What happened?
While India and Pakistan hate and hated each other, and important violence followed the partition, it seems like in general the boundaries between both states (and later Bangladesh) were pretty much clear. Except in this area.
Why Kashmir? And what's China doing there? What was going on Kashmir before the partition, during British rule and previous eras? Can it explain this conflict?
I know there's at least a couple of Indians here and that this is a sensitive affair. Please keep it civil, I know the conflict continues today but we're here to debate history. I would tell the same to the pakistanis but I think there's not a single one here.
>>1316442
Before 1947 Jammu and Kashmir were part of a princely state, which in turn was a British vassal. The rulers of the princely state of Kashmir were Hindus, whereas the plebs were Muslims. When the princely states were forced to choose on either joining Pakistan or India after independence, the ruler of Kashmir decided to cede his state to India, contrary to the wishes of the Muslim population. This eventually lead to a conflict between India and Pakistan, which culminated in the 1947 and 1965 wars. China who were interested in weakening India, sided with Pakistan and managed to take the eastern portion of Kashmir (Aksai Chin) during the 1962 war.
>>1316882
How do the Chinese justify those and other territorial claims they have on India?
Also, why did the British allowed the prince to decide when they knew how much problems would cause? What about a third way with an independent Kashmir? It was an option for the princely states iirc.
>>1317173
With the exception of the Spratlys and all those Island Squabbles, the Chinese justify all continental Asian territorial disputes based on the last dynasty's- the Qingz- Borders
>>1317178
>So you be sayin we wuz qings an shieet?
>>1317178
I didn't know the Qing owned all those parts. Are they tibetans or related like Bhutan or something instead of "regular" indians? The whole history and population distribution of that himalayan area is unknown to me.
>>1317252
Tibet once was a Chinese protectorate, until 1912 when Tibet declared independence as a consequence of the fall of the Qing Monarchy. Also I once heard that the Qing dynasty and the Nepalese once had a war about dominance in Tibet.
>>1317710
Yeah that's why I asked if those disputed territories in India belonged to Tibet before or something, or if the chinese are just pulling it out their asses.
>>1317173
Because that is the border of Tibet which was part of the Qing Empire.
Sovereignty of "China" has officially gone Qing>RoC>PRC per the UN.
>>1317735
Tibet did.
The nefarious British, as always, backstabbed the RoC in 1912 and invaded Tibet. They then forced the Tibetans to sign a treaty that made the border the McHamanon Line.
But the RoC and some Tibetans in the RoC argued that the RoC had legal control of Tibet's foreign policy. They walked away from the peace treaty before it could be signed.
The autistic British just said fuck it and took what they wanted by force.
But the British never actually pushed the Tibetans out of South Tibet and Askai Chin. Well, until 1937. In 1937 they invaded both areas and forcibly incorporated them into the British Raj.
Chinese see it (and the Dalai Lama) as part of the unequal treaties and colonial exploitation. Which it was.
So to this day there is no and has been no internationally defined border. No one is in the right.
China and India vye over that Tibetan land. That's why India sucks off the Dalai Lama so much.
Pakistan and India fight over Kashmir because anyone with any honesty knows that Kashmir is 80-90% muslim, and therefore should have joined Pakistan.
Instead the democracy was silenced and the Hindu monarch chose to join India. Which leads to the continuing problems that the Indian Separation was supposed to fix.
>>1318655
This is some mad revisionism right here.
Tibet vies for its own independence. India just hosts them due to closer cultural ties than China, India is the birthplace of Buddhism and Tibet is a Buddhist state.
Chinese claims of unfair colonialism make no sense because Tibet and Uigher lands were/are fundamentally colonies and inperial subjects since the Qing era.
Kashmir is far more complicated. The Hindu Monarch never wanted to join either India or Pakistan. He wanted a seperate State like Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim. Pakistan invaded in 1947, so India intervened on behalf of the Monarch who agreed to let Kashmir hold a plebisite vote to determine which country it should join. Nehru defeated Pakistan, and took back the most populated area of Kashmir Valley and coupd have taken the entire region, but decided instead to stop and to go to the newly-formed UN to help with a referendum vote. Pakistan, however refused to cede any land or hold the vote, afraid it would lose in a fair vote after its failed invasion.
Later on China tried to annex Sikkim, another Himalayan Kingdom and were repulsed by India. Afterwards, Sikkim held a referendum and joined India as a state.
Religion alone was not enough to keep Pakistan together, as was shown in 1971 when Bangladesh succeded, Pakistan is extremely unlikey to win Kashmir in any referendum style vote.
>>1318797
>Chinese claims of unfair colonialism make no sense because Tibet and Uigher lands were/are fundamentally colonies and inperial subjects since the Qing era.
Never mind the fact that they hate the Qing dynasty and blame for everything yet want its claims
>>1318797
>Chinese claims of unfair colonialism make no sense because Tibet and Uigher lands were/are fundamentally colonies and inperial subjects since the Qing era.
>Qing China.
>Participated in Colonialism.
No?
Colonialism heavily involves exploiting the other party and keeping him separate.
No such thing existed in Qing China. In the Chink Imperial ideology, all are subjects to the Emperor, and can participate in maintaining imperial rule.
Meaning unlike in Colonial Europe, Imperial Subjects can not only freely move within the Empire, but rise to high positions in government offices.
Let's even add to the fact that the Tibetans *invited* the fucking Qing to rule them because the Lamas can't protect their asses versus the Dzungars and the Gurkhas.
>>1318818
So why the police state, forced mainland immigration policies, media blackouts, political kidnappings/killings never reported by Chinese Media, and refusal for referendum votes?
Why is CCP so utterly piss scared of the Dai Lama? Because they are fully aware of Tibet being modern-day imperialism. If given the chance Tibet would seced immediately.
>>1318807
It doesn't work that way.
>Be Chinese nationalist born in the 19th Century.
>This is your map of China.
>Like this was drilled to you and your classmates in school.
>But you become nationalist anyway.
Fast forward to the toppling of the Qing.
>WE REPUBLIC OF 5 NATIONS NOW
>But Republic collapses into warlord infighting and some of your minorities try to become independent.
>Tell your children to get all of this back one day.
>They tell theirs the same.
And so on.
>>1318832
We're talking about the Qing here, dumbass.
As to your statement
>What is life in all of PRChina, Alex.
The Tibetans and Uighurs get shitcanned specially because of rebel movements. To the PRC, the work of getting China back together is still not finished, hence the name of their army ("People's Liberation Army.")
Serves them right for betraying the ROC actually. Those guys had a better deal with minorities.
>>1318860
Lol.
This is so classically Chinese I ought to screenshot this.
>We are talking about the Qing
Nope. I am talking specifically about how Tibet is modern Imperialism. A claim that not even you can deny, hence the backtrack and diversion tactics. Opressing someone and getting mad that they resist is a funny way of justifying continued oppression.
And you are never getting back Russian land or anymore Indian land with Nukes in play now. PLA pledges their loyalty to the CCP, not to China. They are a priavte army and will butcher and suppress civilians if and when called upon when the CCP starts to lose its grip ala 1988.
Studying Chinese history I reckon CCP had roughly 20-30 years left of life before China breaks-up and collapses again and goes back to civil war and killing themselves just as it has for over 2000 years.
>>1318896
Well I didn't really give a shit about the rest of your poo-in-loo issues discussions, I just saw the claim "Qing colonialism" in the latest posts and went "that is a stupid way to view the Qing period."
Colonialism is part of Imperialism but not all Imperialist projects are colonial. The Qing is basically an old empire in that it sought to rule via universalist philosophies (i.e. All Under Heaven. Middle Kingdom Philosophies, all that shit) like the Ottomans (defender of all Sunni Muslims), and Pre-Russification Tsarist Russia (defender of all Orthodox peeps, the Third Rome, etc.). Empire is inclusive. while Colonialism is heavily exclusive between the ruling core and the imperial periphery. Indian Subjects can't be British Citizens while in the Qing a Han Chinese subject and a Tibetan subject are at the same status.
Also
>You.
Tough tits, I'm Filipino, m8. But I understand the PRC's stance towards Tibetans and Uighurs because we have the same issue with our Muslims.
>>1318927
>Projecting me to be Indian for utterly devastating you, then claiming:
>Tough tits, I'm Filipino
Literally confirms your Chinese. This is classic CCP drone. You just need a random LOL in your post to complete it.
>>1318939
Actually if I'm a CCP drone, I would know little of Imperial Chinese history.
>>1318841
Quality post, honestly, please post more on /his/. We need more explanations with humanity in them like this
>>1318939
Why would anyone that literate in English shill for the CCP?
>>1318961
No, you would talk big about Qing Dynasty borders insist that CCP inherents them because reasons, then backtrack and divert once the contradictions become apparent.
>>1318985
Dude. ALL Chinese movements inherited the idea that Qing Borders = China. Sun-Yat Sen's ROC, Yuan Shikai and his weirdo state, KMT's ROC, the CCP, all of them.
Look at the ROC's claims. Same shit, but since they aren't Commies, they want Mongolia back.
Long story short: Post independence, Kashmir sides with a newly formed India. In India and Pakistan's first war, Pakistan occupies what the north which is now known as Gilgit-Baltistan. Kashmiris don't like Pakistan for sponsoring insurgencies in the area. Kashmiris don't like India for using their land as basically a demarcation line against Pakistan (of which Pakistan is doing the same). Also they're a Muslim majority so there's some minor religious clout. They want to be independent but rely on being relevant by being clustered between the two powers.
>>1318896
>Studying Chinese history I reckon CCP had roughly 20-30 years left of life before China breaks-up and collapses again and goes back to civil war and killing themselves just as it has for over 2000 years.
You're a shit historian then. Stable dynasties last 200-300 years. We've got over another century before PRC collapse.
>>1319045
Shit ones collapse earlier.
Just look at the Mongol one and the Qin.
Importing Dynastic politics in modern China is plain wrong though since nationalism is in the picture. Something the Imperial Chinks didn't have.
>>1319045
>CCP
>Stable
Events have higher velocity today than they did in ancient. Cracks are beginning to show already.
>>1319051
Mongols lasted for 300 years in China
>>1319053
What cracks? Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge ROCaboo and would love nothing more.
>>1319051
There IS a little bit of dynastic shit going on at the top of the CCP these days, though, the way Xi has concentrated power. The consolidation has left him as more or less an absolute monarch.
>>1319070
There's literally civil war against communist oppression going on there but you don't know it because Chinese Totalitarian Communist state doesn't let any info out.
>>1319070
The Chinese government has gone backwards on their stance on religion and created an official Chinese Christian church because they fear Christianity. It's the fastest growing religion there and China is predicted to have the world's largest Christian population in a few decades
>>1319134
>The Chinese government has gone backwards on their stance on religion and created an official Chinese Christian church because they fear Christianity
China fears all religions. And with good reason knowing their history. The Yellow Turbans, the Five Pecks of Rice, the founders of the Triads, and the great Taipings were religious nutjobs that launched stupid wars.
All religions in China need to sign up with the Communist Party's Religious Associations for monitoring. They did not "create"an official Chinese church, but assigned it an association with the Christians that.
That said, the reason why Christianity is pretty much shat on and persecuted is because of foreign links. The Catholics and their Papal politics, the Protestants with their links to American missionaries, and so on. And China doesn't like that. It's similar to our Vietnamese neighbors in that they appoint the Cardinal for the Catholics, and not Rome. Since many religions in China do not have such elaborate leadership schemes (i.e. Muslims dont have a pope) and are quite independent, it would seem that Christianity is especially targeted.
While Christianity is the fastest growing religion there, it still has to compete with folk Chinese religion, Buddhism, and China's chronic atheism.
>>1319199
Do you know why they hate Falun gong in particular?
>>1319069
Not really, just a little bit over 100 years and in great part because they refused to embrace chinese culture, unlike the Mandchus that would follow a few hundreds of years later.
>>1319203
The Falun Gong is what is known as a Qigong group, which is pretty much based on Daoist/Buddhist syncretic tradition of meditation and morality.
It was very popular in the 90s with links to top government officials. Peaking at around 70 Million prior official crackdowns, the PRC feared that that oddball collection of Politicians, officers, and people would lead to something stinky later on. As it was under the Qigong Association, the PRC felt that the FG needed a separate Association. The FG said "fuck no"and did something no Chinese religion/philosphical group did before in recent history: withdrew from the party. Which it was able to do thanks to top tier politicans being FG members.
Cue crackdown in 1999.
It's a monument to how PRC views all religions with suspicion. As the FG is quite native Chinese.
Where did The Chinese Shills itt come from?
>>1318860
>The Tibetans and Uighurs get shitcanned specially because of rebel movements.
>they don't like being oppressed, let's oppress them more
Isn't China trying to genocide the Uyghurs?
>>1319199
>It's similar to our Vietnamese neighbors in that they appoint the Cardinal for the Catholics, and not Rome.
Are you the Flip guy or are you somehow posting past the Great Firewall?
>>1319123
>>>/trash/
>>1319134
k lol
>>1319226
People who actually read things beyond the titles of media articles
>>1319288
>Tibetans and Uighurs aren't the only minorities in China.
>Yet these two were the only ones shitcanned.
>Because they are the only ones with independentist movements.
>Everyone else is either loyal (i.e. Hui), super chinkified (i.e. Manchus) or tolerant of it because the alternative is much worse (i.e. Mongols)
Makes sense, no?
Also the Chinks are trying to deradicalize the Uighurs, not genocide them. It's the most backward place in China.
>>1316442
>north-west frontier province
>northern areas
>>1319296
The Flip.
>>1319311
Well now we're getting into what rights national sovereignty and state sovereignty confer, and I'm going to have to think about how and if I can reconcile my sympathy for the Uyghurs and Tibetans with my rabid hatred for Johnny Reb.
>>1319199
No they created a separate Chinese church were they assign their own leaders and bishops
>>1319846
I don't know what the other guy is talking about but the Christian thing was covered in several major news outlets like the bbc
>>1319288
Is America trying to help Iraq genocide sunnis?
Supressing muslim chimpouts is not genocide.
>>1319822
(Citation needed)
Where the fuck do these retards come from? /pol/?
>>1319850
The Chinese Commies have been creating "official state-approved religions" since the beginning of the PRC.
The headline is correct. The analysis he makes is retarded. According to the Christian shill organization, there are only 30-40 million Christians in China. That's literally a drop in the bucket.
It wasn't fear of them that made them create the official Church. It was a desire to seem accommodating so that they can control the underground churches that join.
>>1319874
That's their fear. They don't want those underground churches subverting them
>>1318860
>they were subjects of Qing so they should be subjects of the state that destroyed Qing and the commies
>>1319879
Oh so the CCP fears everyone then?
The Communists motto is "party of the people". They try to incorporate (and forcefully incorporate themselves into) every organization of size in China.
What you see as fear, I see as their consistent policy since 1949.
>>1319890
The Qing Emperor abdicated all territories to the RoC in 1912.
How the fuck did a discussion about Kashmir end up about CCP and commumists and qinq?
To answer your question OP, Hindu ruler, muslim population. What the fuck do you think will happen when he wanted to join india? On a side note why does nobody else want's to talk about india's forceful integration of hyderabad? Same case but switch the hindu ruler with muslim and a hindu population. Only in this case they just forcibly entered, deposed the nizam and redivided the province. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_integration_of_Hyderabad
>>1319916
Contested Chink-Poo territory was due to the Qing dynasty.
Anyway, can someone enlighten us who the fuck the "Princely States" were? Were these actual countries that got swallowed by the Indian Republic?
>>1319940
Not all of India was directly ruled by the UK. The Brits, like the spaniards did in America, relied heavily on local powerful rulers. They were allowed to keep their territory and title under the suzerainty of the british monarchy.
>>1319985
But were these invented states or actual local nobles & dynasties.
>>1319991
I think both depending on what you mean by invented, but I'm no expert.
>>1319999
Like how Latin American states cropped up.
I'm OP, thanks everyone who helped.
Does someone know what the fuck was going on Kashmir before the british conquered the area? Why was Kashmir mostly muslim, considering it's a pretty aremote mountain area? Was it conquered by muslims? And how was it ruled by an hindu when the normal in India would be the opposite as far as I know.
>>1320003
Latin american states were created by the bourgeois criollos, direct enemies of the natives and their chieftains, so they're the opposite of a princely state.
Also the princely states (at least some, can't speak for all of them) existed not only during british rule but also before as independent monarchies.
>>1319940
Got a couple of maps with them.
>>1316882
After Britain released India, it wasn't single state, as we know it now. British created over 500 states, based on local culture and history. But within a year Indian unification happened, most of the states joined India voluntarily, others were forced by military
>>1320069
This one is a bit hard to understand.
>>1320069
The Princely states seem to correspond with the toughest assholes Britain fought in India between the 18th-19th centuries.
>>1320069
>Burma is added to India
This infuriates me to no end.
>>1318841
It goes even further, China essentially claims almost every land that EVER was apart of the empire. That's the reason why they shit so much on Vietnam for instance.
>>1320329
*a part
>>1320088
Not always, the sikhs and the marathas got no princely state as far as I know.
But of course if you want to stop fighting the guys because they're badass motherfuckers offering them more freedom to govern themselves is always the better solution.
>>1320109
Wasn't it considered to be part of the British Raj? I've literally never seen it separated.
I don't know why the anglos would put them in India though.
>>1320329
...China doesn't claim the whole of Vietnam.
Their rivalry recently is based on SEAsian influence and that shitfight in the South China Sea.
>>1320352
Yes and that is what pisses me off.
Here in Southeast Asia, Burma is the "Warrior Nation" par excellence. Bar none.
The Burmese are just simply mad. They were one of the so-called Nanman Barbarians who invaded the Indianized people called the Pyu City States and established a kingdom of their own. It raided the then mighty Khmer for a laugh. It fought Mongols ON THE FIELD and won, it fought the Chinese and won. It used to be the only SEAsian state to consider raiding China for shits and giggles. The only victory the Kingdom of Siam has versus it is a fucking national icon because they lost so many times to the Burmese, and they won only because Spain, Portugal, Japan, and Chinese mercenaries backed Thailand.
It was maniacal warfreak kingdom that did not care about the odds stacked against it. Even versus 19th Century Britain.
But when the Brits defeated it, they just went "LOL LETS LUMP IT WITH INDIAN KEKS"
>>1320410
It's very sad, although I know fuck all about SEAn history, Burma indeed seems like a nation with personality.
Not only they're put under India but to make it worst they're not even a princely state or anything they only get to be some shitty region.
But could be worst, imagine if they were in India now like Assam and the rest of the Seven Sisters.
>>1320352
>I don't know why the anglos would put them in India though.
What do you mean put them "in india".
They were part of the Indian Raj, which was the British Empire's territorial holdings in South Asia.
It's not in India today.
Burma's culture and people probably have more in common with East Indian states than some North Indian states do with South India.
>>1320587
How is Burma south asia and not south-east asia?
>>1320329
No it does not. Most of the PRC's claims it inherited from the RoC were renounced over the last 50 years.
The PRC claims almost nothing compared to Taiwan except for Taiwan, Arunchal Pradesh, Askai Chin, and the 9 dash line.
>>1319857
Genocide through displacement is a thing yaknow. China's been trying to displace the Uyghurs by moving Hui, Han, etc. there since the eighteenth century.
Kashmir should be independent.
>>1319985
>like the spaniards did in America
Bad example. While the Conquistadors did side with native tribes to destroy the two actual empires who would have given them an actual fight (Aztecs and Incas), decease struck enemies and allies alike, leaving extremely small populations behind. Some time after the conquest, the Spanish rule was complete and didn't need any alliances with what was left of the native population.
