Tibet is no bargaining chip

Jasjit Singh's suggestion that India could consider recognising China8217;s 8220;sovereignty8221; over Tibet 8220;only if China was will...

Jasjit Singh8217;s suggestion that India could consider recognising China8217;s 8220;sovereignty8221; over Tibet 8220;only if China was willing to recognise J038;K8217;s accession to India,8221; is not, in my opinion, a 8216;Line of actual gain8217; IE, June 14. In fact, it would be suicidal to India8217;s national interest, security and reputation.

J038;K acceded to India as provided in the law passed by British Parliament, by which Pakistan was also carved out from India. On the other hand, Tibet historically enjoyed autonomy and it was occupied by Communist China in 1950. But that is only one reason not to make any such proposal to China. The non-viability of Singh8217;s suggestion rests on more solid grounds of history, security and morality.

Historically, Tibet has never been Chinese territory. The British and the Russians preferred to maintain it, during their 19th century imperial contest, as an autonomous region. Even while conceding Chinese control over it in 1950, Nehru only recognised Chinese 8220;suzerainty8221;. It is vital for India8217;s security as a buffer autonomous state. After all, since 1962 China has been using Pakistan as a counterweight to Indian power in the region. With the Dalai Lama in India and heading a government in exile, any use of Tibet as a bargaining chip with China to promote Indian security interests is inhuman and immoral.

J038;K can survive without China accepting its accession to India as Sikkim survives without the Chinese conceding its status as a state in the Indian Union. Therefore, to get the stamp of approval from China by conceding the legality of its accession to India, is wholly unnecessary. It is ridiculous to suggest a linkage between J038;K and Tibet.

Pakistan needs to be handled independently of China. Pakistan has no legal case to claim even an inch of J038;K territory. Its case for the Kashmir Valley 8212; it will be happy to leave Jammu and Ladakh to India 8212; rests exclusively on the fact that the Valley is predominantly Muslim. But map-making ended with the British partitioning the country. India should not under any circumstances concede more than what Pandit Nehru already conceded in the fifties. Vajpayee is a great admirer of Nehru. Nehru tried to appease the Chinese by signing Panchsheel in 1954 and sacrificing Tibet at the altar of his policy of defence by friendship. Let Vajpayee not sacrifice any further interests of the Tibetan people by recognising Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. If Vajpayee makes any such suggestion even by implication, it would be a great betrayal not only of the Tibetan people but also eventually of Indian security.

The writer is a retired professor of politics, University of Mumbai