Talk:India–Tibet relations

De facto independence
I have added the words "de facto" to India's treatment of Tibet's independence, using a quote from Van Eekelen. I am not convinced that Mehrotra's treatment of the subject is conclusive. Better sources are needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mehrotra's gung-ho treatment of the Kurukshetra mythology is also quite dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please suggest a source. DTM (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that India had a position on whether Tibet should be an independent country. But it was independent when India became independent, and so India was ready to deal with it on that basis.
 * On the other hand, India did believe that Tibet should be autonomous, just like British India did. Both British India and independent India were ready to accept Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, but not Chinese occupation. (Possibly, in India's view, this "autonomy" was enough to guarantee the validity of the McMahon Line, even though the Dalai Lama had other views.)
 * On the question of suzerainty, sovereignty etc., one of the best sources is:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From Srinath Raghavan:
 * The present day Chinese accusations that independent India wanted to continue the maintenance of Tibet as a "buffer state" are not corroborated by scholars. From Dorothy Woodman:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The present day Chinese accusations that independent India wanted to continue the maintenance of Tibet as a "buffer state" are not corroborated by scholars. From Dorothy Woodman:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Vajpayee
Wonder of the wonders that it was NDA that gave up the suzerainty policy. Was there any debate about this within India? China claims that "India recognised Tibet as a part of China", whatever that means. What exactly did the joint declaration say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Powers & Templeton:
 * To me, the quoted paragraph doesn't imply sovereignty or suzerainty or any other form of relationship. It is completely ambiguous. Nor does it imply any change in India's policy. Shivshankar Menon, who was the ambassador in Beijing at that time, says absolutely nothing about it in his book. It looks like "sovereignty" is the gloss some newspapers have come up with for it. BBC Zhonwen's gloss on it is a bit more accurate than either Indurthy or Powers & Templeton.
 * Pretty much all informed scholars use the term "country" to refer to Tibet. Tibetans are not regarded as "Chinese", nor are any Chinese regarded as "Tibetan". If China were to be treated as a "nation state", Tibet would not be a part of it. Being a part of its "territory" says no more than calling it "Chinese-administered". The keyword part was obviously inserted to appease the Chinese without really saying anything of substance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Made a few adjustments to the text on the basis of this. DTM (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Made a few adjustments to the text on the basis of this. DTM (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)