Despite the fact that internationally Tibet is recognised as an integral part of China, there also continues to be a conflict of its sovereignty, right to self-determination, and legality with the existence of a zone called Tibet Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China.
Unlike other portions of China, this part of China has become the subject of political debate because there are five points in the context that require historical search of facts: a. The People’s Republic of China asserts that Tibet has been a part of China since the period of the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty, b. The Republic of China (ROC) says that Tibet was placed under the Sovereignty of China under the Qing dynasty (1636-1912), c. The Tibetan Government in exile claims that Tibet was an independent state until the PRC invaded it in 1949/1950, d. Western scholars contradict the Chinese view and contend that Tibet was independent during the Han-led Ming dynasty (1368-1644) and it was ruled by China during the Manchu-led Qing dynasty but with least subordination, e. Some scholars also maintain that Tibet was independent from 1912 to 1950 but it had little international recognition. In all these claims and counter-claims researchers have taken help of history which have varied periods/ phases and methods of calculations. So far as the matter about the claims of China and Tibet are concerned, while Beijing wants to prove that Tibet had all along been under its control and subjugation, Tibet rules out the long historical claim of China and accepts only after 1949/1950 by occupation and force.
The present Government of China claims Tibet on the basis of historical and legal facts, and contends that it remained under the Control of China since the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368) onwards and concluded several treaties as the government of Tibet and China in 1876, 1886, 1890 and 1893 with the British government regarding the status, boundaries, and access to Tibet, and it was only in 1904 when China became weak, that the British Government invaded Tibet and forced it to sign a separate treaty in Lhasa. But further treaties China signed with the British in 1906, and the 1907 treaty of British and Russia, went in favour of China as both powers accepted China’s principle of suzerainty over Tibet and Article 2 of the treaty prohibited both from contacting Tibet directly but only doing so through China.
Its claim on Tibet is based on while referring to legality on international law and the succession of states theory and it has clarified further that the Chinese governments from days of Yuan have been succeeded in exercising de jure sovereignty over Tibet, including the Republic of China as the legal government of all China. At times even, the Tibetans are of two minds- sometimes they fiercely claim their independence and at other times indicate willingness to accept subordinate status as part of China if Beijing left untouched its internal system and relinquished the control over a number of important ethnic Tibetan groups in Kham and Amdo.
If one leaves apart the issue of sovereignty, Tibet and the present People’s Republic of China remained in close contact since the days of Chinese Tang dynasty (618-907) which began with frequent wars between the two short intervals and in about 650 the Chinese captured Lhasa, while for a while in 763 Tibet took the control of China’s then capital, Chang’ an, when a civil war was going on in the country. Further, in the period of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) Tibet was fully independent and there was no control of Ming emperors but during the reign of the last emperor of China, of the Qing dynasty which was established in 1636 and to 1912, the relationship between Tibet and China took a U-turn to be one of the patron and priest. The Tibetans quote a historical document in their favour issued by the 13th Dalai Lama in 1913 which mentions that during the time of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty and the Qing dynasty both Tibet and China co-operated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship, and thus the existing relationship between China and Tibet had been that of patron and priest and was not based on the subordination of one to the other.
However, between 1912 and 1950 Tibet enjoyed independence and sovereignty in the real sense of the term, and also issued passports to Tibetans and visas to citizens of foreign countries. Its government permitted the first-ever Mount Everest expedition in 1921 followed by British Everest expedition in 1924 and 1936. The passports and visas issued by the government of Tibet found wide acceptance and stamps across the world including India, the USA, the UK, France, Italy, Switzerland, Pakistan, Hong Kong, except China, which remained adamant on its claim that Tibet had been an integral part of Beijing since long.
The Tibetan leaders were forced to sign a treaty dictated by China known as the ‘27-Point Agreement’ which on the one hand professed to guarantee Tibetan autonomy and to respect the Buddhist religion but also allowed the establishment of the Chinese civil and military headquarters at Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. Between them there was a sharp difference on the validity of this Agreement because while the Chinese Government regards the 17-Point Agreement as a legal document, welcomed by the people of Tibet, the Tibetan people, especially Tibet’s religious leader Dalai Lama, consider it invalid and as having been signed under duress.
The current history of the sufferings of the Tibetan people began with the end of the civil war in China followed by the commencement of Communist rule in China under the leadership of Mao Zedong on 1 October 1949, and by the time the 14th Dalai Lama, born in 1935 in a small village in Tibet, became 15 years old and officially fit to be head of state. It made China both- worried and active to work for the takeover of Tibet.
Under the strategy, the Tibetan leaders were forced to sign a treaty dictated by China known as the ‘27-Point Agreement’ which on the one hand professed to guarantee Tibetan autonomy and to respect the Buddhist religion but also allowed the establishment of the Chinese civil and military headquarters at Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. Between them there was a sharp difference on the validity of this Agreement because while the Chinese Government regards the 17-Point Agreement as a legal document, welcomed by the people of Tibet, the Tibetan people, especially Tibet’s religious leader Dalai Lama, consider it invalid and as having been signed under duress.
The resentment of the Tibetan people against the Chinese policy of occupation by force erupted in a revolt in 1959 and the Dalai Lama with most of his ministers and around 80,000 Tibetan followers fled to India and took shelter where they established a government in exile at Dharamsala in northern India and claimed sovereignty over various areas now governed by the People’s Republic of China. It has not only strained relations between them but also cast a long dark shadow on India-China relations till date.
