Comments by "" (@Rav01508) on "Houthis 'Spare' Russian, Chinese Ships In Red Sea; How Other Vessels Are Using It To Avoid Attacks" video.
-
10
-
6
-
@jungchaeyeon4166 The McMahon Line was first drafted in 1913, and the treaty to ratify them (Simla Accords) was never signed by the Republic Of China(ROC) who had just overthrown the Qing dynasty. There was no such thing as the McMahon Line in 1890, and China isn't disputing where the Line was drawn, she's disputing the validity of the Line in its entirety. The primary Indian claim is that the ROC did sign the Simla Accords because a British official called Olaf Caroe fabricated a narrative in 1938 where the ROC signed the Simla Accords (they didn't) and ceded parts of Tibet to the Raj.
In 1963 a British diplomat compared a pre-1938 treaties compendium with the post-Caroe compendium and found that Caroe had changed the note on the ROC's not signing the Simla Accords into one where the ROC signed it and considers the Indo-Tibetan border finalised. Nehru picked up a copy of Caroe's fabricated compendium so he got the impression that his country was legally entitled to more than she actually was. Compounding this was the US' decision to add fuel to the flames by declaring the McMahon Line as the legitimate boundary in an attempt to contain the spread of communism, despite reservations from the US State Department and protests from the fiercely non-communist Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the ROC.
However, we all know Nehru irreversibly altered his country's relations with China in 1962, so by 1963, when the fabrication was discovered, it was already too late to stem the tide of Indian nationalism based on the false compendium entry. And that leaves us with the situation today, in the aftermath of a British attempt to de jure carve out a piece of Chinese territory which failed but had some success de facto, then a British fabrication of her failed attempt to carve out Chinese territory, then an Indian acceptance of the British fabrication alongside American endorsement, and a Chinese refusal to accept the fabrication as anything remotely legal.
Some Indians recognise that they don't actually have a legal claim to South Tibet, so they've begun using a different claim in that the people living in South Tibet want to be part of India more than China; in essence, a claim based on the principle of self-determination. This is India's secondary claim. However, as history has shown time and time again (Catalonia, Confederate States, Taiwan, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet, Naxalites), without the permission of the larger body, a smaller section of the population will not be allowed to separate from its original country regardless of what they want.
A much more detailed account of the McMahon Line and its history is available here, written by Peter Lee who, contrary to impressions given by his surname, is not at all Chinese.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jiffinjoseph6144 The McMahon Line was first drafted in 1913, and the treaty to ratify them (Simla Accords) was never signed by the Republic Of China(ROC) who had just overthrown the Qing dynasty. There was no such thing as the McMahon Line in 1890, and China isn't disputing where the Line was drawn, she's disputing the validity of the Line in its entirety. The primary Indian claim is that the ROC did sign the Simla Accords because a British official called Olaf Caroe fabricated a narrative in 1938 where the ROC signed the Simla Accords (they didn't) and ceded parts of Tibet to the Raj.
In 1963 a British diplomat compared a pre-1938 treaties compendium with the post-Caroe compendium and found that Caroe had changed the note on the ROC's not signing the Simla Accords into one where the ROC signed it and considers the Indo-Tibetan border finalised. Nehru picked up a copy of Caroe's fabricated compendium so he got the impression that his country was legally entitled to more than she actually was. Compounding this was the US' decision to add fuel to the flames by declaring the McMahon Line as the legitimate boundary in an attempt to contain the spread of communism, despite reservations from the US State Department and protests from the fiercely non-communist Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the ROC.
However, we all know Nehru irreversibly altered his country's relations with China in 1962, so by 1963, when the fabrication was discovered, it was already too late to stem the tide of Indian nationalism based on the false compendium entry. And that leaves us with the situation today, in the aftermath of a British attempt to de jure carve out a piece of Chinese territory which failed but had some success de facto, then a British fabrication of her failed attempt to carve out Chinese territory, then an Indian acceptance of the British fabrication alongside American endorsement, and a Chinese refusal to accept the fabrication as anything remotely legal.
Some Indians recognise that they don't actually have a legal claim to South Tibet, so they've begun using a different claim in that the people living in South Tibet want to be part of India more than China; in essence, a claim based on the principle of self-determination. This is India's secondary claim. However, as history has shown time and time again (Catalonia, Confederate States, Taiwan, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet, Naxalites), without the permission of the larger body, a smaller section of the population will not be allowed to separate from its original country regardless of what they want.
A much more detailed account of the McMahon Line and its history is available here, written by Peter Lee who, contrary to impressions given by his surname, is not at all Chinese.
1
-
1
-
1