I was in Tibet for nine years between 1936 and 1950 representing the British Government until 15 August 1947 and thereafter the Government of Independent India.

The situation I saw stemmed from 1912 when the Tibetan expelled all Chinese and the Dalai Lama declared Tibet independent. In an attempt to stabilise relations a tripartite conference was convened at Simla at which Great Britain, China and Tibet was each represented by a plenipotentiary whose full powers were accepted by the other parties. In the powers granted to Sir Henry McMahon it was asserted that a state of war existed between the Chinese Government and the Government of the Dalai Lama.

The Chinese withdrew from the drafted tripartite agreement but the British Government signed the Convention directly with the Tibetans, expressly denying the Chinese any privileges they would have had if they had signed it. Those privileges included the recognition by the Tibetans of the suzerainty of China which they had been ready reluctant, to accept if the Chinese agreed to their part of the bargain.

Since 1912 no Chinese were in Tibet except for a few traders and some Muslim butchers at Lhasa. There were no Chinese troops and no officials until 1935 when a small party managed to get in. They were regarded by the Tibetans as an unofficial liaison office; and in 1949 they were expelled by the Tibetan Government.

The Government at Lhasa with which I dealt was beyond question in complete control of its own affairs, dealing directly with the Government of India in such matters as frontier disputes, trade questions, supply of arms and ammunition and so on. There was no Chinese participation whatever in such matters and no reference to them, nor were they informed. In all practical matters the Tibetans were independent. In face of threats they consistently refused permission for the Chinese to send troops into Tibet to accompany the Panchen Lama and, also in face of threats, they maintained their neutrality during the war by refusing to allow the transit of military supplies to China across Tibet.

In 1943 Sir Anthony Eden made the British position clear in a note to T.V. Soong, the Chinese Foreign Minister. He stated that the British Government had always been prepared to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet but only on the understanding that Tibet be regard as autonomous. He said that since 1911 Tibet had enjoyed de facto independence (L/PS 12/4 of 5th August 1943.)

That was re-affirmed in Parliament on 6th November 1950 by the Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Foreign Office, Mr. Ernest Davies, who also recalled the assurance given by H.M.G. (through myself) to the Tibetan Government, of a more friendly interest in the welfare and autonomy of Tibet. H.M.G. therefore regarded Tibet as enjoying de facto independence when it was invaded by the Chinese in October 1950; and when the Tibetan Government appealed to the UN in protest against the Chinese aggression the Foreign Office decided that Tibet fulfilled the requirments of statehood under the UN Charter; but when Sir Gladwyn Jebb was unwilling to take up a different position from that of the Indian Government he persuaded the British Government to withhold support from the Tibetan appeal on the grounds that the legal position was unclear. And so the British Government, the only government among western countries to have had treaty relations with Tibet, sold the Tibetans down the river and since then have constantly cold-shouldered the Tibetans so that in 1959 they would not even support a resolution in the UN condemning the violation of human rights in Tibet by the Chinese. Australian, New Zealand and Canada all voted for the resolution which was carried by 45 votes to 9 with 26 abstentions including that of the U.K. I was profoundly ashamed of the government and continued to be ashamed at their unwillingness to recognise that Tibet has a right to Self-Determination, and their treatment of the Dalai Lama.

[ Homepage ] [ The Status of Tibet ]



This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.
Last updated: 2-Feb-96