Tibet wasn’t ours, says Chinese scholar

[Guest guest]

Tibet wasn’t ours, says Chinese scholar

Venkatesan Vembu

Thursday, February 22, 2007 20:37 IST

HONG KONG: A leading Chinese historian and a veteran of the committee that advises on official Chinese history textbooks has broken step with the official Chinese line on historical sovereignty over Tibet and said that to claim that the ancient Buddhist kingdom “has always been a part of China” would be a “defiance of history”.

In an article in the China Review magazine, Professor Ge Jianxiong, 62, director of the Institute of Chinese Historical Geography and the Research Centre for Historical Geographic Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, states that while considering how big China was during the Tang Dynasty (7th to 10th century), “we cannot include the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, which was ruled by Tubo/Tufan…”

Tubo/Tufan, notes Ge, “was a sovereignty independent of the Tang Dynasty. At least it was not administered by the Tang Dynasty.” If it were not, he argues, there would have been no need for the Tang emperor of the day to offer Princess Wen Cheng in a “marriage of state” to the Tibetan king, Songtsen Gampo.

“It would be a defiance of history,” asserts Ge, “to claim that Tibet has always been a part of China since the Tang Dynasty; the fact that the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau subsequently became a part of the Chinese dynasties does not substantiate such a claim.”

Ge’s article is an exploration of a larger theme of Chinese identity in history — and precisely when it evolved. And his comments on Tibet conform to scholarly accounts that acknowledge that the takeover of Tibet during the Qing Dynasty (17th to early 20th century) was the starting point for “Chinese sovereignty” over the region.

Yet, Ge’s comments are controversial insofar as they deviate from the official Communist Party line that Tibet has always been an inalienable part of China; in the past China has regarded as any weakening of that theory as “anti-national” and “split-ist”. It will be interesting to see how the authorities respond to Ge’s scholarly article.

Ge’s major research fields include historical population geography, population and migration history, and cultural history. He has written and edited numerous books, and over 100 articles on historical population geography, population and migration history, and cultural history.

In his latest article, Ge notes that prior to 1912, when the Republic of China was officially founded, the idea of China (in Chinese, Zhongguo) wasn’t clearly conceptualised. Even during the late Qing period, he writes, the term ‘China’ would on occasion be used to refer to the “Qing State, including all the territory that fell within the boundaries of the Qing empire”; but at other times, it would be taken to refer only to the “18 interior provinces”, excluding Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang. Therefore, he argues, “if we want to understand the extent of ancient China’s territory, we can only speak of how large the actual territory controlled by a particular dynasty was at a particular moment.”

Noting that notions of a ‘Greater China’ were based entirely on the “one-sided views of Qing court records that were… written for the court’s self-aggrandisement”, Ge criticises those who feel that “the more they exaggerate the territory of historical ‘China’ or China’s successive dynasties and kingdoms, the more patriotic they are.”

In fact, he says, the opposite is true. “If China really wishes to rise peacefully and be on a solid footing to face the future, we must understand the sum of our history and learn from our experiences.”

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1081523

 

 

 

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go

with Mail for Mobile. Get started.

[Guest guest]

BCVENKATAKRISHNANNewsList, "genghis1291"

<genghis wrote:

 

What is missing from this piece is that Tibet has also conquered and

annexed large parts of China to its territory in the past, as did

Mongolia. In any event, it is grossly incorrect to say that China and

Tibet are part of the same country based on ethnic, linguistic and

geographical factors.

 

The Communist government in China is going to fall sooner or later.

Things will be better for Tibet and other neighbours of CHina after

that. Even the Chinese would be better off, given the extent of daily

tensions between some of the Chinese provinces (the ones closer to

Hong Kong and Pacific coast) and Beijing today.

 

I understand that the Qing dynasty (17th century - 20th century) was

the first in Chinese history to make Beijing its capital. I suppose

the communist qovernment claims itself as the inheritors of the Qing

dynasty and therefore to Tibet.

 

Last week, the muslim fundamentalist MMA government in the northwest

frontier province in Pakistan demanded that scholl history books purge

all references to the Indus Valley civilization or Taxila or the more

ancient Mehrgarh (7000BC) in Baluchistan. It claimed that Pakistan's

history began in Mecca and Medina in the 7th century. The movie "The

Planet of the Apes" comes to mind.

 

Aside, the President of Pakistan's MMA party, Qazi Husain Ahmed, a

civil engineer by training, has been repeatedly on record saying that

the earth is indeed flat as is declared in the koran. He suggests, we

should apply Einstein's thoery of relativity to koranic claims to see

his light.

 

 

BCVENKATAKRISHNANNewsList, Vrndavan Parker

<vrnparker@> wrote:

>

> Tibet wasn't ours, says Chinese scholar

> Venkatesan Vembu

> Thursday, February 22, 2007 20:37 IST

>

> HONG KONG: A leading Chinese historian and a veteran of the

committee that advises on official Chinese history textbooks has

broken step with the official Chinese line on historical sovereignty

over Tibet and said that to claim that the ancient Buddhist kingdom

"has always been a part of China" would be a "defiance of history".

> In an article in the China Review magazine, Professor Ge

Jianxiong, 62, director of the Institute of Chinese Historical

Geography and the Research Centre for Historical Geographic Studies at

Fudan University in Shanghai, states that while considering how big

China was during the Tang Dynasty (7th to 10th century), "we cannot

include the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, which was ruled by Tubo/Tufan…"

> Tubo/Tufan, notes Ge, "was a sovereignty independent of the Tang

Dynasty. At least it was not administered by the Tang Dynasty." If it

were not, he argues, there would have been no need for the Tang

emperor of the day to offer Princess Wen Cheng in a "marriage of

state" to the Tibetan king, Songtsen Gampo.

> "It would be a defiance of history," asserts Ge, "to claim that

Tibet has always been a part of China since the Tang Dynasty; the fact

that the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau subsequently became a part of the

Chinese dynasties does not substantiate such a claim."

> Ge's article is an exploration of a larger theme of Chinese

identity in history — and precisely when it evolved. And his comments

on Tibet conform to scholarly accounts that acknowledge that the

takeover of Tibet during the Qing Dynasty (17th to early 20th century)

was the starting point for "Chinese sovereignty" over the region.

> Yet, Ge's comments are controversial insofar as they deviate from

the official Communist Party line that Tibet has always been an

inalienable part of China; in the past China has regarded as any

weakening of that theory as "anti-national" and "split-ist". It will

be interesting to see how the authorities respond to Ge's scholarly

article.

> Ge's major research fields include historical population

geography, population and migration history, and cultural history. He

has written and edited numerous books, and over 100 articles on

historical population geography, population and migration history, and

cultural history.

> In his latest article, Ge notes that prior to 1912, when the

Republic of China was officially founded, the idea of China (in

Chinese, Zhongguo) wasn't clearly conceptualised. Even during the late

Qing period, he writes, the term `China' would on occasion be used to

refer to the "Qing State, including all the territory that fell within

the boundaries of the Qing empire"; but at other times, it would be

taken to refer only to the "18 interior provinces", excluding

Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang. Therefore, he argues,

"if we want to understand the extent of ancient China's territory, we

can only speak of how large the actual territory controlled by a

particular dynasty was at a particular moment."

> Noting that notions of a `Greater China' were based entirely on

the "one-sided views of Qing court records that were… written for the

court's self-aggrandisement", Ge criticises those who feel that "the

more they exaggerate the territory of historical `China' or China's

successive dynasties and kingdoms, the more patriotic they are."

> In fact, he says, the opposite is true. "If China really wishes to

rise peacefully and be on a solid footing to face the future, we must

understand the sum of our history and learn from our experiences."

> http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1081523

>

>

>

> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go

> with Mail for Mobile. Get started.

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---