Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Ladakh Clash On Cam: Indian Shepherds 'Pelt Stones' On Chinese Troops In Chushul Sector" video.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@kashutosh9132 "are you Indian? If not it's definitely not be much of a concern for you"
No. But doesnt mean I cant have an input. Just like how the world can have their input in Gaza and Ukraine.
"Chushul is a Indian village,the lac lies further 5 miles east ahead. These grazing lands for 100s of years have been used by local shepherds,local Shepards lived for 100s if not 1000s of years are there,Chinese from east came later"
Yes, but just bear in mind, Chushul has never been part of India till the British came along. So the region was never traditionally "Indian" to begin with.
In the past 1000 years, the region of Ladakh was ruled by Mongols, Tibetans, Chinese, and then the British. Never by Indians untill the British left.
So when you say the people of Ladakh are "Indian people". Thats like saying China saying the people of Ladakh are Chinese people, since most of what is traditionally Ladakhi territory currently resides within modern day China. You think thats "correct"?
If anything the region of Ladakh is split. Just like many regions in this world today.
But just because it was "traditionally" their peoples lands, it doesnt mean they can cross the modern day "borders" or "LAC".
2
-
@kashutosh9132 "That region was part of Hari Singh empire. Hari Singh merged his kingdom with India by signing instrument of accession. So those lands rightfully belong to India"
Like I said, that region was not part of India until the British came along. The signage youre speaking about happened after the British left. Which was my point: none of this region was part of India till the British came along. Just look at the historical timeline map of India. None of Indias maps included the region as theirs (inc Hari Sigh empire) until the British came along around the 1800s.
"They did also not rule those territory throughout history,same is for any country. At one point Indian territory touched to uzbeks but we are not claiming those lands..."
True. But we are talking about modern history here, or at least the history leading up to modern day countries. So in the context of everything, the previous governments of China and India in the 20th century, namely Qing China and British India, matters. If British India did touch Uzbekistan, then there will be legitimate claims from the current Indian government. But thats not the case.
"Unlike Chinese who have occupied Tibet,we have rightfully inherited the lands from the king"
Actually when Qing China collapsed, their transfer of sovereignty included the territory of Tibet. It was Tibet that governing illegally. Not the other way around. The "Imperial Edict of the Abdication of the Qing Emperor" is available for everyone to see.
"Laddhaki people are more culturally similar to Indian than mainland Chinese. You can ask laddhaki people of India,what they consider themselves"
If you ask a Indian citizen from Ladakh of course they would say theyre Indian. But similarly, if you ask a Chinese citizen from what is traditionally Ladakhi territory, then the answer would be Chinese. Im assuming youre talking about nationality here right?
I dont think you understand how large the real Ladakhi territory actually is/was. Its 10x larger than what India calls "Ladakh" nowadays. And at least 5x larger than Sri Lanka. Most of 90%+ of traditional Ladahk territory is in modern day Tibet and Xinjiang.
And culture means nothing in this context. Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese are also culturally similar to China. What is that even suppose to prove? Ladakis culture and ethnicity is most similar to the Tibetans than anything else.
2
-
@kashutosh9132 Oh please try keep this short and concise. The longer it is, the more I have to quote you to reference what Im responding to, the longer the comments will be.
"See,we are not saying anything about Tibet or Xinjiang"
Indeed. We are not talking about Tibet or Xinjiang. We are talking about whats traditionally Ladakhi territory. Which most of it lies in modern day Tibet and Xinjiang. Or did you prefer me to give you co-ordinates in longitude and latitude? I think just using modern day terms is easier for us to understand the location.
"Hari Singh kingdom included the parts of laddhak which India claims(and beyond) but we are are not claiming 10x more than we actually had. Hari Singh ruled till 1947 and signed instrument of accession with Indian govt(not brits)"
Your Hari Singh kingdom did not have sovereignty during British rule. It was the British that had sovereignty over British Indias lands. It was only after the British left that Hari Singh had a say in anything. Which was basically my point: none of this region was part of India till the British came along. You are talking about something AFTER the British left.
"100s of instrument of accession were signed between Indian govt and different local leaders. All this happened after British left,so all of this invalid? Hari Singh had the control of that territory,he handed over to us. This is as simple as that"
Well, British Indian invaded the Tibetan region of Qing China. Took their land without any sort of treaty with the Qing government, who had sovereignty over the land. Which is why China today does not recognise the disputed area as Indias. British Indias annexation over Qing territory was illegal to begin with. Even if they did win the war there, no formal treaty was signed with Qing China to cede that territory to British India. A war without any treaties signed afterwards is a war at most, not cession of territory.
"and Qinq didn't rule or control those lands when they collapsed"
No country in this world rules every inch of territory they lay claims to. There are vast empty lands in Russia, Canada, US, Australia that no man has ever walked. Even the Sentinel Islands, India does not rule nor have control over. Does that mean its not Indias?
"so by your this implications also those land belong to India"
My implication? My implication is based on legality. Hari Singh does not have legal sovereignty over the lands they signed off to India. They couldve illegally claimed Pakistan as part of their territory too. Does that mean Pakistan now belong to India because of their illegal claims?
"No,Qing collapsed and their territory become independent that's what happened. Just like Mauryan,chola empire collapsed and different kingdom started declaring themselves independent. Roman Empire collapsed and different small kingdom emerged. That's how it has been happening all over history to all the imperial empires"
That depends on how the empire collapsed. Some collapse were from total annihilation of the empire. For Qing, the imperial family still lived, and thus signed their territory off to Republic of China through an imperial edict (its available online for your to read). So legally speaking, all territories that Qing ruled, now all belong to Republic of China. And empires of the past had no such concept of passing their empires on legally. This is the 20th century way of doing things, we are not talking about empires way of doing things 2000 years ago.
"It took 40 years for govt in China to exert power over Tibet after Qing collapsed and Tibet people,their rulers didn't want them. They came and forcefully occupied those land. Tibet didnt want them"
When if comes to the law, it doesnt matter if they "want to" or not. Legally speaking, Tibet has been part of China since the 1600s, they were allowed to self-govern themselves, but ultimately, sovereignty over the territory had always been under Qing. When Qing collapse, sovereignty over Tibet was legally handed over to Republic of China via an imperial edict. It was Tibet that "forcefully" tried to seceded from China. Not China "forcefully" occupied their land. Their land had always been legally part of China.
1
-
@kashutosh9132 "After fall of Qing,ROC and then PRC tried to claim everything which Qing claimed,those kingdoms which didn't comply they attacked them,occupied them"
There were no "kingdoms" within China at that time. And it was Qing that gave all their territory to ROC. If its legally yours and people say "no its mine" and bear arms at you, of course force will be used on them during a civil war.
"Indian story is bit different,India was now parts of afganistan, Pakistan, mayanmar,Sri Lanka and Bangladesh..."
We are talking about the last Indian and Chinese governments leading up to modern India/China. Not ancient history. Not once did British India rule Afghanistan.
"Afganistan was already a kingdom,they didn't want to anything with India,we didnt claim,same for burma and Sri lanka. Even though through course of history same rulers had ruled all these region locally at different times"
You didnt try? Or they just didnt want to?
And not once in all of Indias history did any Indian empire ever rule Southern India, North East India, Myanmar, or Sri Lanka. Not once. So of course Myanmar or Sri Lanka wouldnt want to join India. Indias lucky to even have South India and NE India.
"Even for present India, leaders had to convince local leaders and kings to come join Indian union. Indian govt didn't automatically inherit what British India...Indian leaders had to negotiate case by case to form the present map of India"
I applaud Indians for their relatively peaceful formation. Indias very lucky to not have a civil war. But that didnt mean everyone in India was happy. In the early days of Indias formation, NE India said they were "tricked" into becoming part of India, as they had little knowledge on politics.
"That's why I said - ask local people who are living there,laddhaki are living there,so asking them make sense,in which country they want to belong? As essentialy their life will be affected first"
Im a person that doesnt care about opinions when it come to world politics and law. Whats law is law. Opinions do not matter when it comes to the law. Even if they want to become their own country, theyre not legally allowed to. If Sihks want to cede from India and become a Sihkistan, would you respect their "opinions" and allow it to happen? Doubt it.
"Tibetans are in exile and they want to independent,you know who is the aggressor"
So if Sikhs want to be independent, starts to amass an army to use force, and India brings in their army to suppress them, who is the "aggressor"?
The only Tibetans in so-called "exile" are those that want to be independent from China. Tibetans in China are living just fine. Ive seen enough videos from non-Chinese peoples vlogs to know whats reality.
"Ofc Laddhak territory is bigger than what belongs to India and we are not claiming what don't belong to us"
Just the part that was illegally claimed by Hari Singh. If Pakistan "illegal" claimed Kashmir and ceded territory to China via a legal treaty, does that make it legitimate? This is pretty much the same situation what British India did with Qing China.
"Do you think such a offer has been made id those lands belong to mainland Chinese?"
Ofcourse. Thats how negotiations are made. How else do you think negotiations are made? Through using someone else property/territory?
"But not for us,our then pm refused this stupid proposal as both arunachal and laddhak was ours and then war broke out"
Refer to my Pakistan ceding Kashmir to China example. If you agree Pakistan ceding Kashmir to China is illegitimate, then local Tibetans ceding Tibet to British India/Hari Singh is also illegitimate.
"No bcuz Chinese live way East,whereas Indians(laddaki and arunachali) have been living there for 100s years and they don't want their lands be occupied by chinese"
Youre confusing ethnicity with whats "Chinese" now. The Laddaki and arunachali people have also been occupied by British India for 100s of years. So ofcourse their identity is that of "Indias". I bet you if this was the other way round, in 100s of years they would also identify as "Chinese".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kashutosh9132 "The laddhak region of India before Tibet was ruled by local kings in times of karkota,utpala etc..."
Again, the only relevant time period we are speaking of is the previous governments prior to the current governments. Not something that happened over 1000 years ago.
Also, lets be specific here. Whats the "Laddahk region of India" you are speaking about? If youre including the disputed area that China also claims, then Im afraid that area will have to be called "disputed area" for the purpose of clarity in this conversation.
"Dogras won and inherited the territory of laddhak from namygyals and they didn't consider Tibet as their overlord and were independent of them...Dogras rules those land and then Dogras came under British"
Again, Tibet had no sovereignty over their lands. Sovereignty was under Qing China. Even if they did fight and win against the Tibetans, they themselves also dont have sovereignty over the lands. The land they won from Tibet also is under sovereignty of Qing China. Remember, Qing China designated that area (Tibetan plateau) as a self-governing region. If Dogra or the British wants to claim sovereignty over the territory from Qing, then the must have a formal treaty from Qing China to specify the ceded territory. Otherwise any sovereign claims over the territory from Dogra or British is illegal. Thats the point Ive been saying this whole time. You can "govern" all you want, as this is a "self-governing zone" so to speak. But sovereignty? No, it belongs to Qing.
"those Laddhaki lands we inherited from Hari Singh. Long before Brits attacked Tibet,Those laddhaki land were already under Dogra and these dogra were independent of Tibet rulers"
They still did not have sovereignty over those lands. Which was my point.
"So it is hard understand those lands are Indian bcuz Dogra won those lands and handed over to Indian government by instrument of accession?"
Where was the "instrument of accession" from Chinas side to hand it over to Dogra/Singh/British? Sovereignty over that piece of self-governing territory was Qing Chinas. You must ask the true legal owners of the land before deciding sovereign was theirs just because they won some local wars in a self-governing territory.
"are you confusing Tibet and laddhak? Laddhak(Indian part of it) was already independent of tibet when dogras were ruling? So there is no claim of Qing over them"
First of all, Qing China does not care who rules the designated land over the Tibetan plateu. Its a self-governing area. Whether its 1 ruler, or 10 rulers, they dont care. Theyre all Qing Chinas territory. Its a territory that has been granted self governing privileges. So even if Dogras were governing that area, sovereignty over the designated area that Qing claimed was still Qings. No treaty was ever signed to cede sovereignty away to Dogras. If Dogras truly did claim sovereignty over that piece of territory, you honestly think Qing China who was more than 100x its size and power would just let them have it?
"Hari Singh didn't only claim,he was ruling those lands unlike the Qing"
In Qing Chinas eyes, "ruling" means nothing. As mentioned earlier, that territory was designated as a self-governing area, so it doesnt matter who ruled it. Did Dogra or Singh receive any treaty from Qing ceding territory to them? No! So sovereignty is not legally theirs. Simple as that.
1
-
1
-
@kashutosh9132 "See how we treat -sentinels? Their way of living still preserved,we are not interfering and imposing our wills on them"
Yes, I see how youre treating them. Youre not providing them of proper health care, safe drinking water, proper shelter, education, electricity, internet etc. Not sure why you sound so proud of that.
Why dont you treat NW and NE India the same way? Preserving their culture and not interfering or imposing your wills on them? Youre contracting yourself here.
"British ruled ind-pak-bd-sri Lanka and mayanmar. Does that mean none of those lands belong to local people just bcuz Brits conquered them? Well doesn't matter,we have legal documents now for those lands"
On the topic of the British conquering and ruling, Im assuming you mean sovereignty. Yes, the people had no sovereignty over those lands. Sovereignty belongs to the British.
And what do you mean? Republic of India has legal documents over Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar?
"At the time of reorganization of state in 1947,there was no demand for sikhistan"
When it comes to the rule of law, the law is the law. Doesnt matter if theres "demand" or "no demand" for it at the time of founding. Over the years, people change, and demands can change too.
If a piece of territory is legally yours, then the piece of territory cannot secede unless the ruling sovereign state legally allows it to, whether itd be Sikhistan or Tibet. Tibet was legally part of China and was never granted any green light to independence of any sort. Therefore, their "independence" was illegal. So you need not bring up their illegal "independence" and "occupation" as if its some major point again. It was illegal for them to be independent in the first place.
"Also Pakistan didn't own those lands which it gifted to China"
And I can say Dogra/Singh did not have legal sovereignty over the lands it signed off to India. Where was the treaty that says Dogra/Singh received sovereignty over those territory from Qing? Because there is none. Sovereignty of those territory was part of Qing since the 1600s. What Dogra/Singh signed off to India was simply illegal.
"No Tibet didnt acede those lands to Brits,dogra already ruling it before -writing it the 10th time"
And also, for the 10th time. They can rule it as much as they want but they have no SOVEREIGNTY over that territory. Sovereignty over the designated self-governing territory in the Tibetan plateu had always been Qing Chinas since the 1700s. There was NO treaty to cede sovereignty of that terrority to Dogra from Qing whatsoever. They only won rights to govern, not rights of sovereignty. Theres a difference.
"That's not how negotiation are done,that's how trade happens"
Oh? So how are negotiations done then?
"China didn't adminster laddhak nor adminster arunachal.Yet they want to sell,what they didn't have,it's shows their respect for people of laddhak and arunachal.if they have considered them their own,they will strike such a deal. Don't you agree?"
No I dont. Because thats not a fact. You can disagree all you want, but the fact is, thats how some territories are negotiated over for many countries over the course of history. And let me repeat. Its the territory we are talking about here, not the people. When it comes to negotiations, its always about the territory, and never the people (even though people are on the territory). Talking about "people" here is irrelevant.
"In this reality,people of laddhak and arunachal identify as Indian(as you also said). So shouldn't Chinese leave them as it is? when they don't consider themselves Chinese national?"
Again, this is a matter of sovereignty. Sovereignty is about territory, not "people". S0 peoples "opinions" do not matter. If people are not happy, they can migrate. Thats what people have been doing since the dawn of civilisation.
And the sovereignty of the disputed territories were never legally ceded from Qing to British/whoever in the first place.
1
-
@kashutosh9132 "long before Brits,there had been connection and history btwn people of laddhak, arunachal and people living in up,bihar,Andhra etc"
"Connections" mean nothing. India never ruled the disputed part of Laddahk nor the disputed part of AR till the British came along. It was never part of Indian history prior to the British.
"Nanda ruled from south Afghanistan to some parts of mayanmar"
Nanda? No. Not according the the maps available online.
"Pala also ruled most of NE and east India"
No. Not "most". Pala barely touched NE India. And it was only for a few decades in the grand scale of all of Indias history.
"Kashmir and laddhak had been under local rulers way more than try had been under Tibet"
Sovereignty was still Qings. If you insist that sovereignty was theirs. Then where is the treaty where Qing ceded sovereignty to them?
"I was referring to 15 provinces which declared themselves independent including Tibet when Qing collapsed"
Illegally that is. Just like if Sikhistan suddenly declared independence, would that be legal?
And that happened after the new president declared himself the new "emperor". So if he didnt do that unconstitutional move, then there there also wouldnt be any unconstitutional declaration of independence from these provinces as well.
"That's how it used to happen when empires collapsed before the advent of modern nation and it has happened with many empires"
As mentioned earlier, when Qing collapsed, their royal family remained alive, and an imperial edict was issued to notify the formal transfer of sovereignty over all their territory to Republic of China. When empires collapsed in the past, did their kings/emperor live? Qings emperor did. Thats the difference.
"No single Empire ruled over all the territories at the same time,it's true for Qing and china too"
Thats why the term "rule" is not used in international law nowadays. Its too ambiguous. Thats why the term "sovereignty" is used instead.
"Those different regions I mentioned were under 1 king with varying geography at different period of time"
And thats my point. India was never the "India" that you have today. They were all seperate countries/kingdoms for most of Indias history. It was only after the British that India was unified as it was today. Especially NE and Southern India which none of the largest Indian empires ever had control over.
"People speaking same language, same local culture,same written script had to get divided btwn 2 countries...Families were torn...Chinese never had to face this,so they will never understand"
Really? You sure? Didnt they experience that with AR (South Tibet)? Whereby Chinese citizens of Tibet were split between 2 countries? And what about Taiwan? Hong Kong? Macau? Outer Manchuria? Etc? And thats just modern history. Chinas history is arguably the most bloody country on this planet. More people died in China due to war than any country in the world.
But nevertheless, whats worse? Dying from war? Or split between 2 countries knowing theyre still alive and well?
"Well people from Tibet also do not care about your opinion who want/wanted to be independent. It's just about power,if they had been powerful and forced back Chinese forces and remained independent, nobody in the world would have questioned it"
Correct. Opinions do not matter. And "might is right" prior to international laws existence. That was how the world was run in the past.
1
-
"long before Brits,there had been connection and history btwn people of laddhak, arunachal and people living in up,bihar,Andhra etc"
"Connections" mean nothing. India never ruled the disputed part of Laddahk nor the disputed part of AR till the British came along. It was never part of Indian history prior to the British.
"Nanda ruled from south Afghanistan to some parts of mayanmar"
Nanda? No. Not according the the maps available online.
"Pala also ruled most of NE and east India"
No. Not "most". Pala barely touched NE India. And it was only for a few decades in the grand scale of all of Indias history.
"Kashmir and laddhak had been under local rulers way more than try had been under Tibet"
Sovereignty was still Qings. If you insist that sovereignty was theirs. Then where is the treaty where Qing ceded sovereignty to them?
"I was referring to 15 provinces which declared themselves independent including Tibet when Qing collapsed"
Illegally that is. Just like if Sikhistan suddenly declared independence, would that be legal?
And that happened after the new president declared himself the new "emperor". So if he didnt do that unconstitutional move, then there there also wouldnt be any unconstitutional declaration of independence from these provinces as well.
"That's how it used to happen when empires collapsed before the advent of modern nation and it has happened with many empires"
As mentioned earlier, when Qing collapsed, their royal family remained alive, and an imperial edict was issued to notify the formal transfer of sovereignty over all their territory to Republic of China. When empires collapsed in the past, did their kings/emperor live? Qings emperor did. Thats the difference.
"No single Empire ruled over all the territories at the same time,it's true for Qing and china too"
Thats why the term "rule" is not used in international law nowadays. Its too ambiguous. Thats why the term "sovereignty" is used instead.
"Those different regions I mentioned were under 1 king with varying geography at different period of time"
And thats my point. India was never the "India" that you have today. They were all seperate countries/kingdoms for most of Indias history. It was only after the British that India was unified as it was today. Especially NE and Southern India which none of the largest Indian empires ever had control over.
"People speaking same language, same local culture,same written script had to get divided btwn 2 countries...Families were torn...Chinese never had to face this,so they will never understand"
Really? You sure? Didnt they experience that with AR (South Tibet)? Whereby Chinese citizens of Tibet were split between 2 countries? And what about Taiwan? Hong Kong? Macau? Outer Manchuria? Etc? And thats just modern history. Chinas history is arguably the most bloody country on this planet. More people died in China due to war than any country in the world.
But nevertheless, whats worse? Dying from war? Or split between 2 countries knowing theyre still alive and well?
"Well people from Tibet also do not care about your opinion who want/wanted to be independent. It's just about power,if they had been powerful and forced back Chinese forces and remained independent, nobody in the world would have questioned it"
Correct. Opinions do not matter. And "might is right" prior to international laws existence. That was how the world was run in the past.
1