| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
140252
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Bombay, Allied Publishers Private Limited, 1964.
|
| Description |
192p.: ill., mapshbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 000006 | 951.5/MIT 000006 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
128512
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
107676
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the takeover of Tibet by the PRC in 1951, two opposing stances of Tibet's standing vis-à-vis China have dominated academic and popular sources ever since. One topic occupying the central place of limelight is nonetheless 'sovereignty', a word originating only from the political history of Western Europe in the mid-17th Century, and by no means a self-evident concept for Tibet and Imperial China. While statecraft in the West is deeply embedded in and accordingly judged by this 'realist' thinking, China and Tibet were not 'sovereign' as many Chinese and Tibetans have been taught to assume. This study briefly examines the evolution of the so-called Sino-Tibetan 'benefactor-priest relations' (Mchodyon, ) since the end of the 19th century and how the UK and US selectively applied/compromised the script of sovereignty to suit themselves. The results show that major powers outside this region (mainly the United Kingdom and the United States) were the major beneficiaries of this hypocritical 'scripting'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|