Talk:Simla Convention/Archive 2

Despite the British government

An IP editor is persisting on adding WP:POV content despite the lack of reliable sources and consensus:

49.195.183.131, which source supported the red bits that you have added? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

WHat's wrong with being an IP editor? It's not like anyone knows your real identity if you then register an account but if you want me to register. I can surely do that with no issue as all it needs is an email account that is essentially free. Nonetheless you're the one claiming that the law was made into effect and made legal despite other pre-existing British treaties contradicts it. To claim that it was made into effect is just an opinion and not correct. I suggest being neutral and saying that the contract "stated" instead of "made into effect". Simply because the British gov recognised china as having surzeinty over tibet and never once in modern history, have recognised tibet as independent. So any contracts with tibet without chinese approval, is easily voided by other British laws. Unless britian officially recognised tibetan independence - (they never had) - then such a law can never be made into effect without chinese signatures., That's just facts and not opinions. 49.195.183.131 (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Also if you seriously want a source to back the real context that Britain recognized china having suzerainty over tibet and having a treaty with china with British promising china that they will not meddle in tibet - there is only way too many. Here is a few them. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/tibet/3385803/UK-recognises-Chinas-direct-rule-over-Tibet.html + https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222 + https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/01/opinion/l-tibet-couldn-t-lose-what-it-never-had-332046.html 49.195.183.131 (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on the issue raised. Where is the source that relates and contrasts the British recognition of sovereignty with the signing of the Simla Convention? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Do not make these merely arbitrary arguments. If you need to be this overly strict in sources. Then okay - add in the following sentence plus sources prior.

Contextual sentence - Britian have recognized chinese surzerainty over tibet, meaning that all contracts with tibetans require chinese approval in order to be valid under international law. They have never recognised Tibetan independence. Then add in sources - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suzerain + https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/tibet/3385803/UK-recognises-Chinas-direct-rule-over-Tibet.html + https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222 + https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/01/opinion/l-tibet-couldn-t-lose-what-it-never-had-332046.html

Then add in another source and the following statement.

Smith (1996), p. 201 (note 163), Smith (2019), p. 212 (note 163): "The Simla Convention and its appended Indo-Tibetan agreement did not appear in Aitchison's Treaties (the official GOI record), including the final 1929 edition, since the unratified Simla Convention was not a valid international treaty and the Indo-Tibetan agreement was secret.

From Smith (1996), we have a source stating that the agreement was not a valid international treaty yet the first paragraphs did not give that impression at all hence it is misleading. And why there needs to a fair impression given on why the treaty is not valid under international law. And why I suggested that we add in the bare minimum of REAL CONTEXTUAL info that the unratified Simla Convention was not a valid international treaty AND the British government recognized Tibet to be under chinese surzainty and even that simla conference ironically recognized it. And add this essential context just PRIOR to that current sentence in the article, writing that the brits and Tibetans signed a contract without Chinese signatures. This helps readers to understand why that unratified treaty is simply not legal or not unchallenged under international law.Nvtuil (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you are going off on tangents. Aitchison's Treaties have nothing to do with the issue. You want to claim that Britain accepted Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and, yet, they signed a treaty with Tibet as if it were an independent country. Thus they were being inconsistent. To argue that, you need a WP:RS that does so.

This is not an idle complaint. There are plenty of legal scholars who will tell you that Tibet was de facto independent when it signed the Simla Convention, and they will also tell you that the British and Chinese acceptance of Tibet as an equal participant at the Simla Conference amounts to a recognition of its de facto independence by both of them.

Expression was given to the actual situation in an informal memorandum from Foreign Secretary Eden which stated that since 1911 Tibet had enjoyed de facto independence and opposed Chinese attempts to reassert control. Once again it was repeated, however, that Britain had always been prepared to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, but only on the understanding that Tibet was regarded as autonomous.^[1]

The precise nature of Tibet's historical relationship with China remains contentious and complicated. But all politically independent analysts agree that from 1913 to 1950 Tibet enjoyed de facto independence and statehood.^[2]

Two things should be said about this: the first is, as we already noted earlier, that China’s formal recognition of the plenipotentiary powers of the Tibetan delegation and of their equal status at the negotiations in Simla estopped it from later alleging that the Tibetan government did not have the capacity to conclude treaties. This Chinese claim is therefore inadmissible under international law. The second is that Republican China’s and the PRC’s claim that Tibet was for centuries a part of China is groundless.^[3]

In the light of such scholarly viewpoints, the amateur claims you are trying to make are laughable hold no water and have no place on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC) revised comment. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, don't tell me that my claims are ”amateur” and ”laughable” and have no place on Wikipedia. Or I will report you for those uncivil taunts. I prefer to have a discussion without such taunts. And you should really speak for yourself.

How can you yourself not know about the 1906 treaty with China and 1907 with Russia, in which the British have always agreed to recognize China's suzerainty over Tibet. Such treaties are binding and for British reps to violate those treaties. That's precisely the sole reason why contextual and Real info should be added in. British recognized Chinese surzainty of Tibet Long before the Simla conference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvtuil (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

China has never once recognized Tibetan independence so that Tibet journal guy, which is actually a biased indian lobby pushing for Tibetan independence, is spinning it excessively. He leaves out alot of info like the fact that China had rejected the Simla treaty and also consistently rejected Tibetan independence. Not once have China ever explicitly said they recognized Tibetan independence so your Tibet journal guy is just trying to push a false narrative that's grasping at straws.

For him to even imply that China has ever recognized Tibet as independent in Simla conference is just laughable. They have always opposed Tibetan independence loudly and that fact is not really seriously disputed by anyone.

Even the 1913 Simla conference itself recognized china as having surzainty over Tibet. So even the british and Tibetan representatives who had signed that contract, was acknowledging China having surzainty over Tibet and hence Def Not independent.Nvtuil (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And that's your opinion that British government treated Tibet as an independent country. Where's the source to back your opinion? British law is not International law. And Britian did not have any powers over China's sovereignty.

Not once did they properly declared Tibet as independent from China to the world. I should also remind you that even the Simla conference itself LITERALLY mentioned Tibet as not independent but explicitly under China's surzainty. SO even the Simla conference document acknowledged that Tibet wasn't independent. And that's why scholars like Smith from the western side, reluctantly confirms that the treaty was not valid and the opening paragraph needs to minimally reflect that fact. There's a reliable source stating those exact words.

Smith (1996), p. 201 (note 163), Smith (2019), p. 212 (note 163... since the unratified Simla Convention was not a valid international treaty and the Indo-Tibetan agreement was secret.Nvtuil (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And I added this excerpt from Smith for One reason ONLY. That a reputable scholar explained that the treaty was not a valid international treaty. Please do not go off topic and say that I wanted to talk about Aitchison's Treaties. That's not why I gave that excerpt. I am NOT talking about Aitchison's Treaties and not not the focus of this discussion.

The focus - I PROPOSE to add in this sentence in the opening paragraph that's backed by a solid source. That the unratified treaty was not a valid international treaty for multiple reasons and my source is Smith. And he's right because if Simla conference document acknowledged Tibet as under China's surzainty. Thus without chinese signature, even Smith admits that the treaty was unratified and non valid under international laws. And I trust his words over you. No offense.

Smith (1996), p. 201 (note 163), Smith (2019), p. 212 (note 163): "The Simla Convention and its appended Indo-Tibetan agreement did not appear in Aitchison's Treaties (the official GOI record), including the final 1929 edition, since the unratified Simla Convention was not a valid international treaty and the Indo-Tibetan agreement was secret.  Nvtuil (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not speaking for "myself". I am speaking for the reliable sources. I have given you three high-quality sources, which you have completely ignored.

Your proposed statement is again an instance of WP:SYNTHESIS and distortion. The source is talking about why one scholar (apparently Lamb) thought the treaty was not published in 1929. The substance of that is already indicated in the lead sentence where the treaty is described as ambiguous. It was a treaty meant to be signed by three parties, but only two parties had signed it. They also signed a declaration saying that it was binding upon themselves. So parts of it were valid and parts of it were not. The fact that Britain eventually published it means that there was value in its publication.

Why the Aitchison's Treaties did not include the treaty in 1929 is a much bigger subject and deserves an entire section of the page. If you want to create a such section, be my guest. But you need to research into all viewpoints on the topic, as WP:NPOV requires, not just cherry pick something you happen to like. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not distortion or synthesis to say that Britian had a binding treaty with China and Russia prior, in which it agreed and formally recognized Tibet as under China's surzainty. That's why it was illegal. Hence to even sign the Simla conference without chinese signature, is of violation to their previous treaties. I am merely suggesting that we add the context in, with an impartiality. Britian did in fact break their other treaties by signing the Simla conference and hence that history should not be omitted. In addition, there should be a minimal sufficient explanation in the article's intro given on why China had rejected the Simla conference. Reason as below.

China rejected the Simla Accord because it did not consider Tibet a sovereign government which could sign treaties. China also did not accept the boundaries between Inner and Outer Tibet.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/this-man-is-responsible-for-chinas-border-grouse-with-india/chinese-counter/slideshow/59053679.cms Nvtuil (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Also I didn't ignore those sources. I sufficiently addressed them that their biased conclusion that China had somehow made their desire for Tibetan independence abundantly clear, is just absurd. They completely ignored the many loud overwhelmeing vocal statements from China, in explicitly rejecting Tibetan independence. Whereas you have not given me any sources at all, that states that Britian gov has recognized Tibetan independence officially. They never did And again, I repeat that Aitchison's Treaties is not the focus. The focus was on Smith (not lamb) and explaining that the treaty was never ratified and invalid under official laws. However you should ask yourself why that treaty wasn't published in the 1929 edition. That explanation is explained by Smith. And should be added in. Currently the article ONLY mentioned that the Simla conference was published in Aitchison's Treaties.

"The Simla Convention and its appended Indo-Tibetan agreement did not appear in Aitchison's Treaties (the official GOI record), including the final 1929 edition, since the unratified Simla Convention was not a valid international treaty and the Indo-Tibetan agreement was secret. Nvtuil (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

De facto independence

De facto independence means "as the facts stand". It is not something that depends on anybody recognising it. Tibet declared independence and China was unable to overturn it for some 40-odd years. In the opinion of legal scholars that means that Tibet was de facto independent. Please feel free to read through the three sources I have provided.

The claim that "Simla Convention itself" recognised China's suzerainty doesn't make sense. If China had suzerainty at that time, there would have been no need for any Simla Convention. We are discussing the very page on Simla Convention, and the page nowhere says that China had it! This is pure silliness.

The Simla Convention said that Tibet would accept China's suzerainty if China met certain conditions. China refused, and that was the end of that. Then Tibet's de facto independence remain until China invaded it and occupied it in 1950. I am reproducing the quotation again because it seems not to have gotten through to you:

To my knowledge, without exception, every independent scholar who has examined this question concluded that Tibet qualified under international law as a sovereign state in 1950, the year during which the People's Liberation Army (PLA) invaded and colonized Tibet.^[1]

There is apparently nothing debatable here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

A few more points to add to this from a reference used on the India–Tibet relations page^[2]:

In 1913, Lonchen Shatra sat as Tibet’s plenipotentiary at the Simla Conference along with those of China and Great Britain as an equal. All these attributes of Tibet’s independence were recognised by the Chinese themselves.

During the period of the civil war, Mao Zedong also acknowledged the alien status of Tibet.

Thus, at the time when India became free, Tibet’s independence was a fact, Chinese suzerainty over it fiction.

I am pointing out the obvious but there is even a Wikipedia page on just this period — Tibet (1912–1951). DTM (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There is context and precisely why I want them in the article. To help readers understand that the British already formally recognized Chinese suzerain before the Simla conference.

You shouldn't forget the 1907 treaty with Russia had Britian already recognized Chinese surzainty over Tibet. The 1906 treaty with China, also had Britian recognized china as the highest plus sole. authority of Tibetan foriegn affairs. And you do understand the very word ”de facto” means to not officially be recognized by laws. When the American declared independence from the British, they were challenged by the British and the americans won their independence via war. China had every legal right to also challenge Tibetan independence hence nobody can actually say Tibetan independence was full Independence. Also those odd 40 years was when China was busy fighting the japanese as well as their domestic civil wars. They (both ROC and CCP) never relinquished their claim. After the civil war, the victor soon attended to Tibet and defeated the challengers via war. So once the civil war was resolved, Tibet was fully re-incorporated (this by no means absolves the current Chinese government from their less than stellar treatment of the Tibetans). But there are numerous examples in Europe where states broke away from a larger collective, only to be reintegrated later. For that matter, the civil war in the USA could be classified similarly - Group A (the South) declares independence from Group B (the North). Group B gets its act together, wins the fight against Group A. That's the reason why all modern countries in the world today including Britian and India, recognized Tibet as legally part of China and not for no reason at all. Nvtuil (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And if you write down that the Chinese had recognized Tibetan as independent, then that's a classic and biased gross distortion of history. There's morryto the picture that contradict that misleading statement and that's just the obvious. Your proposed statement is an instance of WP:SYNTHESIS and distortion. For one, china never officially recognized Tibet independence publicly. If anything, they have been pretty vocal publicly in those 4 decades on being against Tibetan independence. Tibet journal is trying too hard to push a false arbitrary narrative that China recognized Tibetan independenc despite the fact there's heaps of events where ROC and CCP made loud protests at Tibetans kicking out chinese officials and have been nothing but consistent in rejecting Tibetan independence from China. The real context shouldn't be omitted - that Britian gov recognized Tibet as under China's surzainty but they signed the papers after they failed to get China's signature and the british gov rejected the Simla conference as it had violated their treaty with Russia (1907) and China(1906). And Britian until 2008, never stopped seeing Tibet as under Chinese suzerainty nor ever recognized Tibetan independence, hence the Simla conference is indeed non valid and unratified. Because as long as Britian officially saw Tibet as not independent but under China's suzerainty. Then any contracts signed with Tibetans without chinese approval, is illegal and unratified under their own british laws. Can you name any modern period including 1950, where British government recognized Tibetan independence? They never did. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/tibet/3385803/UK-recognises-Chinas-direct-rule-over-Tibet.html Nvtuil (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Treaty signed in 1906

Another problematic passage added:

The problem with this passage is that it is out of context. How does this relate to the Simla Convention? Besides, WP:NEWSORGs are only reliable for news. Their judgements cannot be taken as fact. The phrase "in return for indemnity" is highly problematic. The implication that Britain would have wanted to interfere otherwise is also problematic. Britain was only looking for trade relations, which had been agreed upon in previous treaties. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's completely within context as it shows that the British had violated their own treaty with china if they went on to make treaties with tibetans without chinese permission. Hiding such history is only misleading as it makes people unaware that the British, if they were honest, should never have made a contract with tibet without Chinese permission if it violates their older pre-exisitng treaties. 49.195.183.131 (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You cannot make your own arguments on Wikipedia. It is not a blog site. You can only state the arguments that have been made in WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

And what are you on about? I made my own argument ONLY on the talk page AFTER you said it was out of context. I did not EVER say that this argument should also be on the Wikipedia article page. I explained here on talk page that it is within context as it shows that the British have violated their own treaty with china by making that simla convention. AGAIN I did NOT propose to add that argument to the Wikipedia page.

Instead I propose to add the real background context info that in 1906, Britian indeed made a treaty with china where it promised not to annex tibet in return for an indemnity paid by the Chinese court, while China promised "not to permit any other foreign state, to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet". And SUCH INFO is backed by reliable sources. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222

You're making false accusations out of bad faith by smearing me with lies. BBC is a solidly reliable source that has no motive to lie about its country making a treaty like the 1906 one with china. AND I never once proposed to add my own arguments on the Wikipedia article page. I merely answered your question here on talk page. If you continue to make up false accusations against me. I will ignore them and take this to arbitration if you keep making up strawman arguments against me. You did not at all once address the above reply because you know it's valid and instead trying to find a way AVOID discussing the topic and use false accusations against me to justify not adding in the edits despite it is of imperative importance to help readers understand the full legality and relevant history of the Simla Convention. Nvtuil (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I am ok with that sentence in the background section if you remove the problematic phrase "in return for an indemnity paid by the Chinese court". If you want it in, you need to find a WP:HISTRS for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

BBC is a well known source with integrity and no reason for such a reputed organization to lie about such things. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222 they wrote ”in return for indemnity from Chinese government.” Nvtuil (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Australian journalist

The IP also reinstated this passage that I previously deleted:

I had deleted the passage saying that it had nothing to do with the Simla Convention. So the IP editor added the phrase in red, "for using the Simla conference to justify the Forward Policy against China". Which source is supporting this statement? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the source - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-Nehru-who-declared-1962-war-Australian-journalist-Neville-Maxwell/articleshow/33094229.cms

And it expliclty wrote:

The PRC government was prepared to accept that border alignment but insisted that it be re-negotiated, that is put through the usual diplomatic process, to wipe out its imperialist origins. Nehru refused, using London's false claim that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line to back up that refusal — that was his Himalayan blunder.

That was his reasoning to claim that the Chinese were wrong as he claimed that the Mcmahon line was validated by the simla convention. So he essentially did in fact use Simla convention to officially justify a war against china. That is not anything but a huge factor behind that war. You know the info is true and backed by solid sources so are claiming that it's irrelevant to delete such info. Except for the fact that it's relevant in that it literally started a war with Nehru pushing the Simla convention in a self-righteous way. Unless you have sources that can prove otherwise -it's both factual and solidly relevant to Simla convention. 49.195.183.131 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is the source that links the Simla Convention and the Forward Policy? Again, you are making up your own arguments without any sources for them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Dude, I am not be doing this again if you keep cheaply claiming I didn't give a source. I just gave you a source in my reply above and even literally quoted the supporting excerpt. Do not gaslight me and say that I did not give sources. Here is it again with the FULL excerpt.

As far as the McMahon Line was concerned India inherited the dispute with China, which the British had created in the mid-1930s by seizing the Tibetan territory they re-named NEFA. The PRC government was prepared to accept that border alignment but insisted that it be re-negotiated, that is put through the usual diplomatic process, to wipe out its imperialist origins. Nehru refused, using London's false claim that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line to back up that refusal — that was his Himalayan blunder. Then in 1954 he compounded that mistake by laying cartographic claim to a swathe of territory in the north-west, the Aksai Chin, a claim which was beyond anything the British had ever claimed and on an area which Chinese governments had treated as their own for at least a hundred years. To make matters worse, he ruled that there should be no negotiation over that claim either! So Indian policy had created a border dispute and also ruled out the only way it could peacefully be settled, through diplomatic negotiation.

By September 1962 the Indian “forward policy” of trying to force the Chinese out of territory India claimed had built up great tension in the Western (Ladakh) sector of the border, with the Chinese army just blocking it. Then the Nehru government applied the forward policy to the McMahon Line eastern sector and when the Chinese blocked that too India in effect declared war with Nehru's announcement on October 11 that the Army had been ordered to “free our territory”, which meant to attack the Chinese and drive them back.

This is the source - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-Nehru-who-declared-1962-war-Australian-journalist-Neville-Maxwell/articleshow/33094229.cms

As you see, my secondary primary source is Indian times and Maxwell explained that Nehru used the Simla convention to justify a war and additionally Nehru ordered a Forward Policy to help get the land that Indians felt they owned because of the Simla Convention. The source and article could not be anymore clearer in that regard.Nvtuil (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

And the Indian times article was obviously referring to the Simla Convention as it's the only conference that ever dictated and tried to legitimise the McMahon line specifically. But Wikipedia editors choose the title of every event and calls it convention despite it had many different titles - treaty, 1913 conference, convention, agreement, etc and here are source to prove that - https://www.jstor.org/stable/652324 + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Convention Nvtuil (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

We are still talking about one journalist's opinion. But even he did not say India "justifed forward policy". His words were India "applied forward policy to McMahon Line", where the "McMahon Line" was India's prevailing border for at least 30 years. The question of "justification" did not arise anywhere. I am afraid you have some strange understanding of the events and how the sources are dealing with them. So, please do me the favour of explaining clearly the rationale for your words and quit this dismissive attitude.

I would also like to note that "Nehru started the war" is a ridiculous form of distortion of "in effect declared war". And "in effect" implies that it is the journalist's own interpretation of what Nehru did. Another opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No need for the extra uncivil comments about my intelligence. I prefer to have a discussion without the sniping. And they're not opinions but facts. Maxwell used a legitimate declassified document that was once hidden by the indian gov and are not ever denied by the indian gov. The is Henderson report shows that Indians military officials back then, believed that China will not escalate hostilities if India aggressively did a Forward policy which is just another term for invasion. The indians had definitely crossed the line first. Maxwell criticised Nehru for that move. None of that information is false. Nehru had also made claims on lands that even the british colonisers have never even claimed. And it's reasonably hard for China to be okay with that. So Maxwell also criticised Nehru for that as well too. None of that info are opinions but historical facts. Maxwell himself is also a historical authorirative figure and he had many valid reasons and evidence to make his points. So we should add him in using the sources below.

Source https://www.deccanherald.com/content/392828/forward-policy-nehru-govt-blamed.html

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-Nehru-who-declared-1962-war-Australian-journalist-Neville-Maxwell/articleshow/33094229.cms

Nvtuil (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The Henderson Brookes–Bhagat report was an investigation conducted by two military generals into the Indian military's conduct of the war. Whether the Indian government classifies it or declassifies its business. The report has nothing to do with the Simla Convention. If Maxwell implies that it did, he is wrong. As per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS whatever the generals might have said about the Simla Convention (if at all they did) have no place on this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Those 2 military generals acknowledged the forward policy and the strategic reasons behind it and both admitted that it escalated the war. You say nothing to do with Simla conference. Okay but it has alot to do with the sino Indian war of 62. And there's a current chapter of that war in the article right now and people should know the minimal full context of how that war escalated due to forward policy. Nvtuil (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)