

And India does not recognise the invaders of Tibet to be the spokesmen of Tibet.

1,simila accord is not a legal file at all.Tibet was not a independent state , but a vassel state of china,when simila accord was signed.as a vassel state ,Tibet has no right to sign diplomatica files with britishman,just as hongkong or greenland has no right to sign any diplomatical file with foreign governments. So,simila accord is not a legal file at all.

 

[Ray]

1,simila accord is not a legal file at all.Tibet was not a independent state , but a vassel state of china,when simila accord was signed.as a vassel state ,Tibet has no right to sign diplomatica files with britishman,just as hongkong or greenland has no right to sign any diplomatical file with foreign governments. So,simila accord is not a legal file at all.

Tibet was always an independent country with own laws, ambassadors and so on.

Chinese history is well known to have much fantasy converted as fact.

The Grand historian of China Sima Qian used stories passed on from antiquity as part of his sources.

Stories are not authentic history.

 

[Ray]

Tibet has a history dating back over 2,000 years. A good starting point in analysing the country's status is the period referred to as Tibet's "imperial age", when the entire country was first united under one ruler. There is no serious dispute over the existence of Tibet as an independent state during this period.

Even China's own historical records and treaties Tibet and China concluded during that period refer to Tibet as a strong state with whom China was forced to deal on a footing of equality.

International law protects the independence of states from attempts to destroy it and, therefore, the presumption is in favour of the continuation of statehood.

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. To claim that Tibet became a part of China because both countries were independently subjected to varying degrees of Mongol control, as the People's Republic of China does, is absurd.

This relatively brief period of foreign domination over Tibet occurred 700 years ago. Tibet broke away from the Yuan emperor before China regained its independence from the Mongols with the establishment of the native Ming Dynasty. Not until the 18th century did Tibet once again come under a degree of foreign influence.

The Ming Dynasty, which ruled China from 1368 to 1644, had few ties to and no authority over Tibet. On the other hand, the Manchus, who conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty in the 17th century, embraced Tibetan Buddhism as the Mongols had and developed close ties with the Tibetans.

On the political level, some powerful Manchu emperors succeeded in exerting a degree of influence over Tibet but they did not incorporate Tibet into their empire, much less China.

Manchu influence did not last for very long. It was entirely ineffective by the time the British briefly invaded Tibet in 1904.

From 1911 to 1950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in every respect, as a fully independent state. The 13th Dalai Lama emphasised his country's independent status externally, in formal communications to foreign rulers, and internally, by issuing a proclamation reaffirming Tibet's independence and by strengthening the country's defences.

Tibet remained neutral during the Second World War, despite strong pressure from China and its allies, Britain and the USA. The Tibetan Government maintained independent international relations with all neighbouring countries, most of whom had diplomatic representatives in Lhasa.

The attitude of most foreign governments with whom Tibet maintained relations implied their recognition of Tibet's independent status. The British Government bound itself not to recognise Chinese sovereignty or any other rights over Tibet unless China signed the draft Simla Convention of 1914 with Britain and Tibet, which China never did.

From my records.

Don't have the link.

 

[badguy2000]

Hold tight. If India tomorrow recognizes Tibet as independent territory, your problems will only worsen.

Tibet existed as a vassel state of china for hundreds of years,then existed as autonomous interal region for over one hundred years.china's controll of tibet never Has anything to do with india's attitude to tibet,but china's might and power.

 

[badguy2000]

Tibet was always an independent country with own laws, ambassadors and so on.

Chinese history is well known to have much fantasy converted as fact.

The Grand historian of China Sima Qian used stories passed on from antiquity as part of his sources.

Stories are not authentic history.

Tibet indeed had its own laws , just as hongkong has its lawS now.however ,it cound not prove tibet was independent,just as it does not make hongkong independent.

 

[nrj]

Tibet existed as a vassel state of china for hundreds of years,then existed as autonomous interal region for over one hundred years.china's controll of tibet never Has anything to do with india's attitude to tibet,but china's might and power.

Is that why China keeps requesting New Delhi to stop anti-china, pro-tibet independence protests in India??

China's might will be running like headless chicken if there is shift in Indian stand about Tibet's independence. Say thanks because India has been on China's side when it comes to exercising control over Tibet.

 

[badguy2000]

Tibet has a history dating back over 2,000 years. A good starting point in analysing the country's status is the period referred to as Tibet's "imperial age", when the entire country was first united under one ruler. There is no serious dispute over the existence of Tibet as an independent state during this period.

Even China's own historical records and treaties Tibet and China concluded during that period refer to Tibet as a strong state with whom China was forced to deal on a footing of equality.

International law protects the independence of states from attempts to destroy it and, therefore, the presumption is in favour of the continuation of statehood.

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. To claim that Tibet became a part of China because both countries were independently subjected to varying degrees of Mongol control, as the People's Republic of China does, is absurd.

This relatively brief period of foreign domination over Tibet occurred 700 years ago. Tibet broke away from the Yuan emperor before China regained its independence from the Mongols with the establishment of the native Ming Dynasty. Not until the 18th century did Tibet once again come under a degree of foreign influence.

The Ming Dynasty, which ruled China from 1368 to 1644, had few ties to and no authority over Tibet. On the other hand, the Manchus, who conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty in the 17th century, embraced Tibetan Buddhism as the Mongols had and developed close ties with the Tibetans.

On the political level, some powerful Manchu emperors succeeded in exerting a degree of influence over Tibet but they did not incorporate Tibet into their empire, much less China.

Manchu influence did not last for very long. It was entirely ineffective by the time the British briefly invaded Tibet in 1904.

From 1911 to 1950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in every respect, as a fully independent state. The 13th Dalai Lama emphasised his country's independent status externally, in formal communications to foreign rulers, and internally, by issuing a proclamation reaffirming Tibet's independence and by strengthening the country's defences.

Tibet remained neutral during the Second World War, despite strong pressure from China and its allies, Britain and the USA. The Tibetan Government maintained independent international relations with all neighbouring countries, most of whom had diplomatic representatives in Lhasa.

The attitude of most foreign governments with whom Tibet maintained relations implied their recognition of Tibet's independent status. The British Government bound itself not to recognise Chinese sovereignty or any other rights over Tibet unless China signed the draft Simla Convention of 1914 with Britain and Tibet, which China never did.

From my records.

Don't have the link.

That is ur explaination.i have my own one.

 

[badguy2000]

Is that why China keeps requesting New Delhi to stop anti-china, pro-tibet independence protests in India??

China's might will be running like headless chicken if there is shift in Indian stand about Tibet's independence. Say thanks because India has been on China's side when it comes to exercising control over Tibet.

All depend on china's might and power ultimately.if china were as weak as nepal,india would just Ignore whatever china says .if china believes that india would treat china's words as if india does with nepal's,china also would just shut up as nepaldoes.

 

[badguy2000]

in fact,when china was weak in 1880~1940,british empire and russia empire indeed just ignored china's words and attitude and denied china's soveighty on tibet.china could not do nothing against such comtempt but shut up.

 

[rock127]

In fact beside sini~india border,india troops have 5:1 numerical advantage on chinese troops. Pla overcomes indian numerical advantage with better mobilization and better arms

Explain this more.

 

[badguy2000]

Explain this more.

Pla deploys only 3brigades Plus several frontier regiments in tibet,which has less than 30000soldiers,i think. India deploys several corps along sino~india border.

 

[nrj]

All depend on china's might and power ultimately.if china were as weak as nepal,india would just Ignore whatever china says .if china believes that india would treat china's words as if india does with nepal's,china also would just shut up as nepaldoes.

Dragon's might becomes tiny little cat when it claims Arunachal Pradesh but can't do jack about it.

 

[badguy2000]

Dragon's might becomes tiny little cat when it claims Arunachal Pradesh but can't do jack about it.

China now ask india not to support tibeindependence movement ,because china is confident that india would not ignore china's words.

 

[nrj]

China now ask india not to support tibeindependence movement ,because china is confident that india would not ignore china's words.

Let me know when China asks for claim on Arunachal Pradesh & India listens. Till then build some nest for tiny little dragons & hide inside it.

 

[Ray]

All depend on china's might and power ultimately.if china were as weak as nepal,india would just Ignore whatever china says .if china believes that india would treat china's words as if india does with nepal's,china also would just shut up as nepaldoes.

India even now ignores.

 

[Ray]

Tibet indeed had its own laws , just as hongkong has its lawS now.however ,it cound not prove tibet was independent,just as it does not make hongkong independent.

Tibet has its own laws?