View the h-asia Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-asia's August 1995 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-asia's August 1995 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-asia home page.
H-ASIA August 24, 1995 Re: Tibet, China and British India ************************************************************************** From: jwhoover@students.wisc.EDU (James Hoover) With reference to Peter Robb's forwarding (delayed) of Alex McKay's note: - Alex McKay has justly corrected my statement that there was "no residency system" in Tibet such as the British had established throughout India during the 18th and 19th centuries. However, the three trading agencies which were established did not exercize the same sort of imperial authority over the local regime which was exercized by British residencies elsewhere. British policy had always been to recognize China as suzerain of Tibet, at least until the Second World War, when British memos described Tibet as "de facto independent". The three trading agencies were handed over to the Republic of India on August 15th, 1947, and Tibet immediately (the same day, in fact) demanded their closure, as well as the return of several border areas taken earlier by the British. India did finally close the trading agencies and evacuate their guards and personnel as a result of the notorious Panchsil Agreement with China several years later. This act was seen by Nehru's government as the abandonment of a colonial legacy, but it was used, together with the other aspects of the Panchsil Agreement, as the first step toward the systematic violation of India's sovereignty by the PRC. Alex McKay is correct in arguing that the history of Tibetan sovereignty is important to these issues, particularly because the "problem" of Tibet is one of boundaries as defined by the history of the international agreements which established them. Interestingly enough, neither free Tibet, Nationalist China, nor the PRC have ever accepted the Tibetan borders as defined by British India and inherited by the Republic of India, and the Dalai Lama's government in exile has never made it clear just exactly where the territorial limits of Tibet should be located. - James Hoover Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of History ================================================================= To post to H-ASIA send your message to H-ASIA@msu.edu To temporarily interrupt your H-ASIA service for holidays send a posting to <listserv@msu.edu> with the message: SET H-ASIA NOMAIL When you return and wish to resume H-ASIA service send a similar posting with message: SET H-ASIA MAIL Private questions should go to: conlon@u.washington.edu or leibos@sage.edu
|