1. Indian policy on Tibet was promulgated in 1950 by the so Prime Minister, Pundit Jawahar Lal Nehru. India ‘s base on Tibet was affected by legion factors. Among them were the demand to further good dealingss with China and the sensed imperialistic control of Tibet by the British.
2. Till the Chinese business of Tibet in 1950, Tibet had been an independent state. Thus India ‘s policy[ 51 ]towards Tibet has suffered because of its many quandary. In the 1950s, though India opposed China ‘s invasion of Tibet, it refused to patronize a Tibetan entreaty to the United Nations, turned down US proposals for cooperation in support of the Tibetan opposition and persuaded the immature Dalai Lama non to fly abroad but to make an understanding. .
3. All this forced the Dalai Lama to subscribe a 17-point understanding with Beijing in May 1951. This Indian policy stemmed from the demand to continue Tibet as an independent part within China, while at the same time progressing ties with Beijing. Consequently, India signed the 1954 understanding with China on Tibet. The 1959 rebellion in Tibet exposed the falseness of the Chinese towards allowing liberty to Tibet and in an attempt to recover the lost land, India granted refuge to the Dalai Lama in 1959.
4. But Beijing saw the granting of refuge to Dalai Lama and enabling him to mobilise international support as an anti-China policy. Consequently, in all subsequent India-China articulation statements, it ensured the interpolation of a clause on India ‘s credence of Tibet as a portion of China. By repeatedly repeating over the old ages that Tibet is a portion of China, India diluted its purchase non merely in shoring up the Tibetan cause but besides in its boundary line dialogues with China. At the same clip, China continued to fear that India might utilize the Tibetan card at some point in the hereafter. Despite these Chinese frights, India has firm avoided utilizing the Tibetan card as a bargaining scheme.
5. Historical Facts about Formulation of Indian Policy On Tibet. There is a demand to analyze the events which led to the current policy which was formulated by the so Government of India: –
( a ) The Tibet issue[ 52 ]is rooted in the histories of the three states – India, China and Tibet. Tibet has existed throughout history as a distinguishable civilisation with rich civilization, linguistic communication, faith, civil order and individuality. Through the centuries India and Tibet have maintained strong spiritual and trade ties, and have shared a peaceable boundary line. But the coming of British power in the Indian sub-continent altered the nature of this relationship. The British Raj ‘s policy towards Tibet was shaped by the Great Game and the demand to forestall Russia from presenting a menace to India. It was against this background that the Raj called for the three-party Simla conference in October 1913, which was attended by representatives from British India ( Henry McMahon ) , Republican China ( Chen Yifan ) and Tibet ( Lonchen Shatra ) . The end was to settle the boundary between British India and Tibet on the one manus and between Tibet and China on the other. The consequence was the Simla Agreement of 1914, which the Chinese representative initialled but merely under British force per unit area. The Agreement divided Tibet into Inner and Outer Tibet. China was given sovereignty over Inner Tibet but merely 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 agreement, which boiled down to prolonging Tibet as a buffer zone with de facto independent position under Chinese suzerainty. In the post-1949 period, when the People ‘s Republic of China came into being, India urged China to allow Tibet go on as an independent part in line with its historical position, spiritual, cultural and political individuality. However, the entry of 20,000 PLA military personnels in 1950-51 into Tibet ended its independent position and finally brought to the bow the India-China boundary line issue.
( B ) In 1950[ 53 ], India ‘s first minister plenipotentiary to China, K.M. Panikkar, suggested to the so Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, to do attempts to set up Tibet as an independent state. China was so in the thick of civil war. When Nehru made the suggestion, China lost no clip in taking over Tibet militarily. Still Nehru felt that India, while acknowledging China ‘s suzerainty over Tibet, had the right to show the involvement in the care of Tibetan liberty. But he was pacified when China said that it would work out the job “ by peaceful and friendly agencies. ” In the official answer, New Delhi used by error words such as “ Chinese sovereignty ” alternatively of “ suzerainty. ” India realised its error and asked its embassador Panikkar to rectify it.
( degree Celsius ) Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel wrote a missive[ 54 ]to Jawaharlal Nehru on 7 November 1950 non merely deploring Indian Ambassador KM Panikkar ‘s action of holding with the Chinese position point but besides warning about dangers from China. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel tried to convert the PM on the undermentioned issues: –
( I ) The Chinese Government had tried to deceive the state by professions of peaceable purpose.
( two ) Besides, those events violated the religion entrusted by the Tibetans in India.
( three ) These events demonstrated that the Chinese in malice of our direct attacks to them, do non see us as their friends.
( vitamin D ) Between 1947 and 1954, India ‘s place on Tibet was based on recognizing it as an independent state. Tibet represented itself as an independent state at the Asiatic Relations Conference held in New Delhi in March-April 1947. But India later gave up this place on April 29, 1954, when it signed an understanding with China on trade and intercourse between India and Tibet. Under the footings of the understanding, India gave up all extra-territorial rights and privileges that it had inherited from the British Raj and recognised Tibet as portion of China. This, in consequence, was a one-sided grant without the Indian authorities deriving anything in return.
6. In subsequent decennaries, New Delhi has repeatedly reiterated that Tibet is a portion of China, in malice of the latter ‘s invasion into and excessive claims over Indian district, the boundary line war it imposed on India in 1962, and the unsolved boundary line difference at the Centre of which lies Tibet. In consequence, such reduplication has meant the dilution of a bargaining card in the boundary line dialogues. In 2003, the Vajpayee authorities went farther than any other authorities before by saying that the “ Tibetan Autonomous Region of China is portion of the district of China. ” Thus it is imperative that the current Indian policy on Tibet be revisited.