Ceding Aksai Chin not an option for India

[Hellfire]

Pakistan donated land to China in the Karakoram area. Please refer to maps of POK in 1962 and in 1970.They will tell the tale.

What land? Please tell me.

I sincerely suggest that you first read up about tributes paid by the region of Gilgit-Baltistan as also Aksai Chin to Tibetans and how till 1950 Tibetans were taking taxes from NEFA.

Then get back.

 

[Hellfire]

We need to stay positive and not become wimps. Yes, our time will come. I am only against excessive pessimism generated by so called peaceniks.

The new super weapon in our inventory 'Stay Positive'!

A joke?

First of all, know the history. Chinese work on that knowledge, which you clearly seem to be ignoring, deliberately or out of a desire not to know your facts.

Then, know your own position over the issue. You recognize Tibet till 12.05.2020 as part of China, but you nicely choose to ignore the contradiction that crops up - that historically, GB, Aksai Chin, NEFA paid tributes to Lhasa, and also, that Tibet signed the Boundary Settlement, not China , rendering the Boundary Settlement untenable and shooting your ownself in the foot.

Let me know when you have reversed that decision officially as a stance - of Tibet being a part of China.

 

[Tridev123]

What land? Please tell me.

I sincerely suggest that you first read up about tributes paid by the region of Gilgit-Baltistan as also Aksai Chin to Tibetans and how till 1950 Tibetans were taking taxes from NEFA.

Then get back.

Using adjectives doesn't make you superior. Have you atleast looked at maps of POK in the years 1962 and 1970.You keep on asking for proof. I am not a employee of yours to do your work. All relevant information is available on the net. I am in awe of your super duper intelligence.

 

[Hellfire]

Using adjectives doesn't make you superior. Have you atleast looked at maps of POK in the years 1962 and 1970.You keep on asking for proof. I am not a employee of yours to do your work. All relevant information is available on the net. I am in awe of your super duper intelligence.

Let me know where the 'adjective' has come up.

Secondly, look at map ... you specify what is to be looked at. Have you specified? Nope.

I could have suggested you to read history, an absurd and foolish way to interact. Instead I specifically asked you to read on taxes being paid by the regions.

The bold - ignorance is being manifested. Had you not persisted, and instead come out challenging the point I put forth earlier - of the territories giving taxes to Lhasa, you would have made me look a fool.

Try again.

 

[Tridev123]

Let me know where the 'adjective' has come up.

Secondly, look at map ... you specify what is to be looked at. Have you specified? Nope.

I could have suggested you to read history, an absurd and foolish way to interact. Instead I specifically asked you to read on taxes being paid by the regions.

The bold - ignorance is being manifested. Had you not persisted, and instead come out challenging the point I put forth earlier - of the territories giving taxes to Lhasa, you would have made me look a fool.

Try again.

How far back in history do you want to go?. The Afghans and the Moghul dynasty ruled almost all of India and people here paid taxes to them. So by logic thAfghanistan is justified in claiming that present India belongs to them.
Do not twist selective history to suit your narrative.
You seem to be hypnotised by your own narrative. Please live in your La La land.

 

[Defcon 1]

The new super weapon in our inventory 'Stay Positive'!

A joke?

First of all, know the history. Chinese work on that knowledge, which you clearly seem to be ignoring, deliberately or out of a desire not to know your facts.

Then, know your own position over the issue. You recognize Tibet till 12.05.2020 as part of China, but you nicely choose to ignore the contradiction that crops up - that historically, GB, Aksai Chin, NEFA paid tributes to Lhasa, and also, that Tibet signed the Boundary Settlement, not China , rendering the Boundary Settlement untenable and shooting your ownself in the foot.

Let me know when you have reversed that decision officially as a stance - of Tibet being a part of China.

Gilgit paid tribute to tibet when? In medieval era. It has been under dogras since 1850s, and so through the instrument of accession, it should pass on to India

 

[LurkerBaba]

What land? Please tell me.

I sincerely suggest that you first read up about tributes paid by the region of Gilgit-Baltistan as also Aksai Chin to Tibetans and how till 1950 Tibetans were taking taxes from NEFA.

Then get back.

Sikkim also paid tribute to Tibet at one point or another. Not sure what you're implying

 

[aghamarshana]

of the territories giving taxes to Lhasa

I understand ur objection. The border treaties were signed with Tibet but our government accepts Chinese stance wrt Tibet, as of now. It sounds illogical but, it doesn't mean we don't assert rights over the territories which we claim to be ours.
Mehtar of Chitral paid tributes to Maharaja Hari Singh, just like the Mir of Hunza. But our government officially doesn't claim Chitral. Tell me if they do. China is De Facto party of a disputed territory. Not De Jure party, which is Tibet. But our govt just like any other govt accepted One China policy. India shares a border with Tibet. It traditionally did. Just like it shared a border with Afghania.

 

[Hellfire]

How far back in history do you want to go?. The Afghans and the Moghul dynasty ruled almost all of India and people here paid taxes to them. So by logic thAfghanistan is justified in claiming that present India belongs to them.
Do not twist selective history to suit your narrative.
You seem to be hypnotised by your own narrative. Please live in your La La land.

I asked you to delve on these issues because you are dealing with an enemy who claims any part of land where even for a day they had a hold. You have to first know your enemy in terms of understanding how he/she thinks and is driven to think, before you make your strategy to deal with him/her.

If you have time, I suggest read the first hundred odd pages of "On China" by Henry Kissinger. It is a great insight into the Chinese way of looking at things.

When India recognized Tibet as a part of China, we weakened our own position, as the core contention of China is:

1. All territories of Tibet are theirs.
2. The 'unequal' treaty 'forced' on them by Govt of British-India was signed by Tibetans, not by the Chinese, which itself is illegal (as per their viewpoint since their own territory, which even India recognizes as a part of their country, entered into an agreement which was not binding)

So, first of all, we need to get our own facts right. Is Tibet part of China? My answer and what should be GoI position is No.

Because there was a Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed between China and Tibet in 741 AD or thereabouts (I will look it up). So first thing, we need to pull back from that position - of recognizing Tibet as part of China.

Are we going to? That .. is the issue.

 

[Hellfire]

Gilgit paid tribute to tibet when? In medieval era. It has been under dogras since 1850s, and so through the instrument of accession, it should pass on to India

Yes.

But again, of pertinent importance is that the Chinese view of looking at things here. As I have mentioned earlier, you have to deal with the enemy who thinks in a particular way.

What India needs to do is to play their own principles against them:

1. Indian Army had Post Office at Lhasa till early 1951 (?). Using that as a logic, we must change from recognizing Tibet as a part of China & make claims against it ourselves.
2. Chinese have a philosophy wherein they treat treaties as relevant only to that time period when they signed them, always to be revisited with change in circumstances. Hence, our treaties and policies must do exactly that - change.

You can not hold your own claims against territory modern day Arunachal Pradesh if you continue to recognize Tibet as part of China for Indian forces kicked them out in 1950 from there, till when, Tibetans collected taxes.

 

[Hellfire]

Sikkim also paid tribute to Tibet at one point or another. Not sure what you're implying

And so the claims against Sikkim too.

Change our stance.

 

[Mikesingh]

This thread is about Aksai Chin and not Skardu. Stay on the topic.

.

 

[LurkerBaba]

This thread is about Aksai Chin and not Skardu. Stay on the topic.

I've moved those posts to https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/gilgit-baltistan-the-forgotten-kashmir.33744/page-3

 

[HariPrasad-1]

MUST READ by former ambassador Stobdan

Ceding Aksai Chin not an option for India
The Chinese may be making a smart move to let India, in the first step, forego its claim over 38,000 sq km (Aksai-Chin), thereby de-linking Ladakh or J&K sector from the overall boundary dispute.
By P Stobdan

CHINA'S "urgency" to "redouble" efforts to push for the boundary settlement is quite perplexing. It explains the motive behind the recent 19 km intrusion in Depsang. Why did China play such a trick? Nothing is clear whether Premier Li Keqiang, during his visit, will push for a boundary settlement only in the Ladakh sector or will he seek to resolve the entire boundary dispute?

The five tents that comprised the Chinese incursion across the LAC in Ladakh.

India may believe this would be limited to exchanging maps, clarifying the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and verifying troop positions. But this is not what the Chinese may have in their minds. They may push for a formal settlement along the LAC in Ladakh, where they have nothing to lose. And, to India's disappointment, it may not involve swapping India's claims over Aksai Chin for China's claims over Arunachal Pradesh, which many in India consider a pragmatic thing to accept.

The Chinese may be making a smart move to let India, in the first step, forego its claim over 38,000 sq km (Aksai-Chin), thereby de-link Ladakh or J&K sector from the overall boundary dispute. But, should that happen, India, by implication, will have to give up not only Aksai Chin, but also cede its notional claim over the 5,047 sq km (Skyasgam valley) and the Menser Enclave (five villages) near the Mansarowar lake.

Chinese checkers

The "urgency" also explains China's motivations linked to its domestic security agenda. Some of the Chinese border negotiation tactics displayed against three Central Asian states should be instructive.

Fearing its sensitive Xinjiang region becoming an object of external power play, Beijing since 1991 has applied all instruments of its power to quell the Uyghur unrest and simultaneously resolved borders with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The Chinese scheme blended 'incentives with coercion' — a varied mix of diplomacy, political support, economic allurement and military aid. The strategy was implemented within the crafty policy framework of domestic economic growth and peaceful periphery. The strategy finally worked in China's favour — acquiring heft and influence.

China gave concession to counterparts without actually losing an inch of territory. Beijing settled for a third of territories it claimed from Kazakhstan. Yet the Kazakhs had to admit they had gained. In addition to what it had lost, the Kazakh President had to denounce Uyghur separatism and curb anti-China activities. In a similar pattern, Kyrgyzstan had to cede 1,20,000 hectares in a dubious exchange for Chinese assistance. Tajikistan being the last was made to surrender 1,100 square miles in 2010. Here, China claimed some 28,000 sq km, but settled for 3.5 percent of it. The Tajiks had to cede land and yet made to feel the victor.

In essence, China ultimately gained a bit of land, nixed the Uyghur issue, and pushed its economic agenda by making Xinjiang a pivotal link to the Eurasian markets. The success gave birth to a self-serving SCO, lauded as an exemplary multilateral cooperation mechanism, essentially meant to blunt any US-led Asian alliance in Eurasia.

But, its growing trade ties with Asian neighbors haven't stopped China's increasing appetite for territorial expansion. Land and demographic encouragement continues in Russia's Far East. Weaker states are induced to let out agriculture and forest land to Chinese farmers. The borders and rivers are still being altered to meet China's new interests. A view popular now is that the early surrender to China was a mistake, which is bouncing back with huge implications. China's tactics are fuelling mounting tensions and resentments across Asia.

Internal agenda

What lessons do they hold for India? How is the boundary issue with India linked to China's internal agenda? The above Chinese strategy should provide enough clues about what China wants from India.

Firstly, China's new move can't be unrelated to China's internal agenda, possibly with a future trajectory in Tibet. In essence, Beijing's idea is to ward off threat at the periphery to achieve internal stability. Beijing, though, doubts India would ever play the Tibet card. But, it does suspect the US-Japan-India coalescing to encircle and subvert China internally. Therefore, a stronger assertion may be a euphemism for deterring India plus others harming China's core interests. Of course, China retains the option to offset the three by fronting Iran, North Korea and Pakistan.

We don't know whether any big-ticket deals are slated for Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's visit, but he is likely to convey three essential points: (a) intends to settle the boundary dispute on its terms, (b) intends to solve the Tibet problem internally; wants no Indian interference in the post-Dalai developments, and (c) to point out that a US-led Asia pivot process should not be encouraged.

Secondly, on the boundary issue, China still maintains Arunachal is 'South Tibet' and Tibet is incomplete without Arunachal. Remember, the Chinese are masters of the art of denial and deception. Once India falls for Chinese magnanimous position over Aksai Chin, Beijing will then shift the focus to Arunachal. where it hopes to gain from India. They would emphatically convey that India is occupying 90,000 sq km of Chinese territory, but Tawang is non-negotiable in a final settlement of the border issue. Such a 'minimal demand' had been aired by Beijing at an unofficial level through Chinese academics. This 'minimum demand' tactic was also applied with Central Asian states.

China's recent overt and overbearing postures are not only not reassuring but also disturbing. India should tread carefully on China policy. In any case, ceding Aksai Chin would fundamentally alter the status of J&K. By implication, India would have to forget about PoK as well. Is there a clear Indian strategy?

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130519/pers.htm#3

We are strong on Majority of fronts on chinese Border because it is easy to our population and supply is relatively easy. . What we need to do is to keep our selves ready so that we can act when the right times comes such as China becomes economically weak or US attack China.