The Sikkim–Tibet Convention of 1890 and the Younghusband Mission of 1904

IF 0.5 Q3 AREA STUDIES China Report Pub Date : 2021-10-14 DOI:10.1177/00094455211047078
Thejalhoukho
{"title":"The Sikkim–Tibet Convention of 1890 and the Younghusband Mission of 1904","authors":"Thejalhoukho","doi":"10.1177/00094455211047078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The controversy surrounding the Simla Conference of 1913–1914 and the legality of the McMahon line, which was produced by the Conference, has been at the centre of the boundary dispute between India and China. Amidst the diverging opinions amongst scholars and political commentators, the main issue rest on the unresolved question of Tibet’s political status. Was Lhasa authorised to sign treaties for Tibet? Was China the sovereign over Tibet? The answers to such questions are murky and complicated, made more so by the politics and conflicts in the post colonial period. This study attempts to highlight the complicated nature of political authority in Tibet through a study of British policy in Tibet towards the end of 19th and early 20th centuries. The signing of the 1890 Convention with China and the 1904 Convention with Tibet represents two extremes in British foreign policy which attest to the confounding situation presented before the British and the diverging opinions within the British official circles. The period between these two conventions provides a glimpse of the historical background in which the relations between British India, China and Tibet developed subsequently.","PeriodicalId":44314,"journal":{"name":"China Report","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"China Report","FirstCategoryId":"1092","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00094455211047078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The controversy surrounding the Simla Conference of 1913–1914 and the legality of the McMahon line, which was produced by the Conference, has been at the centre of the boundary dispute between India and China. Amidst the diverging opinions amongst scholars and political commentators, the main issue rest on the unresolved question of Tibet’s political status. Was Lhasa authorised to sign treaties for Tibet? Was China the sovereign over Tibet? The answers to such questions are murky and complicated, made more so by the politics and conflicts in the post colonial period. This study attempts to highlight the complicated nature of political authority in Tibet through a study of British policy in Tibet towards the end of 19th and early 20th centuries. The signing of the 1890 Convention with China and the 1904 Convention with Tibet represents two extremes in British foreign policy which attest to the confounding situation presented before the British and the diverging opinions within the British official circles. The period between these two conventions provides a glimpse of the historical background in which the relations between British India, China and Tibet developed subsequently.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
1890年的锡金-西藏协约和1904年的扬夫宣教团
围绕1913-1914年西姆拉会议和会议产生的麦克马洪线合法性的争议一直是印度和中国边界争端的中心。在学者和政治评论家的意见分歧中,主要的问题在于尚未解决的西藏政治地位问题。拉萨有权为西藏签订条约吗?中国是西藏的主权国吗?这些问题的答案是模糊而复杂的,后殖民时期的政治和冲突更是如此。本研究试图通过对19世纪末20世纪初英国在西藏政策的研究,突显西藏政治权威的复杂性。1890年与中国签订的公约和1904年与西藏签订的公约代表了英国外交政策的两个极端,这证明了英国面临的混乱局面和英国官方内部的分歧。这两个公约之间的时期让我们得以一窥英属印度、中国和西藏关系随后发展的历史背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
China Report
China Report AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9353
期刊介绍: China Report promotes the free expression and discussion of different ideas, approaches and viewpoints which assist a better understanding of China and its East Asian neighbours. A quarterly journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies, it attempts to provide a fresh approach which goes beyond the strictly utilitarian area studies without becoming antiquarian. Launched in 1964, China Report has, over the years, widened its interests and aims and transformed itself into a scholarly journal that seeks a better understanding of China and its East Asian neighbours - particularly their cultures, their development and their relations with China. It is an indispensable source of information on China, its society and culture.
期刊最新文献
The Historical Different Meanings of Chinese Communist Party’s ‘The Party Commands Gun’ Under Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping Book review: Reena Marwah and Lê Thi. Ha˘\ng Nga. India–Vietnam Relations: Development Dynamics and Strategic Alignment Book review: Paulo Afonso B. Duarte, Francisco José B. S. Leandro and Enrique Martínez Galán (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Globalization with Chinese Characteristics: The Case of the Belt and Road Initiative Book review: Gary Ka-wai Cheung, Yingguo dangan zhong de Xianggang qiantu wenti [Secrets from the British Archives: Hong Kong and its Post-Colonial Future] Book review: Lachlan Fleetwood, Science on the Roof of the World: Empire and the Remaking of the Himalaya
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1