Modi blows hot air at China in a rally in Arunachal Pradesh - forgetting Vajpayee's surrender in 2003

NB: Modi breathes fire over Arunachal, omitting to mention that it was none other than AB Vajpayee who made the maximum diplomatic concessions to China over this question, and strengthened its claims over Arunachal, which it describes as 'South Tibet' . Is the BJP's PM-designate ignorant of what his predecessor accomplished? Why is the BJP attempting to deceive the Indian public?

Forget about your 'expansion' plans, Modi tells China in a rally in Arunachal Pradesh 
Wading into a foreign policy issue for the first time, (NB: incorrect, he referred to Chinese expansionism on November 9, 2013) Narendra Modi today asked China to shed its "expansionist mindset", making it clear that no power on earth can snatch Arunachal Pradesh from India."China should shed its expansionist policy and forge bilateral ties with India for peace, progress and prosperity of both the nations," the BJP's prime ministerial candidate said addressing a meeting here in his current election campaign..."Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India and will always remain so. No power can snatch it from us. People of Arunachal Pradesh didn't come under pressure or fear of China," he said.. 
Read more:

NB - Narendra Modi and the BJP are indulging in deceitful propaganda. The 2003 Sino-Indian Joint declaration was the furthest India has gone to accept China's sovereignty over Tibet. One view if this is that Vajpayee went this far in acknowledging Chinese sovereignty over Tibet in exchange for Chinese acceptance of Sikkim as part of India. Another view is that Vajpayee sold out Indian interests. From either perspective, 2003 statement was a gain for China. What is noteworthy is that China refers to Arunachal Pradesh as 'South Tibet' - and that the 2003 declaration strengthened its capacity to do so

Here is the operative paragraph: "The Indian side recognizes that the Tibet Autonomous Region is part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China and reiterates that it does not allow Tibetans to engage in anti-China political activities in India. The Chinese side expresses its appreciation for the Indian position and reiterates that it is firmly opposed to any attempt and action aimed at splitting China and bringing about “independence of Tibet”. The Indian side recalled that India was among the first countries to recognize that there is one China and its one China policy remains unaltered.."

The current situation is analysed here:
..  The British Raj’s policy towards Tibet was shaped by the Great Game and the need to prevent Russia from posing a threat to India. It was against this backdrop that the Raj called for the tripartite Simla conference in October 1913, which was attended by representatives from British India (Henry McMahon), Republican China (Chen Yifan) and Tibet (Lonchen Shatra). The goal was to settle the boundary between British India and Tibet on the one hand and between Tibet and China on the other. The result was the Simla Agreement of 1914, which the Chinese representative initialled but only under British pressure. The Agreement divided Tibet into Inner and Outer Tibet. China was given sovereignty over Inner Tibet but only suzerain control over Outer Tibet. And the boundary between India and Tibet was demarcated, with the Raj retaining trading and extra-territorial rights in Outer Tibet.
Independent India inherited this arrangement, which boiled down to sustaining Tibet as a buffer zone with de facto independent status under Chinese suzerainty. In the post-1949 period, when the People’s Republic of China came into being, India urged China to let Tibet continue as an autonomous region in line with its historical status, religious, cultural and political identity. However, the entry of 20,000 PLA troops in 1950-51 into Tibet ended its independent status and eventually brought to the fore the India-China border issue.
During his 1954 visit to China, Jawaharlal Nehru had raised the issue of inaccurate border alignment as depicted in some Chinese maps. Premier Zhou Enlai responded that these maps were reproductions of old Kuomintang maps and that his government has had no time to revise them. However, Nehru’s December 14, 1958 letter, in which he had once again raised the issue of Chinese maps depicting the border alignment inaccurately, elicited a different response from Zhou. The Chinese Premier wrote back on January 23, 1959 stating that the Sino-Indian border was never delimited and that China has never recognised the McMahon Line. After the 1962 India-China war, China began to claim some 90,000 square kilometres of Indian territory in the eastern sector and 38,000 square kilometres in the Aksai Chin area. These claims flow directly from China’s control over Tibet and its felt need to consolidate its rule over this rebellious territory.
Between 1947 and 1954, India’s position on Tibet was based on recognising it as an independent nation. Tibet represented itself as an independent country at the Asian Relations Conference held in New Delhi in March-April 1947. But India subsequently gave up this position on April 29, 1954, when it signed an agreement with China on trade and intercourse between India and Tibet. Under the terms of the agreement, India gave up all extra-territorial rights and privileges that it had inherited from the British Raj and recognised Tibet as part of China. This, in effect, was a unilateral concession without the Indian government gaining anything in return.
In subsequent decades, New Delhi has repeatedly reiterated that Tibet is a part of China, in spite of the latter’s encroachment into and extravagant claims over Indian territory, the border war it imposed on India in 1962, and the unresolved border dispute at the centre of which lies Tibet. In effect, such reiteration has meant the dilution of a bargaining card in the border negotiations. In 2003, the Vajpayee government went further than any other government before by stating that the “Tibetan Autonomous Region of China is part of the territory of China.” This has two critical implications for Indian security. First, it excluded Inner Tibet (present day Sichuan, Yunnan and Qinghai provinces) from the geographical notion of Tibet, thus recognising Inner Tibet as Chinese land. Second, it provided China a greater opening to advance its claims on Arunachal Pradesh. For, Outer Tibet or the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), according to the Chinese definition, includes Arunachal Pradesh, which it refers to as its ‘southern state’.
India has consistently failed to understand nuances in Chinese diplomatic practice and negotiating tactics. China is tackling the Tibet problem at two levels. One, it is involving the Dalai Lama’s representatives in fruitless talks, while also disparaging him as a ‘splittist’ who aims to disintegrate China. Two, it is arm-twisting India by repeatedly claiming that Arunachal Pradesh is part of China. Here, it is worth noting that at the sixth round of talks with Tibetan representatives Chinese negotiators had conveyed that the Dalai Lama should accept Arunachal Pradesh as part of China, which the Dalai Lama has refused to accept. China is not seriously considering a resolution to the Tibet issue or the border dispute with India. It is simply buying time till the Dalai Lama passes away, after which, it hopes, the Tibetan movement would fizzle out. This would also further weaken India’s bargaining position on the border negotiations while at the same time gaining for itself greater manoeuvrability.
The presence of the Dalai Lama in India along with 120,000 Tibetan refugees spread across 35 settlements is leverage for India. But India has so far steadfastly avoided using the Tibetan card. Given the intricate linkage between the Tibet issue and the border dispute, India needs to revise its policy on Tibet. Its present policy of appeasement and unilateral concessions has not stopped China from claiming Indian territory. Chinese maps continue to show Arunachal Pradesh as part of China, and Jammu and Kashmir as falling outside India. Some Chinese maps still do not represent Beijing’s revised position on Sikkim... 
read the full article
This was noted and condemned by Tibetan refugees in 2003:
Tibetan Women's Association Shocked & Anguished by PM Vajpayee's China Declaration

Contrast the Vajpayee-monitored declaration with the generally accepted position in 1959:
The International Commission of Jurists report on Tibet (June 5, 1959) by Purshottam Trikamdas Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, was not an official one, but summed up political opinion at the time. 

Extracts: What is happening in Tibet is reminiscent of the conquest by some European countries and domination over Asian and African people on the plea of bringing progress in those lands, described by complacent persons as the “White man’s burden”. In a sense it reminds one of the brutal suppression in Hungary. Unfortunate Tibet is presented at the same time with forced progress and brutal suppression at the hands of the Chinese Government.
4. It is not necessary to go very far into the historical background of Tibet beyond stating that from 1912 to 1950 Tibet was virtually an independent country. No Chinese writ ran in Tibet: there was no Chinese law, no Chinese judge, no Chinese policemen on the street corner; there was no Chinese newspaper, no Chinese soldier and even no representative of the Chinese government.
5. In 1950 China assured India that China had no intention of incorporating Tibet into China by force or otherwise and was willing to negotiate with Tibet regarding the future relationship of Tibet with China. But a few weeks later the invasion of Tibet took place — on the 7th of October 1950. On the 19th October 1950, Chamdo in Eastern Tibet was captured and on the 24th Peking announced that the forces had been ordered to advance into Tibet “to free three million Tibetans from imperialist oppression”.
6. As a result of the invasion, in December 1950 the Dalai Lama moved with his Cabinet to Yatung near the Sikkim frontiers where he remained till August 1951. In the meantime a Tibetan delegation had proceeded to Peking for negotiations as a result of which an agreement was signed on 23 May 1951, which is popularly known as the 17 Point Agreement. Its main features were: (1) Chinese armies were to be allowed to enter Tibet for consolidating national defence /(2) Tibetan people were entitled to regional autonomy under the leadership of Central Peoples Government /(3) The Central Government were not to alter the existing political system or the status and functions and powers of the Dalai Lama/ (4) Policy of religious freedom was to be carried out and religious beliefs, customs were to be respected and Lamas and monasteries were to be protected/ (5) Language and school system, agriculture and economy were to be gradually developed and no reforms were to be carried out by compulsion/ (6) While the Chinese were to handle external relations Tibet would be free to have commercial and trading relations with neighbouring countries / (7) The Chinese Government would set up a military and administrative committee, in which “patriotic” local personnel would be absorbed, for the implementation of the agreement.
7. The dismemberment of Tibet took place in 1951, the Dalai Lama being left with authority only in the Western portions of Tibet but with a Chinese general exercising effective control... read more:
Also relevant: “The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law” (July 24, 1959) - There is prima facie evidence that the Chinese Communists have by acts of genocide attempted to destroy the Tibetan nation and the Buddhist religion in Tibet, the ICJ announced in a report  published today. There is evidence, the report “The Question of Tibet and The Rule of Law” states, that the Chinese have by killing Tibetans and by the forcible removal of Tibetan children committed acts contrary to the Genocide Convention of 1948. There is also evidence that these acts were intentionally directed towards the destruction of the Tibetan religion and the Tibetan nation.. The 208-page report, which also considers the evidence on other violations of human rights and examines the international status of Tibet, has been sent to the United Nations and to all U. N. delegations. The ICJ based its report on extensive materials and documents and on the findings presented to it last month by Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas, a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and former Secretary to Mahatma Gandhi. Mr. Trikamdas was asked three months ago by the ICJ to investigate the matter. Working with a small team of experts, Mr. Trikamdas submitted in person last month the results of his investigation. At the same time the Commission announced the formation of a “Legal Inquiry Committee on Tibet” to continue the investigation and submit a final report. The names are to be announced shortly... read more
Also see: 
Visiting Prime Minister Atal Bihar Vajpayee and his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao signed the first-ever Sino-Indian Joint Declaration in Beijing on June 23, 2003. The declaration covered two crucial issues —  border disputes and trade. India, in a careful formulation, recognised the autonomous region of Tibet as part of Chinese territory. 

June 27, 2003: Tibetan women protest Vajpayee's agreement with China
 The Tibetan Women's Association (TWA) expresses shock and anguish over the Indian Prime Minister's joint Declaration inked with the People's Republic of China (PRC). India recognized Tibet as an autonomous region of China. India preferred to look away from the issue that was the bone of contention between the two Asian giants: the issue of Tibet. Regardful of Tibet's long historical and cultural ties with India, any official Indian visit to Beijing is tied with the hopes, optimism and expectations of the Tibetans. Mr. Vajpayee's visit this time was nothing different. TWA petitioned Mr. Vajpayee with the appeals and prayers of all the Tibetans to raise the Tibetan issue with his Chinese counterpart. However, we never expected Tibet to be discussed in the manner the Joint Declaration stated. This is an utter disregard to the Tibetan sentiments whose fate was sealed in a "joint declaration". TWA maintain that Tibetans have the right to be consulted and to engage in any discussions and decisions involving the Tibet question. We determine our own fate. In consideration of HH the Dalai Lama's repeated call for resolving the Tibet issue non-violently, TWA emphasize here our stand for truth and justice. We demand that the spirit of truth and justice must guide any talks on Tibet. It is needless and futile for India to talk with China without discussing Tibet. Lasting peace will never prevail without resolving the Tibet issue peacefully and respecting the sentiments of the Tibetans.

TWA express with disappointment that the Indian leadership is once again repeating the same blunder of 1954 when PRC successfully managed to hoodwink India. The Sino-Indian Trade Agreement in 1954 was, at the cost of accepting China's sovereignty over Tibet, mistakenly taken by then PM Nehru as a resolution to the border crisis and dawn of peace in the region but the Chinese attack in 1962 challenged Nehru's understanding of the Chinese mentality. 

Mr. Vajpayee in the Sino-Indian Declaration, put Tibet at stake while implicitly understanding China's acceptance of Sikkim as a part of India. No penned evidence shows Sikkim as part of India but Tibet was inked clearly in the declaration. No wonder, much jubilation and hype surrounds this meet in the Chinese press. We are concerned if Mr. Vajpayee is aware of the territorial boundaries of the real 'Tibet'. The Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) claimed by Beijing as 'Tibet' exclude large chunks of Tibetan regions located in northern and eastern Tibet which has been assimilated into Chinese region

Tibetan Women's Association is the largest and only Tibetan women's NGO working for the freedom of Tibet. Originally founded in 1959 and revived in 1984, TWA has over 11,000 members and 43 regional chapters in India and abroad.

Popular posts from this blog

Third degree torture used on Maruti workers: Rights body

Haruki Murakami: On seeing the 100% perfect girl one beautiful April morning

The Almond Trees by Albert Camus (1940)

Satyagraha - An answer to modern nihilism

Rudyard Kipling: critical essay by George Orwell (1942)

Three Versions of Judas: Jorge Luis Borges

Goodbye Sadiq al-Azm, lone Syrian Marxist against the Assad regime