Greater Tibet Area: Not an Illusion

My response to the article: "An illusion called 'greater Tibet area'".

---

The bias of the author of this article is apparent, not surprisingly though. The mentioning of "foreign bosses" and other such baseless provocations are expected in the writings of authors wanting so desperately to appease their higher ranking 'cadres'. Nevertheless, let me get right to the point and state my woes. As a preface, let me bring to your attention that I am FOR a 'greater Tibet area'. And, allow me to convince you why the idea of a 'greater Tibet area' is not merely an illusion as the author claims. I will use the Chinese government's own rationale to validate my opinion.

1. The author points out how the areas of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau(or Amdo) have had a 'diversified culture' throughout history; but the fact remains: those areas designated as 'greater Tibet area' such as Amdo and Kham which have now been incorporated into other predominantly Han provinces, all have a strong Tibetan Buddhist ecclesiastical influence and long-standing tutelary relations.
2. Now, in the border dispute between India and China, China claims that the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh is 'an integral part of China' on the basis not of any purported Han connection, but of Tibetan Buddhist ecclesiastical influence and alleged long-standing tutelary relations with them.
   

Ergo, inferring from the above two points, we can safely concur that the Chinese government cannot claim Arunachal Pradesh as an 'integral part of China' unless it accepts and implements the idea of a 'greater Tibet area' as designated by their Tibetan counterparts in Dharamsala.