Talk:Simla Convention/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV pushing

Despite the British government

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

Despite the British government recognized China having suzerainty ovet Tibet, the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries then attached a bilateral declaration without Chinese approval, that stated that the convention would be binding on themselves and that China would be denied any privileges under the convention.

References

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.

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.

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.

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)

References

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.

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:

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)

References

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:

In a treaty signed in 1906, the British agreed not to annex nor interfere in 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".

References

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:

Australian journalist and historian Neville Maxwell exposed a top-secret Indian war report that had been kept secret by the Indian government despite multiple appeals for it to be declassified. Maxwell criticized Nehru for starting the war and for using the Simla conference to justify the Forward Policy against China and also chided him for additionally making claims to a territory in the north-west, the Aksai Chin, despite it was beyond anything the past colonial British had ever claimed and on an area that the Chinese governments had treated as their own for at least a hundred years.

References

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)

Britian violated their previous treaties and that context needs to be noted

The Simla conference ultimately would have only made Tibet to give up alot of its territory to the British colonial empire. Or nowadays to modern India. That's not even disputed. The McMahon line was only in disportionate territory favor to the then British colonisers.

Not surprising that the Chinese rejected such a proposal.

However in 1906 and 1907, Britian had signed a binding agreement with China and Russia respectively, promising they Will not annex Tibetan territories. And to Not negotiate with Tibetans Unless through a ”Chinese intermediary”. However they secretly decided to negotiate without chinese or Russian approval or awareness.

That act BREACHES their previous treaties and hence is relevant to the article and should be mentioned at a bare minimum. The source to back all that information is below. Pg 522. https://www.jstor.org/stable/652324?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents Nvtuil (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Areas of "Tibetan influence" in the North-East Frontier (Map by Hugh Richardson)

As long as you use scholarly sources, I have no objection to you adding such content (in due proportion). That does not necessarily mean that I agree with it or that it is guaranteed to remain for ever. But as long as you make well-sourced edits, they would be acceptable edits.

However, as we have noticed repeatedly, there is considerable distance between what the sources say and how you choose to phrase them. So it would be best for you to propose the precise content you wish to add, and then I can check to see if it is supported by the source or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea that Tibet "gave up a lot of its territory to the British colonial empire" is unverified folklore. A British Political Officer wrote a document called "Tibetan Precis" before handing things over to the Indian officials. The map he drew of the areas of "Tibetan influence" in the North-East Frontier is shown here. And the idea of "influence" can mean a lot of things. Except for Tawang, which all scholars accept was under direct Tibetan control via Tsona Dzong, the other areas had only some vague "influences". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hsiao-Ting Lin:

As the following discussion reveals, the professed sovereignties claimed by both Republican China and British India over the Assam-Tibetan tribal territory were largely imaginary, existing merely on official maps and political propagandas.

However, to the best of my knwoledge, the British did not profess to have had any "sovereignty" over the Assam Himalayan region. They merely divided it between Tibetans and themselves as "spheres of influence". That also explains why they didn't extend any control over it for such a long time. It wasn't part of the plan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Anglo-Russian Treaty, I am afraid Karunakar Gupta overstates his case. It was first of all, a bilateral treaty between Britain and Russia, and China was not a party to it. Secondly, it was a quid-pro-quo arrangement between Britain and Russia to the effect that Britain would keep its hands off Tibet and Russia would keep its hands off Afghanistan. It is my understanding that Britain had informed the Russians about the Simla Convention and had assured them that they would consult with them again before the Simla Convention came into effect. Britain knew that some quid-pro-quo concessions in Afghanistan would need to be made. So calling this a "breach" as Karunakar Gupta does is a bit over the top, and other scholars don't agree with such terminology. To say that it would have been "in violation" of the Anglo-Russian Convention would be more WP:NPOV.

... in the initial stages the view held was that until an understanding with Russia had been arrived at, the latter could legitimately object to the terms of the Convention. Despite the more pressing preoccupations of the War, there might have been an element of urgency to seek such an understanding if the Chinese had agreed to sign the compact. Since they had refused, Russia was officially informed and assured that it would be consulted before the British acted upon any of the provisions of the 1914 Convention which came into conflict with the 1907 Agreement between the two countries.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Respectfully, your provided link doesn't show all that info. Do you have a better source where it actually shows that info publicly? Or should I just take your word for it and the supposed opinion of your scholar?

Regardless there are a lot more reliable and trustworthy sources like the British government and the Secretary of Foreign Department in India, 1915. And their facts contradict your scholar and hence it's hard for me to believe him at his word.

Facts - LONDON itself gave explicit instructions in FORBIDDING Mcmahon in making a bilateral treaty with the Tibetans so he did not actually have the British government authorization. But he signed the treaty before receiving that order. Source to back that info below.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/652324?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

After signing the treaty, the Secretary of Foreign Department in India, 1915 wrote a letter to McMAHON telling him that the British gov rejected his treaty and deemed it invalid and also the treaty was REJECTED by the Russian government. Like why would the Russians ever approve of a treaty that will benefit the British empire with Tibetan territories? Of course, they wouldn't and so Britan saw the whole ordeal as a waste of time and why they gave him a clear message that his treaty did not have the British government's approval.

On September 3, 1915, Secretary, Foreign Department in India, replied to Bell’s letter. He categorically stated: “Since the Simla Convention has not been signed by the Chinese government or accepted by the Russian government and is, therefore, for present invalid. 

The above official historical quote direct from Indian gov to McMahon is well documented by numerous sources including books and links: A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State By Melvyn C. Goldstein

India and Taiwan: From Benign Neglect to Pragmatism edited by B R Deepak, D P Tripathi

Look up the two titles above on google books and search the quote in search engine bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvtuil (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

https://frontline.thehindu.com/world-affairs/british-wiles-in-tibet/article6412659.ece

As you said, you will not object to any info that is backed by a reliable source. Well, the above info is backed by multiple other sources too including the British own official records, and is noteworthy enough to be added in as a historical entry for this article, regardless if others dislike it or not. And I know there is nothing wrong or disputed with this info and so that is part of the "precise info" I ask to be added in. 00:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Nvtuil (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Which link do you mean "does not show the info"? I cited two papers. You can download them and read them. If you are unable to download them, you can ask me by email and I may be able to send you a copy (assuming there are no copyright restrictions). In any case, I am giving you quotations and full citations, not random "links".

Two points:

1. Wikipedia does not call any governments as reliable sources. Please refer to WP:RS. Governments are always interested parties and they are generally involved in the affairs we are writing about. They are not WP:THIRDPARTY sources.
2. Karunakar Gupta seems very selective in giving us information. Either he doesn't know full information or doesn't want to tell us. You must definitely read the Parshotam Mehra's paper to get a full picture.

Having said that, please provide a quotation that says that the Home Government "rejected the treaty". I cannot find any such statement in Karunakar Gupta.

Your last quote from a newspaper article (which is not a reliable source in contentious historical matters) mentions the phrase for present invalid. That is quite accurate for the situation at that time. But the operative phrase for present no way means "for ever". Once again, you have to read Parshotam Mehra's article to get the full picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

So what specifically do you have a problem with the last quote exactly? And of course Britian will say "for present" as their treaty with Russia was not friendly but competitive but regardless the facts stands that officially the British government rejected the treaty and deemed it invalid in 1915.

And luckily I gave 3 sources to back that quote. Not just that hindu newspaper but 2 reputable scholars who gave the full picture being that the Indian government responded to McMahon treaty in a very negative and insulting way. That letter is very difficult to say otherwise. [1]

And as an encyclopedia, it's not our role to make original research but instead document the historical events that occurred. And the indian gov definitely sent that letter and that letter deserves to be added in as a historical event. Also your two links sadly for me, requires membership so I will take your word for it at present. ALso I should clarify that when I say using governments as sources. I mean using reliable scholars who quote the British government. Like Goldstein documented that the British government itself rejected the treaty after the chinese repudiated the simla conference. [2]

And it was also him that quoted the indian/british gov, LITERALLY TELLING McMahon that there were no strategic benefits, only trouble and why they reject his treaty. Why on earth would the Indian gov themselves lie about that? That's why I had doubt when you said Russians were actually consulted but if they did, the Russians had definitely rejected it according to that letter. And also it wasn't just Gupta who said the British gov rejected the treaty. Goldstein too. Both Goldstein and Gupta wrote that the British have sent explicit orders to McMahon telling him not to sign the treaties. https://www.jstor.org/stable/652324?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents And Goldstein quoted a letter from the Indian gov, telling McMahon the very reasons why they reject his treaty and such a letter should be added in. As it's not an opinion but the official message direct from the government to McMAHON. Nvtuil (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I will only raise any objections after you propose the content you wish to add, along with the citations that support it. Otherwise, this discussion is just going all over the place.

As far as the violation of the Anglo-Russian Convention is concerned, I believe that Parshotam Mehra has given the full and accurate picture of the situation. So that is the source I would use. For the 1906 Convention, I haven't seen enough discussion of it. So I will investigate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Mate, I already did multiple times. If you read all my replies in the section - I have proposed to add in what Goldstein and Gupta both have been saying. THE INFO I already proposed to be ADDED IN ----> That the British gov sent explicit orders to McMahon to not take the step in signing the treaty. But he signed it before he received the orders. And after he had signed it, the Indian gov told Sir Charles Bell in 1915 via letter that the treaty was invalid as the Russians rejected it and the Chinese never signed it and there are no real advantages to be gained from the treaty. All that info above is not disputable and backed by the sources I have already listed above generously.

The original info in the beginning that I wanted to add was the context that the British have promised china via 1906 treaty that they will not annex tibetan territories and not interfere in tibetan affairs, and in 1907, promised the Russians that they will not negotiate with Tibetans unless through a chinese intermediary. Yet they breached both treaties by signing the simla conference without Chinese signatures or Russian approval. And I feel that Smith, Goldstein and Gupta all backed my info solidly. You mention another scholar Mehra. I don't see how that indian scholar is even relevant but nonetheless, did he deny that the Russians rejected the Simla conference? Or the fact that the british also rejected the simla conference when the chinese repudiated the treaty and that their official reasoning in a letter direct to McmAHON was "the Russians will not accept it" and "the Chinese refused to sign it".

You make it seem like I never proposed any content despite (100 percent of all my replies) above have over and over numerously and explicitly mentioned the info I wanted to be added in. Anyways now you should be aware of the info I wanted added in as this reply has made it explicit enough. Nvtuil (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I have formatted your text as a proper quotation block. Now, please add WP:Full citations. If you can also add quotations from the sources, that will be helpful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not edit my replies again. You just formatted and misrepresented my text as a quotation block without my permission. That text was simply my general summary of the information I proposed to be added in and not once did I even claimed those exact wording was a quote but instead have very clearly labeled them as (the proposed information I want added in). So please do not wrongfully twist my own writing without my permission. I have undone your invasive editing on my comments and also added in the sources to go back the proposed information.

And respectfully, understand that I have already given the sources in most of my earlier replies quite a lot already and really do not want to keep repeating it in the future. But for all time's sake and because you seem like a long time editor here, I will mention the Links and the source that backs the proposed info one last time despite having mentioned them more than a few times. Below is THE SUMMARY OF THE INFO I proposed to be ADDED IN TO THE ARTICLE ----> That the British gov sent explicit orders to McMahon to not take the step in signing the treaty. But he signed it before he received the orders. And after he had signed it, they told Bell in 1915 via letter that this treaty was invalid as the Russians rejected it and the Chinese never signed it and there are no real advantages to be gained from the treaty.

AND HERE are the actual excerpt, cited authors, links and source to back that proposed info.

When the Chinese repudiated the convention, the British government in London also declared it invalid (Goldstein 1989: 80-81) ON a letter on September 3, 1915, the Foreign Secretary to the government of India wrote to Bell "...since [the] Simla Convention is not signed by the Chinese government or accepted by the Russian government and is, therefore, for the present invalid. It is true that by the secret Anglo-Tibetan Declaration, which recognized the Convention as binding on Great Britian and Tibet, certain advantages under the Convention have been obtained by both the parties, but no useful purpose can be gained at present by an examination of those respective advantages  A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State By Melvyn C. Goldstein

and

Against both the spirit and the letter of his instructions, the British representative, Sir Henry McMahon (the Foreign Secretary of the Government of India), proceeded to sign with the Tibetans a secret declaration that the draft convention would be binding upon their two Governments. An explicit instruction from London forbidding McMahon to take this step - i.e., to sign a bi-partile agreement with the Tibetans - was delayed, and McMahon was able to sign the declaration before he received it. 2. WOODMAN, Himalayan frontiers, P. 176  The McMahon Line 1911-45: The British Legacy by Karunakar Gupta

Nvtuil (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Two points:

• If you do not want other people to reformat your messages, then you need to learn how to format them correctly. See HELP:TALK for how to format them. You should also avoid ugly long URL's mucking up the talk pages (see here), and write short, compact posts that make precise points. See WP:Wall of text.
• When an administrator locks the page citing edit-warring, editors are expected to present and agree on the precise content that is supposed to go into the page. So, please propose the precise content, as a formatted quote block, with full citations. I am not going to bother to respond until I see such a proposal.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

References

"Rejected"

MainBody, you have added these two citations for the previously unsourced content:

Simla was initially rejected by the Government of India as incompatible with the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention, and the Anglo-Tibetan bilateral exchanges even violated the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 which bound the Britons "not to annex Tibetan territory".

References

Can you please provide quotations from the sources that validate the content? I am also not sure how the second part (commentary of Karunakar Gupta) belongs in "Aftermath". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not MB but source (1) is author's POV. Same for (2). TrangaBellam (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

MainBody has supplied this quote from Warren on the main page:

The fact that the declaration was only made ratification contingent upon either Chinese agreement to the Simla Convention or British Government approval for a British-Tibetan treaty. The latter would have been an obvious violation of the 1907 Anglo-Russian Treaty and was rejected by the British Government in 1914.

(I can't figure out what the word "ratification" is doing in that sentence. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me)

Nevertheless, it is obvious that a British-Tibetan Treaty would be a violation of the Anglo-Russian Treaty. For that reason, the British Government told Charles Bell that the bilateral declaration was "for the present invalid". This has been mentioned and discussed in the previous discussions above. It is also obvious that that kind of invalidity is time-specific. It would hold good only until Britain and Russia made a deal. Or until China signed the convention.

However, none of this means that "Simla was rejected". So that statement is still unsourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Part of China"

MainBody also adds "categorizes Tibet as part of China", again sourced to Goldstein. But, no, the Convention only says that Tibet was understood as being part of "Chinese territory".

It is stated in the body accurately and the convention document is also cited. Being part of Chinese territory is not the same as being part of China. For instance, India was part of British territory. It didn't become part of Britain.

And, "understood" is also a better term here because the British always accepted that China possessed suzerainty over Tibet. It then follows that Tibet was part of China's territory. Just because China didn't understand terms like "suzerainty", a simple-minded explanation was added.

It seems Goldstein is out of his depth in dealing with this subject. It is best to avoid him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Unsigned"

MainBody has also added "unsigned" to the lead sentence. It is hardly necessary because the issue of signatures is discussed in detail in the following paragraph. "Unsigned" is also a misrepresentation of the situation, because two parties had effectively signed it (via the bilateral declaration). Goldstein clearly recognizes that the bilateral declaration was operationalised, when he says:

Although this was not a real treaty, British India then felt justified in pursuing its relations with Tibet in accordance with the "autonomy" stipulated in the terms of the unsigned Simla Convention, and continued to do so for the next thirty-five years.

So the two parties that signed it, stuck by it. "Ambiguous", the present description in the article, is more accurate and balanced description of the situation.

Let me also note that Goldstein's grip on facts is wanting when he says "It [Britain] also obtained from Tibet a vast territory east of Bhutan". That "vast territory" did not belong to Tibet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nirmal C. Sinha, in one of the sources cited in the article, says:

A tripartite agreement signed by two parties is not necessarily invalid ab initio. If there is nothing repugnant or contradictory in the text of a tripartite agreement, such agreement is fully enforceable between two signatory parties so far as the liabilities and rights of the two parties are concerned. In the text of the Simla Convention the rights and liabilities of the two parties are very clearly stated: and the fact of third party having left the conference table could not and did not affect the position of the other two parties.

He also adds:

It is a mark of Chinese diplomacy that in their non-official publications as also in the writings of sponsored scholars, the legality of the signature is not much discussed. There is a heavy and noisy propaganda in the non-official and demi-official writings that the treaty was not signed at all and that initials were not good enough to make these as strong as signatures.

So it looks like Goldstein is uncritically accepting the Chinese propaganda.

On Wikipedia, we are committed to representing the scholarly consensus as far as possible. Especially for the lead sentence, we can't push up one particular source, which does not even specialise in the subject, and argue that it should prevail. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References