IS INDIA JUSTIFIED IN

SUPPORTING TIBET FOR ITS

FREEDOM STRUGGLE?
By- Kanishk Srivastava
The Peoples Republic Of China is a big nation with a lot of
power, this overpowering attitude of China has led to its
domination over Tibet. The national freedom which
Tibetans had enjoyed for over 2 millennium was shattered
by Chinas invasion. For over 60 years since that illegal
military annexation inside Tibet, there has been
resistance to Chinas illegal occupation, waged by
Tibetans who
are
determined
to
regain their
independence. Beijing claims a centuries-old sovereignty
over the region. But many Tibetans argue Chinese
involvement in their country only dates back to the
invasion of 1950. In the years following Chinas invasion,
many Tibetans have fled their homeland seeking refuge
in different parts of the world forming an exiled
community of over 100,000 Tibetans based in the United
States of America, Europe, Canada, Australia and with
majority living in India.
In 1949/50 occurred the excruciatingly heart breaking
event in which well over 1 million Tibetans were perished,
including nearly 100,000 Tibetans who were tortured to
death. Today many organizations like Tibetan Youth
Congress and Government of Tibet in exile support the

Tibetan independence movement. The website tibetruth

states that, About one in five Tibetans has perished
under Chinese rule, a similar percentage to the Polish
dead of World War 2. China is arguably a land empire like
former Soviet Union, and it has occupied other territories
too. These include East Turkistan, which when removed
from China would reduce its size by almost 50% and cut
off Chinas borders with India, Nepal, Bhutan,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Korea, and practically none
with the Soviet Union. All these Chinese occupied areas,
with indigenous populations, are reported to be suffering
from coercive birth control policies.
The Chinese justify this occupation of formerly known
Tibet on the basis of claims made by ancient imperial
dynasties. However, if the Great Britain followed this
same tradition, it could very easily attempt to re-occupy
the United States of America and India on the grounds
that part of it were formally controlled by Britain, before
reactionary elements detached it from Londons rightful
control.
Central Tibetan Administration views current Peoples
Republic of China in Tibet as illegitimate, motivated solely
by the natural resources and strength value of Tibet.
The Tibetan sovereignty debate refers to two political
debates:
The first is whether the various territories within the
Peoples Republic of China that are claimed as political
Tibet should become a new sovereign state.

Many of the points in the debate rest on a second debate

about whether Tibet was independent or subordinate to
China in certain points of recent history.
India cannot and will not disappear as a nation. However,
with the death of Tibet, India will be left with a wound
extending from Ladakh in the West to Arunachal in the
East a wound extending through the entire Himalyan
range some 2,500 km for which there will be no cure.
The implications of such a wound would forever eat into
India like a deadly cancer.
The level of ignorance and misunderstanding about Tibet
in India was evident during the escape of the 17th
Karmapa to India. It must have been painful for the
Tibetans to read in certain sections of the Indian press;
reports and letters suggesting that the Tibetan refugees
in India are a liability and a security risk to India. There
still seems to be speculation that the presence of the
17th Karmapa is a hindrance to Indias relations with
China.
The Peoples Liberation Army crossed the Jinsha River on
6 or 7 October 1950 and defeated the Tibetan army by 19
October. Instead of continuing with the military campaign,
China asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to
negotiate an agreement. Dalai Lama believes the draft
agreement was written by China, and Tibetan
representatives were not allowed to suggest any
alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan
representatives to communicate with the Tibetan

government in Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not

authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to
pressure from the Chinese to sign anyway, using seals
which had been specifically made for the purpose.
To avoid antagonizing the People's Republic of China,
Nehru informed Chinese leaders that India had neither
political nor territorial ambitions, nor did it seek special
privileges in Tibet, but that traditional trading rights must
continue. With Indian support, Tibetan delegates signed
an agreement in May 1951 recognising PRC sovereignty
but guaranteeing that the existing political and social
system of Tibet would continue. Direct negotiations
between India and the PRC commenced in an atmosphere
improved by India's mediation efforts in bringing about a
ceasefire to the Korean War (19501953).
India established diplomatic relations with the PRC on
April 1, 1950, the 16th state to do so.
In April 1954, India and the PRC signed an eight-year
agreement on Tibet that set forth the basis of their
relationship in the form of the Five Principles of Peaceful
Coexistence (or Panch Shila). With this agreement in
effect, the de facto independence which the Tibetans
were enjoying since 1911, when the Chinese forces were
withdrawn from Tibet, was buried. After this, India in the
hope of managing China, signed a number of other
agreements that showed that India had accepted Tibet as
an autonomous region of China.

So now the question arises if India should support Tibet

for its struggle for freedom. Well, since India has signed
various agreements with China showing that India has
accepted Tibet as an autonomous region of China, India
shall not violate the agreements because if India does so
it will destroy the Indo-China relations. However, since
majority of the Tibetans have taken refuge in India
including the Dalai Lama, India should maintain a positive
attitude and behavior towards the Tibetans. The only
conclusion that comes out is that the answer to this
question rests upon various other debates like the one
about whether Tibet was independent or subordinate to
China in history and whether the Peoples Republic of
China just wants to occupy Tibet for its natural bounty
and so on and so forth. Also, India has good relations with
both the sides, namely Peoples Republic of China and
Tibet, so, choosing any one side would spoil Indias
relation with the other party. So, just for the sake of
maintaining peace and harmony with the neighbouring
countries, India should remain neutral and support both
the parties partially and not taking stand of just one side
totally.
x---------x----------x----------x----------x----------x----------x---------x----------x--------x
_____________________________________
|

Name: Kanishk Srivastava

Class: XI-D

|
|

|____________________________________ |

References:
Tibettruth.com
Wikipedia.com
Save the Tibet blog
Times of India
Hindustan Times
Friends of Tibet
Questia.com