Himalayan Times (1954)

fc!ir lftim/ilaj n '<*imc» July 4, 1954

INDIAN POLICY ON TIBET

THE BACKGROUND OF "SUZERAINTY"

Mr. 'A. D. Gorwala's
letter, published in Hima-
layan Times on June 13,
calls for a rejoinder from
a student of history. The
letter dealt with the poli-
cy of the present Govern-
ment of India regarding
Tibet and asserted that: —
" (a) The Chinese "inva-
sion" of Tibet was com-
pletely unjustifiable

(b) The Government of
India endorsed this action,
thus sliding from its ori-
ginal stand that Tibet was
an autonomous area tinder
Chinese suzerainty.

(o) By the recent Sino-
Indian Trade Agreement
(April 1954) it has gone
further and. sealed this
action by a further treaty.

Since the "Tibetan ques-
tion" has a long liistory
extending over seven cen-
turies, objective treatment
of it demands a historical
approach.. The . statement
that Tibet has been enjoy-
ing virtual independence
since 1914 does not re-
present the whole truth.
Up to the 18th century
Tib it was., independent
and constantly at war with
China. But in the Yuan
and Ming periods ;1279-
1614) it came under a

BY HISTORIAN

shadowy form of Chinese
suzerainty. In 1705 trie
Manchu 'Emperor Kang hai
established a protectorate
over Tibet (but one de-
pending merely on the
loyalty of the ruler of
Tibet*. After helping Tibet
to drive out the Dzungar
mongols (17 I 7). the Chinese
established a garrison at
Lhasa and r.its comman-
dant sup'-rvisi d the affairs
of the Tibetan Govern-
ment, v.

Chinese Residents

In 1728 two Chinese
Residents (Ambai s) were
stationed at Lhasa, and
from 1751 their advice was
sought by the Tibetan
Government. In 1792 a
Chintse army was des-
patched to Tibet. From
that year the Ambaus
had dirtct control over
Tibetan administration.
This arrangement which
lasted until 1911 .amounted
to nothing less than Chi-
nese sovereignty over
Tibet. In 18A6 and 1890
the British concluded Con-
ventions with China, which
th'ey regarded as the-eal
master of Tibet. If they
concluded a Convention
with Tibet in 1904, they
secured Chinese adhesion

to it in 190(i and acknow-
ledged the right of China
to preserve the integrity
of Tibet—a right interpre-
ted by China as recognition
of her sovereignty.

Indo-Tibetan Trade Re-
gulations were also conclu-
ded with China in 1908.
The Chinese General Chao
Erh-feng'K conquest* (1905-
10) brought all Eastern Ti-
bet from border of Szechu-
an to Giamda within a few
miles of Lhasa, under
Chim se control. The area
was to be christened the
province of Hsi Kang and
the eastern parts of it
were to be brought imme-
diately under direct Chi-
nese administration.
Though the Chinese' were
driven out from Tibet in
1911, in 1912 President
Yuan shih-kai issued an
order that Tibet was to
be considered a province
of China.

The British doctrine of
Chinese "suzerainty" over
Tibet was born in 1901,
the product of Russo
phobia. Suzerainty was
never defined and, worse
still, the Chinese, ht least
since 1919, have refused
to accept this position.
From 1901 Britain feared