New Delhi
5 April 2008
There is no document that binds India to accept Tibet as a part of
China, according to a former diplomat Ranjit Gupta. The 1954 agreement between the
Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the People's Republic of
China on trade between "Tibet Region of China and India" was valid for eight years, and
it lapsed in 1962. All subsequent pronouncements on Tibet as being a part of China were
contained in "joint statements", which have no legal sanctity.
"One could take that approach. Of course, one cannot ignore the ground realities today
but a reversal to the 1954 language is preferable," Mr Gupta told this newspaper on the
sidelines of a seminar here on "The Recent Events in Tibet: Implications for India", in
which the UPA Government's handling of the Tibet situation came in for ridicule and
condemnation from retired diplomats and opinion makers alike. Mr Gupta said there is
no point iterating Tibet Autonomous Region is a part of China without ascertaining how it
will "translate on a map".
A former High Commissioner to Pakistan, Mr G Parthasarathy, said he was "shocked" by
a recent statement of Minister of External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee. (In a telephone
conversation with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on Wednesday, Mr Mukherjee
reiterated India's position that the Tibet Autonomous Region is part of the territory of the
People's Republic of China.) "Should India blindly repeat Tibet is an autonomous region
of China till a definition of what constitutes TAR is not understood?" he wondered, adding
Tibet cannot be considered a part of China if the Chinese claim Arunachal Pradesh as
their territory.
Mr Tempa Tsering, the representative of the Dalai Lama in India, said history of Tibet is
vastly different from the selective interpretation of history by the Chinese. He cited
impartial, independent historians and institutions as saying Tibet was a de facto
independent state until the Chinese occupation in 1949.
Mr Tempa referred two instances to disprove the Chinese claim. In the World War II, the
United States, the United Kingdom, China and others wanted to send military supplies
through Tibet but Tibet told them it will stay neutral and will only let humanitarian
supplies, not military supplies, pass through its territory.
If Tibet was a part of China in 1945 Tibet couldn't have had an independent foreign
policy, Mr Tempa pointed out. Again, in 1949, when Nepal sought United Nations
membership, it produced a peace treaty it signed with Tibet in 1856 as evidence of its
independent status.
A retired diplomat, Ms Arundhati Ghose, felt the movement of China's defence policy
from defending its territorial frontiers to securing its "strategic frontiers" has implications
for India's security interests. "A more confident China will be looking to create her
'lebensraum'," she said, adding India will have to identify the vulnerabilities of China
and be prepared to use them. "India has some time ago given up the moral imperative in
her foreign policies. Today, her self-interests dictates her options. It would be in her
interest to keep all those options open," she emphasised.
A former attorney general of India, Mr Soli Sorabjee, in turn said gross violation of
human rights in Tibet is legitimate matter of international concern and to characterise
concern as interference is a bogey. India, he said, should unequivocally express her
concern and displeasure at the repression unleashed on the Tibetan marchers.
Mr Parthasarathy said the 1951 agreement guaranteed certain degree of autonomy to the
Dalai Lama and the least India and the world expects is for China to honour that
agreement. He wondered why China can consider autonomy for the Han Chinese-
populated Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong but not for the non-Han Chinese-populated
Tibet. The conscious attempt to push the Han Chinese into Tibet is a blatant racial
discrimination under the UN Charter, he asserted.
No comments:
Post a Comment