The roots of the growth of the BPO sector lie in India's policy of liberalization and globalization. The Indian BPO sector prefers to hire young people, which gives an opportunity to young Tibetans residing in the city of Bangalore. BPO is one of the most practiced professions by young Tibetans. History, politics, legal situation of Tibet Tibet was a distinct nation and maintained its own government, religion, language, laws and customs. Over the centuries, some countries, including China, Great Britain and Mongolia, have attempted to exert control over Tibet, with periodic and partial success. International legal scholars agree that from 1911 until the Chinese invasion of 1949, Tibet was a fully independent state by modern standards. Since then, Tibetans have fought to regain their freedom and keep their culture intact. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay History of Tibet before the Chinese invasion of 1949 Tibet has a history dating back over 2,000 years. A good starting point for analyzing the country's status is the period called the "imperial age" of Tibet, when the entire country was united for the first time under a single ruler. There is no serious dispute about the existence of Tibet as an independent state during this period. China's historical documents and treaties made by Tibet and China in that period also refer to Tibet as a strong state with which China was forced to deal on an equal footing. At what historical moment, therefore, did Tibet cease to exist as a state to become an integral part of China? The history of Tibet is no different from that of other states. At times, Tibet extended its influence over neighboring countries and peoples, and at other times, it came under the influence of powerful foreign rulers: the Mongol Khans, the Gorkhas of Nepal, the Manchu emperors, and the British rulers of India. It should be noted, before examining the relevant history, that international law is a system of law created by states primarily for their own protection. Consequently, international law protects the independence of states from attempts to destroy it and, therefore, the presumption is in favor of the continuation of the state. This means that, while an independent state that has existed for centuries, such as Tibet, does not need to demonstrate its continued independence when it is challenged, a foreign state that claims sovereign rights over it must demonstrate those rights by showing in what precise when and in what way. by what legal means they were acquired. China's current claim to Tibet is based entirely on the influence that the Mongol and Manchuk emperors exerted over Tibet in the 13th and 18th centuries respectively. As Genghis Khan's Mongol empire expanded toward Europe in the west and China in the east in the 13th century, Tibetan leaders of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism struck a deal with the Mongol rulers to avoid the otherwise inevitable conquest of Tibet. They promised political loyalty, blessings, and religious teachings in exchange for patronage and protection. The religious relationship became so important that when Kublai Khan conquered China and established the Yuan dynasty, he invited the Sakya Lama to become imperial preceptor and supreme pontiff of his empire. The relationship that developed and still exists today between Mongols and Tibetans is a reflection of the close racial, cultural and above all religious affinity between the two Central Asian peoples. Claiming that Tibet became part of China because both countries were independently subject to varying degrees of Mongol control, as the PRC does,it's absurd. The Mongol Empire was a world empire; there is no evidence to suggest that the Mongols integrated the administration of China and Tibet or annexed Tibet to China in any way. It's like saying that France should belong to England because they both came under Roman rule, or that Burma became part of India when the British Empire extended its authority over both territories. This relatively short period of foreign domination over Tibet dates back 700 years. Tibet broke away from Emperor Yuan before China regained its independence from the Mongols with the establishment of the native Ming dynasty. Only in the 18th century did Tibet again find itself under some foreign influence. The Ming Dynasty, which ruled China from 1368 to 1644, had few ties to and no authority over Tibet. On the other hand, the Manchus, who conquered China and founded the Qing dynasty in the 17th century, embraced Tibetan Buddhism as the Mongols had done and developed close ties with the Tibetans. The Dalai Lama, who had now become the spiritual and temporal ruler of Tibet, agreed to become the spiritual guide of the Manchu emperor. He accepted patronage and protection in return. This “priest-patron” relationship, which the Dalai Lama also maintained with numerous Mongol Khans and Tibetan nobles, was the only formal link that existed between Tibetans and Manchus during the Qing dynasty. This in itself did not affect the independence of Tibet. On the political level, some powerful Manchu emperors managed to exert a certain influence on Tibet. Thus, between 1720 and 1792, the Manchu emperors Kangxi, Yong Zhen, and Qianlong sent imperial troops to Tibet four times to protect the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people from foreign invasions or internal unrest. It was these expeditions that provided them with influence in Tibet. The emperor sent representatives to the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, some of whom successfully exerted their influence, in his name, on the Tibetan government, particularly regarding the conduct of foreign relations. At the height of Manchu power, which lasted a few decades, the situation was no different from that which can exist between a superpower and a neighboring satellite or protectorate. The submission of a state to foreign influence and even intervention in foreign or domestic affairs, however significant it may be politically, does not in itself entail the legal extinction of that state. As a result, although some Manchu emperors exerted considerable influence over Tibet, they did not incorporate Tibet into their empire, much less China. The Manchu influence did not last long. It was entirely ineffective when the British briefly invaded Tibet in 1904 and ceased entirely with the overthrow of the Qing dynasty in 19II and its replacement in China with a local republican government. Whatever ties existed between the Dalai Lama and the Qing emperor ended with the dissolution of the Manchu Empire[1]. 1911 – 1950 From 1911 to 1950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in every respect, as a fully independent state. The 13th Dalai Lama emphasized his country's independent status externally, in informal communications to foreign rulers, and internally, by issuing a proclamation reaffirming Tibet's independence and strengthening the country's defenses. Tibet remained neutral during World War II, despite strong pressure from China and its allies, Great Britain and the United States. The Tibetan government maintained independent international relations with all neighboring countries, most of which had diplomatic representatives in Lhasa. The attitude of most foreign governments with which Tibet had dealings implied recognitionof the independent status of Tibet. The British government pledged not to recognize Chinese sovereignty or any other rights over Tibet unless China signed the draft Simla Convention of 1914 with Britain and Tibet, which China never did . Recognition of Nepal was confirmed by the Nepalese government in 1949, in documents submitted to the United Nations in support of that government's request for membership. The turning point in the history of Tibet occurred in 1949 when the People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China entered Tibet for the first time. After defeating the small Tibetan army, in May 1951 the Chinese government imposed the so-called "17-Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" on the Tibetan government. Because it was signed under duress, the agreement was void under international law. The presence of 40,000 soldiers in Tibet, the threat of immediate occupation of Lhasa and the prospect of the total obliteration of the Tibetan state have left Tibetans with little choice. It should be noted that numerous countries made statements during the United Nations General Assembly debates following the invasion of Tibet that reflected their recognition of Tibet's independent status. Thus, for example, the Philippine delegate declared: “It is clear that on the eve of the 1950 invasion Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country.” The Thai delegate reminded the assembly that the majority of states "reject the thesis that Tibet is part of China." The United States has joined most other United Nations members in condemning China's "aggression" and "invasion" of Tibet. Throughout Tibet's 2,000-year history, the country experienced some degree of foreign influence only for brief periods of time in the 13th and 18th centuries. Few independent countries today can boast such an impressive record. As the Irish ambassador to the United Nations observed during the General Assembly debates on the Tibet issue, “[for] thousands of years, or at least for a couple of thousand years, [Tibet] has been just as free and as fully in control of their own affairs as any nation in this House, and a thousand times freer to go about their own affairs than many nations here. From a legal point of view, Tibet has not yet lost its state status. It is an independent state under illegal occupation. Neither China's military invasion nor its continued occupation transferred sovereignty of Tibet to China. As previously pointed out, the Chinese government has never claimed to have acquired sovereignty over Tibet through conquest. Indeed, China recognizes that the use or threat of force (outside of the exceptional circumstances provided for in the United Nations Charter), the imposition of an unequal treaty, or the continued illegal occupation of a country can never guarantee a an invader the legal title to the territory. His claims are based solely on the alleged subjugation of Tibet to some of China's strongest foreign rulers in the 13th and 18th centuries[2]. History since the Chinese invasion Despite 40 years of Chinese occupation, the determination of the Tibetan people to preserve their heritage and regain their freedom is stronger than ever. The situation has led to conflict within Tibet and large-scale Chinese propaganda efforts internationally[3]. 1949-51 The Chinese invasion The new Chinese communist government sent troops to invade Tibet in 1949-50. In May 1951, an agreement was imposed on the Tibetan government that recognized sovereignty over Tibet but also the autonomy of the Tibetan government with respect to Tibet's internal affairs. Little by littleas the Chinese consolidated their control, repeatedly violated the treaty, and open resistance to their rule grew, leading to the nationwide uprising of 1959 and the Dalai Lama's flight to India. The international community reacted with shock to the events in Tibet. The United Nations General Assembly discussed the Tibet issue on numerous occasions between 1959 and 1965. The General Assembly passed three resolutions condemning China's human rights violations in Tibet and calling on China to respect those rights, including Tibet's right to self-determination. After 1959: Destruction The destruction of Tibet's culture and the oppression of its people was brutal during the 20 years following the uprising. According to a Tibetan government estimate, 1.2 million Tibetans, one-fifth of the country's population, have died as a result of China's policies.exile; many others languished in prisons and labor camps; and more than 6,000 monasteries, temples, and other cultural and historical buildings were destroyed and their contents looted. In 1980 Hu Yao Bang, general secretary of the Communist Party, visited Tibet, the first high-ranking official to do so since the invasion. Alarmed by the scale of the destruction he saw there, he called for a series of drastic reforms and a policy of “recovery.” His forced resignation in 1987 is said to have been partly due to his views on Tibet. In 1981, Alexander Solzhenytsin described the Chinese regime in Tibet as "more brutal and inhumane than any other communist regime in the world." The relaxation of Chinese policies in Tibet occurred very slowly after 1979 and remains severely limited[4]. The Legal Status of Tibet Recent events in Tibet have intensified the dispute over its legal status. The People's Republic of China (PRC) claims that Tibet is an integral part of China. The Tibetan government in exile claims that Tibet is an independent state under illegal occupation. The question is highly topical for at least two reasons. First, if Tibet is under illegal Chinese occupation, Beijing's large-scale transfer of Chinese settlers to Tibet constitutes a serious violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits the transfer of civilian populations into the territories busy. Second, if Tibet is under illegal Chinese occupation, China's illegal presence in the country is a legitimate subject of international concern. If, on the other hand, Tibet is an integral part of China, then these matters fall, China argues, within its own domestic jurisdiction. The issue of human rights, including the right to self-determination and the right of the Tibetan people to maintain their identity and autonomy, are, of course, legitimate objects of international concern, regardless of Tibet's legal status. The PRC claims no sovereign rights over Tibet following its subjugation and military occupation of Tibet following the invasion of the country in 1949–1950. Therefore, China does not claim to have acquired sovereignty through conquest, annexation, or prescription in this period. Instead, it bases its claims on Tibet solely on their theory that Tibet has been an integral part of China for centuries. The question of the status of Tibet is essentially a legal question, although of immediate political relevance. Objective legal and not subjective political criteria must determine the international status of a country. Therefore, whether a particular entity is a state in international law depends on whether it possesses the necessary criteria for being a state (territory, population, independent government, ability to conduct international relations), not on whether the governments of other states recognize the his[5].