Qin court of China was over thrown in 1911. Most Chinese provinces claimed independence for a short period of time, including Tibet. You are just childish to take it for granted the Tibetan agreement on McMahon line. Without British occupation the present day India should not be even bordering Tibetan territories. India might not be a neighbour to Ladakh if India is to give the illegaly occupied Dehradun, Nainital, Ranikhet, Kumaon and Kangra back to Nepal. You have the British to thank for these cookies.
Are you out of your mind, boy? "Illegally occupied Dehradun, Nainital, Ranikhet, Kumaon and Kangra back to Nepal" !! You must be on some dank good chronic there.
Let me give you a little run-down on the history of "illegaly occupied Dehradun, Nainital, Ranikhet, Kumaon and Kangra":
Dehradun: As far back as the 3rd century BCE, Dehradun was part of the Kingdom of Ashoka, and remained so until well into the 1st century BCE. Prior to that, it was part of the Nanda empire at its greatest extent under Dhana Nandaa circa 323 BCE. For centuries after, the region formed part of the Garhwal kingdom with some
intermittent interruption from the Rohillas. The Garhwals are an
Indo-Aryan tribe from the region now known as Uttarakhand, who trace their ancestory to the
Katyuri kings, descended from the Shalivahan ruler of Ayodhya, the temple town of Uttar Pradesh, who ruled unified Kumaon and Garhwal regions from the Katyur Valley from the 6th to the 11th centuries AD; and prior to that, to the
Kuninda kingdom in the 2nd century. The Rohila themselves are a community of Urdu speaking Pashtun, historically found in the state of Uttar Pradesh, in Northern India. The state of Garhwal was founded in 823 AD, when Kanakpal, the prince of
Malwa, on his visit to the Badrinath shrine, met the King Bhanu Pratap, a chieftain of Chandpur Garhi, and married his only daughter to the prince and subsequently ceded his kingdom.
The Malwa are an ancient Aryan tribe plausibly associated with present-day Gujarat, and who ruled over a region in west-central northern India occupying a plateau of volcanic origin in the western part of the state of Madhya Pradesh. Kanakpal and his descendants of Panwar Shah dynasty, gradually conquered all the independent fortresses (Garhs) belonging to its 52 small chieftains, and ruled the whole of Garhwal Kingdom for the next 915 years, up to 1803 AD. In the interim, in 1358, the 37th ruler, Ajai Pal, brought all the 52 minor principalities of the Garhwal region, under his own rule, and founded the Garhwal kingdom, the antecedent of present-day Dehradun, with Dewalgarh as its capital in northern India. Ajai Pal is of Malava-Garwahl descent. Other descendants of the Malavas/Malwas ruled over Garhwal and the adjacent state of Tehri,
in an uninterrupted line till 1803, when the Gurkhas invaded Kumaon and Garhwal. The Gorkha rule lasted in Garwahl only
until 1815 (aka less than two decades), when the British, under Warren Hastings, captured the region and administered it until independence, at which time it ceded
peacefully to India. Dehradun's recorded history begins in 1469, when Guru Nanak, reformer and founder of the Sikh faith, found shelter in the place now known as Dehradun and named the places there as Dehra-Camp, Doon-Valley etc. Ironically, even the Gorkhas today consider India as their home, and even were we to go by on your argument, which is fallacious and pseudo-syllogistic, the claim to Dehradun has never been stronger.
Nainitaal: The region now known as Nainitaal was called "Khasdesh" in ancient times and "Khasis" ruled this region before Christ was even born. The Khasis are a tribe from Meghalaya, formerly part of Assam in north-eastern India and from parts of Bangladesh, who call themselves "Ki Hynñiew trep" which means "the seven huts" in their language. The 'Khasis' are one of the earliest settlers in the Indian subcontinent belonging to the Proto-Austroloid Monkhmer race. The only two plausible hypotheses of their origins are that: i) they are the autochtons of a portion of the hills on the southern banks of the Brahmaputra, or ii) that they migrated to Assam from their terminus in the Sylhet region of Bangladesh eons ago. In erudition and mythology, it finds mentions as the City of 60 lakes or 'Chakta' in verses of the
Manas Khand (chapter) of the
Skanda Purana (scriptures) as the 'Tririshi Sarovar', the lake of the three sages. For centuries, as with Dehradun, it former part of the Maurya empire near to the ancient city of Indraprastha, and subsequently became part of the Gupta empire under Chandra Gupta I (not to be confused with Chandragupta Maurya) and Samudragupta; in the late 6th and 7th centuries under the Harsha kingdom; in the 8th to the 12th century under the Pala Empire that originates in Gour in West Bengal; and thereafter under the Delhi sultanate and for a brief period under the Maratha empire. It only came under (Nepali) Gorkha control in the late eighteenth century, and remained until the cessation Anglo-Nepaliese war, after which the city of Nainitaal was founded in the year 1841 by Mr. P. Barron, a European merchant and an enthusiastic hunter from Rosa, near Shahjahanpur.
Kumaon: The word 'Kumaon' can be traced back to the 5th century BC. The Kassite Assyrians left their homeland 'Kummah', on the banks of river Euphrates,and settled in the northern part of India. These inhabitants formed the Koliyan tribe and having named their new settlement as 'Kumaon', proceeded to settle the adjacent areas. The legend of lord Buddha's mother, Mayabati, originated from this clan. Evidences of proto-Indo-Aryan stone Age settlements have been found in Kumaon, particularly the rock shelter at Lakhu Udyar, with paintings here date back to the Mesolithic period.
The early medieval history of Kumaon is the history of the Katyuri dynasty. The Katyuri kings ruled from the seventh to the 11th century, holding sway at the peak of their powers over large areas of Kumaon, Garhwal, and Western Nepal. The town of Baijnath near Almora was the capital of this dynasty and a center of the arts. Temple building flourished under the Katyuris and the main architectural innovation introduced by them was the replacement of bricks with hewn stone. After an interregnum of a couple of centuries, the Chands of Pithoragarh became the dominant dynasty that ruled the Kumaon. The magnificent old temple complex at Jageshwar, with its cluster of a hundred and sixty-four temples, was built by the Chand rulers over a period of two centuries. The local dialects spoken by the people of Kumaon are collectively as the Kumaoni, a language which ethnolinguists Kumaoni have classified as ISO 639-3, having Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian roots. As with Dehradun and Nainitaal, Kumaon only came under Nepalese Gorkha rule in the Nepaliese India invasion of 1788, after which they were ousted by the British in 1815 (marking a total of 27 years of Nepali rule as opposed to more than a millenia and a half of Indian rule before it).
Kangra: The Katoch dynasty are reputed to have ruled the town of Kangra and its vicinity since time immemorial. In the time of Harsha, the Chinese pilgrim Huien Tsiang visited Jullundhur some time in March 635 A.D. and in his writings referred to the principality of Jullundur. From the history of Kashmir given in the Rajtirangini, Raja Shanker Verma (883 to 903) of Kashmir held suzerainty over Prithvi Chand of Trigartha.
In subsequent times, a number of petty chiefs ruled in the hills within their respected domains, always owning allegiance to the Katoch Raja at the center. The
Katoch dynasty is the name of a Rajput clan belonging to the Candravanshi kshatriyeh lineage.
Meanwhile (in 1758), Ghamand Chand, a scion of the dispossessed family, attained a position of power in the Punjab plains, being appointed governor of Jalandhar by Ahmed Shah Abdali. Building upon this ascendency, Ghamand Chand's grandson Sansar Chand (1775-1823) rallied an army, ousted the then ruler of Kangra, Saif Ali Khan, and regained possession of his patrimony. Sansar Chand's ambitions brought him into conflict with the Gorkhas ruling the then nascent state of Nepal. The Gorkhas and the recently humbled hill-states allied to invade Kangra in 1806. The Raja was defeated and left with no territory beyond the immediate vicinity of the fortress of Kangra, which he managed to retain with the help of a small Sikh force sent to his aid by Ranjit Singh. They were ousted in 1816 (ergo their occupation - less than a decade) following the Anglo-Nepaliese War and the princely estate of Kangra-Lambagraon acceded unto the Dominion of India in 1947.
The region known as
Ranikhet is next to Dehradun and its fortunes share the same historical trajectory as that of its larger counterpart.
As opposed to this, the Chinese claim to historical suzerainty over Tibet is even more circumspect. Let me quote to you how the Beijing_Review explains it:
From ancient times, the Mongolians had been one of China's
nationalities. In the 13th century, their power expanded rapidly.
Genghis Khan united the tribes under a centralized Khanate in 1206.
The outcome was a unified country [China] and the formation of the
Yuan Dynasty in 1271.
In the process, the Mongol Khanates peacefully incorporated Tibet
in 1247 after defeating the Western Xia [1227] and the Jin [1234].
With a unified China, the Yuan Dynasty contributed greatly to the
political, economic and cultural development of the nation's various
nationalities -- in strict contrast to the feuding that had gone on
since the late years of the Tang Dynasty (618-907). To argue that the
Mongolians' campaign to unify China was fundamentally the imposition
of rule by a foreign power is wrong because it misses the basic point
of Chinese history that China is a multi-national country. Whether it
was the Mongolians, the Manchus (who founded the Qing Dynasty [1644-
1912], or any other peoples, it has always been a case of one Chinese
nationality replacing another. It is completely out of the question to
claim that the Mongolians or the Manchus were outsiders who conquered
China. [BR-F89]
B5) What is the historical basis of the Chinese claim to Tibet?
Have you ever heard of anything more flimsy? The Chinese claiming that Genghis Khan was part of a "larger Chinese ethnicity". Have you ever heard of anything more absurd? Genghis Khan, not remotely of Chinese heritage, was born in the Khentii Mountains, which is in the far north of present day Mongolia in the Töv and Khentii Provinces bordering Russia. Heck, I might as well claim all of Burma and Hong Kong as mine because I am the descendant of King George VI. Not only did he raid, pillage and exact tribute from the Western Xia and Jin dynasties, he subjugated and conquered them, and his grandson Kublai Khan, in the hopes of reunifying the southern areas of China, attacked the Southern Song dynasty and conquered them, firmly establishing the hold of the militant Mongolian minority in the Yuan dynasty or the
Empire of the Great Khan, which the Chinese so fallaciously claim their own.
Now let me quote to you an ancient/pre-modern history of Tibet:
The general history of Tibet begins with the rule of Songtsän Gampo (604 – 50 CE) who united parts of the Yarlung River Valley and founded the Tibetan Empire. In 640, he married Princess Wencheng, the niece of the Chinese emperor Taizong of Tang China. Under the next few Tibetan kings, Buddhism became established as the state religion and Tibetan power increased even further over large areas of Central Asia, while major inroads were made into Chinese territory, even reaching the Tang's capital Chang'an (modern Xi'an) in late 763. The Tibetan occupation of Chang'an was repulsed after 15 days by Tang, who had to enlist the aid of the Turkic Uyghur Khaganate. Nanzhao (in Yunnan and neighbouring regions) remained under Tibetan control from 750 to 794, when they turned on their Tibetan overlords and helped the Chinese inflict a serious defeat on the Tibetans.
In 747, the hold of Tibet was loosened by the campaign of general Gao Xianzhi, who tried to re-open the direct communications between Central Asia and Kashmir. By 750 the Tibetans had lost almost all of their central Asian possessions to the Chinese. However, after Gao Xianzhi's defeat by the Arabs and Qarluqs at the Battle of Talas (751), Chinese influence decreased rapidly and Tibetan influence resumed.
In 821/822 CE Tibet and China signed a peace treaty. A bilingual account of this treaty, including details of the borders between the two countries [implicitly recognizing Tibet as an independent country as late as the 9th century CE], is inscribed on a stone pillar which stands outside the Jokhang temple in Lhasa. Tibet continued as a Central Asian empire until the mid-9th century.
Mongolian prince Kadan conquered Tibet in the 1240s and made the Sakya Pandita the Mongolian viceroy for Central Tibet, though the eastern provinces of Kham and Amdo remained under direct Mongol rule. It was only when Kublai Khan, a Mongol conqueror, founded the Yuan Dynasty in 1271, that Tibet became a part of it. Between 1346 and 1354, Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen, founder of the indigenous Phagmodrupa dynasty, toppled the Sakya and ended Mongol law.
In 1578, Altan Khan of the Tümed Mongols gave Sonam Gyatso, a high lama of the Gelugpa school, the name Dalai Lama. Europeans arrived in the early 16th century, and were permitted by the King and Queen of Guge, an Kingdom centered in present-day Zanda County, as an offsetting influence to the thriving Yellow-Hat sect [of Buddhism] known as the Gelugpa.
In the 1630s, Tibet became entangled in power struggles between the rising Manchu and various Mongol and Oirat factions. Güshi Khan of the Khoshud became the overlord over Tibet, and acted as a "Protector of the Yellow Church". Güshi helped the fifth Dalai Lama establish himself as the highest spiritual and political authority in Tibet and destroyed any potential rivals.
It was only in the eighteenth century, that the Manchu King Qing put Amdo under their control (1724), and incorporate eastern Kham into neighbouring Chinese provinces (1728).
Do you in any way dispute my history?
Given this whole cumulative history of events, the fact that the Chinese have fallaciously appropriated the Mongol khanate to be theirs in empiricism, and that indigenous rulers [and others as well] have ruled Tibet for longer than have the Chinese, the Chinese position to historical suzerainty over Tibet remains tenuous. In this respect, China might not be a neighbour of India if it returned the illegally occupied territories of Lhasa, Nagchu, Chamdo, Nyingtiri, Xigaze, Ngari and Shanan to Tibet and the illegaly occupied territory of Aksai-Chin to India.
Now let's come to the MORAL of this story: Let me make this very clear to you, one more attempt at you trying to insinuate or question the legitimacy of our states, and you will be gone like your other snivelling, ratty han brothers in a flash. I assure you of that.
