国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ
|
|
カラー画像サムネイル -
目次 -
ページ番号 -
書誌情報（メタデータ） -
キャプション -
カラー画像 -
白黒高解像度画像 -
見開きページ -
グラフィック -
| 0362 |
India and Tibet : vol.1 |
| インドとチベット : vol.1 |
引用情報
OCR読み取り結果
to send accredited negotiators before June 25 and the
continued opposition of the Tibetans — which might, I
thought, be considered by His Majesty's Government
sufficient justification for departing in some slight degree
from the policy which on June 2, before they were com-
pletely aware of the nature of the Tibetan position,
commended itself to them. Lord Lansdowne had said
in April in the House of Lords, referring then to the
policy laid down in the telegram of November 6, 1903,
that he did not mean to say that, "whatever happened,
we were never to move an inch beyond the limits therein
laid down." And I thought that the policy settled in
London, before Government were aware of the conditions
I should find at Lhasa, would admit of some little
elasticity.
Then, as regards the nature of the pledges themselves.
The pledges given were that, "so long as no other Power
endeavours to intervene in the affairs of Tibet, they [His
Majesty's Government] will not attempt either to annex
it, to establish a protectorate over it, or in any way to
control its internal administration."
The question was, "Did the right to occupy the
Chumbi Valley for seventy-five years, as security for the
payment of an indemnity, involve a breach of this pledge?"
Burma, in somewhat similar circumstances, we had an-
nexed, but that meant turning out the native rulers,
constituting a Government of our own, and stationing
garrisons at the capital and throughout the country. Over
Native States in India we established protectorates, but that
necessarily involved subordinating their foreign relations to
our own. In many of them we controlled the internal
administration, but only by agents of Government being
deputed especially for that purpose. Would the occupation
of Chumbi, a valley lying altogether outside Tibet proper,
on the Indian and not on the Tibetan side of the watershed,
a valley which had not always belonged to Tibet, mean
annexing Tibet, establishing a protectorate over it, or
controlling its internal administration? This was the
question I asked myself, and I answered it in the
negative. I said to myself it involved none of the
1
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
11
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
21
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
31
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
41
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
51
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
61
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
71
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
81
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
91
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
101
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
111
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
121
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
131
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
141
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
151
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
161
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
171
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
181
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
191
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
201
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
211
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
221
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
231
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
241
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
251
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
261
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
271
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
281
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
291
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
301
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
311
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
321
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
331
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
341
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
351
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
360
361
362
363
364
.
|
.
.
.
.
371
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
381
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
391
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
401
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
411
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
421
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
431
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
441
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
451
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
461
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
471
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
481
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
491
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
501
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
511
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
521
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
531
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
541
.
.
.
.
546
Copyright (C) 2003-2026
National Institute of Informatics（国立情報学研究所）
and
The Toyo Bunko（東洋文庫）. All Rights Reserved.
本ウェブサイトに掲載するデジタル文化資源の無断転載は固くお断りいたします。
