Tibet- India relations - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Tibet Ladakh relations */

2022-08-29T20:51:24Z

‎Tibet Ladakh relations

Jyoti at 20:50, 29 August 2022

2022-08-29T20:50:35Z

Pdewan: /* 1900 */

2021-10-03T14:22:27Z

‎1900

Pdewan: /* 1900 */

2021-10-03T14:22:03Z

‎1900

Pdewan: Pdewan moved page Tibet- India relations, to Tibet- India relations without leaving a redirect

2021-10-03T14:20:26Z

Pdewan moved page Tibet- India relations, to Tibet- India relations without leaving a redirect

Pdewan at 14:18, 3 October 2021

2021-10-03T14:18:59Z

Pdewan: /* 1994 */

2021-10-03T14:16:31Z

‎1994

Pdewan: /* 1990 */

2021-10-03T14:11:21Z

‎1990

Pdewan: Pdewan moved page Tibet test to Tibet- India relations, without leaving a redirect

2021-10-03T14:07:36Z

Pdewan moved page Tibet test to Tibet- India relations, without leaving a redirect

Pdewan: Created page with "=1900= 1900 AUG 11 British Viceroy of India Curzon sends first of two letters directly to Dalai Lama after attempts to negotiate with Tibetan authorities fail. ([http://www.t..."

2020-09-10T20:28:12Z

Created page with "=1900= 1900 AUG 11 British Viceroy of India Curzon sends first of two letters directly to Dalai Lama after attempts to negotiate with Tibetan authorities fail. ([http://www.t..."

Show changes

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
-The remote Himalayan region of Ladakh, a union territory of India, has recently been in the news due to fighting between Indian and Chinese forces along disputed border with China’s Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR).
+Before the colonial period, clear linear borders did not exist in the Himalayas because states conceptualized sovereignty differently, and because it was difficult and pointless to clearly delineate borders in sparsely populated high altitude areas. Even in colonial times, the difficulty of establishing a border between British India and the Qing Empire is demonstrated by the existence of several different British lines, none of which provided a final answer as to where the border between Ladakh and Tibet lay. Strategic, not historical, considerations were used to propose several lines: the Ardagh-Johnson line of 1865, which pushed the border up the most to the north and east, the more conservative Macartney–MacDonald Line of 1899, and a third line that was never seriously considered because it would have drawn the boundary along the Karakoram range to the south of the effective border, giving up parts of Ladakh.
-−
-The immediate cause of the dispute is the lack of a clear border in the area. Before the colonial period, clear linear borders did not exist in the Himalayas because states conceptualized sovereignty differently, and because it was difficult and pointless to clearly delineate borders in sparsely populated high altitude areas. Even in colonial times, the difficulty of establishing a border between British India and the Qing Empire is demonstrated by the existence of several different British lines, none of which provided a final answer as to where the border between Ladakh and Tibet lay. Strategic, not historical, considerations were used to propose several lines: the Ardagh-Johnson line of 1865, which pushed the border up the most to the north and east, the more conservative Macartney–MacDonald Line of 1899, and a third line that was never seriously considered because it would have drawn the boundary along the Karakoram range to the south of the effective border, giving up parts of Ladakh.
 Yet, regardless of where the existing boundary comes to lie, it would have kept Ladakh and Tibet apart: It would have merely formalized the fact that while Tibet lay in the Chinese sphere-of-influence, Ladakh would be associated with the political world of the Indian subcontinent. Despite their common history, religious heritage, and culture, how and why did Tibet and Ladakh come to be politically distinct? In fact, some of the western areas of the Tibetan plateau — Baltistan, part of the Pakistani region of Gilgit-Baltistan, the Indian union territory of Ladakh, as well as the Indian districts of Kinnaur and Lahaul and Spiti in Himachal Pradesh and the Nelong Valley of Uttarakhand— — were never truly ruled by the central Tibetan government, or a Chinese suzerin of Tibet.
@@ Line 26: / Line 24: @@
 In 1460, a new, energetic dynasty, the Namgyal dynasty, began to rule Ladakh from Leh, and soon most of the rest of Tibet came to be ruled by the Dalai Lamas with Mongol backing. This Tibetan state — a theocracy — expanded southward, and propagated the Gelug sect.
 Meanwhile, in Ladakh, Jamyang Namgyal (ruled 1595-1616) brought Baltistan (in today’s Pakistan) under his control, and Sengge Namgyal (lived 1570–1642) conquered Zanskar in 1638 and asserted overlordship over Guge; more importantly, he patronized a rival school of Tibetan Buddhism, the Drukpa (Red Hat) sect, which had been founded by an Indian sage from Bihar or Bengal, Naropa, in the 10th century.
@@ Line 42: / Line 38: @@
 While Ladakh is clearly rooted in Tibetan culture, its heritage is also distinctly non-Tibetan, particularly because its political history is different, its language has become mutually unintelligible with Standard Tibetan, and because, like Bhutan, it is religiously distinct from the rest of Tibet, as the Dalai Lama is not revered as much as he among Tibetans. Ladakh and its people are a thing of their own and Ladakh’s distinct and unique identity is preserved, to a large extent, from its political disassociation from the rest of Tibet, and its union with India. Due to its orientation toward South Asia, and its clear history of demarcation from Tibet, it is not surprising that its people continue to wish to be distinct from Tibet and China.
 =YEAR WISE DEVELOPMENTS=

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 =1880=
 ==Sarat Chandra Das/ 1881 onw ==
@@ Line 4,286: / Line 4,329: @@
 TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS]]
 [[Category:Tibet|TTIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,
 TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, 3 October 2021
Line 4,278:		Line 4,278:
	[[Category:History\|TTIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,		[[Category:History\|TTIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,
	TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,]]		TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Foreign Relations\|TTIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,
		+	TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS]]
		+	[[Category:History\|TTIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,
		+	TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS]]
		+	[[Category:India\|TTIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,
		+	TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS]]
		+	[[Category:Tibet\|TTIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,
		+	TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 =1900=
@@ Line 52: / Line 73: @@
 SEP 23 British troops withdraw from Lhasa. ([http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/chron.html  Ken Herold])
 =1905 =

@@ Line 4,227: / Line 4,227: @@
 Pillsbury Madison & Sutro
-Rosalynn Robinso
+Rosalynn Robinso[n]
 Threshold Foundation([http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/chron.html  Ken Herold])
@@ Line 4,238: / Line 4,238: @@
 TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,]]
 [[Category:History|T
 TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,]]

@@ Line 4,216: / Line 4,216: @@
 © 1991, 1993, 1994 Ken Herold
 All Rights Reserved
 February, 1994
 Acknowledgements
 Pamela K. Draken
 Pillsbury Madison & Sutro
 Rosalynn Robinso
 Threshold Foundation([http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/chron.html  Ken Herold])
@@ Line 4,228: / Line 4,235: @@
 ([http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/chron.html  Ken Herold])
-[[Category:History|T]]
+[[Category:Foreign Relations|T
-[[Category:Foreign Relations|T]]
+TIBET- INDIA RELATIONS,]]