Opinions

testing

What one must have expected of the Dharamsala administration was an outright condemnation of Indian Prime Minster's remark on Tibet being a part of China. Condemnation did come but not from the Tibetan exile government but from the Tibetan Youth Congress, the largest NGO of the Tibetan community with a largely different viewpoint

AP photo

Despite all the brouhaha and claims by the opposition there is no substantive change in the formulation on reference to Tibet in the joint declaration.

In what could be termed as semantic diplomacy, India has recognized that "The Tibet Autonomous Region is part of the territory of the People's Republic of China." This statement is part of the India-China Joint Declaration signed on June 23 and made public on June 24, 2003.

As Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee prepares for his six-day visit to China beginning on June 22, 2003, a debate has formed in India concerning the impact of the Tibet issue on Sino-Indian talks.

Jasjit Singh's suggestion that India could consider recognising China’s “sovereignty” over Tibet “only if China was willing to recognise J&K’s accession to India,” is not, in my opinion, a ‘Line of actual gain’ (IE, June 14). In fact, it would be suicidal to India’s national interest, security and reputation.

While the entire Western business world seems to applaud China's every move as long as that country lets them profit, the communist regime nurses doubts over its ability to keep power in the absence of legitimacy.

The Dalai Lama's delegation has returned from a visit to China, including the traditional Tibetan area of Kham now incorporated into Yunnan province, issuing a carefully-worded statement that appears to give a more cautious assessment

Both Nepal and China have issued strongly-worded statements in defence of their actions regarding the deportation of 18 Tibetans back to Tibet from Kathmandu on Saturday (31 May). The statements may have been provoked by the condemnations