Tibet in Context

While China is often criticized for its invasion of Tibet (which had never been part of China, but had been part of the Chinese Empire for thousands of years), India is rarely criticized for its invasion of the princely states in the mid-to-late 20th century. Upon independendence, the Indian Union was one of many sovereigns in South Asia, some of which (Hyderabad and Kashmir, famously) did not wish to be part of India. India these complaints and used a combination of threats of force and force to compel its neighbors to join its socialist polity.

india_1950If Nehru was really has shocked at China’s invasion of Tibet as he seemed to have been, then his foreign policy really was a foolish as his disastrous economic policy, which held India back for two generations.

This is not to defend China. It is to criticize India.

4 thoughts on “Tibet in Context”

  1. Huh?

    Hyderbad was put down because it was run by a crazy man. Poor places like that shouldn’t be the home of the richest man on earth. Kashmir? If the Pakis had left it be, it would have become part of Pakistan. They invaded, the prince called in the Indians, and we have our current mess. I’d point out it was only a small part of Kasmir that is the current PAK; the rest was the Gilgit agency.

    Look, I’m all for putting down the Tibet thing. Monks shouldn’t run countries. But to compare what china died to Tibet to what happened with the accession of the Indian states is, hmm, mildly insane?

    perhaps the better example is Sikkhim.

  2. Charlie,

    Is your claim that states are free to invade and annex their neighbors, when they make a judgment about the poliices of that state?

    That sounds like a dark satire of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. It is as if, after declaring Saddam mad, Bush announced that Iraq was a perpetual territory of the United States.

    Look, I’m all for putting down the Tibet thing. Monks shouldn’t run countries. But to compare what china died to Tibet to what happened with the accession of the Indian states is, hmm, mildly insane?

    Certainly, China’s claim to Tibet was far stronger than the Indian Union’s claims to its neighbors. China has a history of international recognition as a sovereign power that is suzereign if not sovereign over Tibet. The Indian Union had… the fact it was larger and a neighbor?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>