The myth of "Tibetan independence," which evolved during the late 19th century, is actually the product of the imperialist invasion of China, with the British invaders in Tibet as the chief architects. Many Chinese and foreign works have been published to bring light to this segment of history. These include The Source of the So-Called‘Tibetan Independence’Activities by Yang Gongsu, a famous Chinese Tibetologist, which tells of this period of history in an all-round and systematic way. However, Van Praag and Xagabba go against the current to cover and tamper the fact that the British invaded Tibet and directed these "Tibetan independence" activities. It is therefore of great importance to return black to white.

The third chapter, Tibet in the "Great Game" of The Status of Tibet by Van Praag ventures to tell readers, but without producing any background, that "Tibet became the unwilling object of contention among the three great empires of Asia: Russian, British and the Manchu Empires". between the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What is expounded in the chapter throws the readers into confusion.

In Xagabba's Tibet: A Political History, a brief introduction is made to the reincarnation of the late 12th Dalai Lama and the enthronement of the 13th Dalai Lama. Suddenly the focus shifts to say that the government of Bangladesh sent people to Xigaze and the British leased Darjeeling from Sikkim. But it says nothing about why the Bangladesh government sent people to Xigaze and why the British leased Darjeeling from Sikkim.

In 1600, the British colonialists set up the East India Company in India for commercial exploitation. In 1757 when Britain defeated Indian Bangladesh, India was reduced to the status of a British colony. In 1849, when Britain conquered the whole of India, India became the political and economic center of the British colonialist system in the east and the strategic base of Britain for British expansion in Asia.

During the period from the 19th to the early 20th centuries, Great Britain was in its heyday. India emerged as "the brightest pearl in the crown of the British Queen" and was also a "food basket" for Britain. Britain held that India had a high role to play in guaranteeing its long-term and maximum economic interests in the South Asian sub-continent. In the light of India's geographical features and surrounding environment, the British strategists produced a proposition for the establishment of "three buffer zones, two concentric circles and one inner lake" to provide for Indian security. The "three buffer zones" refer to Tibet becoming subject to British management, which would guarantee India was "free from the China threat"; the Indian Ocean Rim, with an aim of bringing "countries along the coasts of the Indian Ocean under British control"; and Afghanistan, which was expected to keep Czarist Russia away from the British holdings. The "two concentric circles" refer to the inner circle of tribal areas in the northwestern border of India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, the Assam State and tribal areas in the northeastern border of India, and the outer circle of emirates in the Persian Gulf, Persia, Afghanistan, Tibet, and Thailand.

Proceeding from this strategic proposition, Britain must set out northward from India to invade various states in the Himalayan areas before making inroads into Tibet. At this point, Czarist Russia was coveting Xinjiang, attempting to thrust southward into Tibet. Czarist Russia's invasion of Tibet, however, was not as serious and direct as the British invasion. It relied primarily on political means.

The British and Russian invasions of Tibet was illegal because they infringed upon the territorial integrity of China and undermined China's unification. The strengthening of Chinese rule over Tibet was legal because it helped maintain state sovereignty and was favorable for national unification. The two are totally different in nature.

It is therefore absolutely wrong for Van Praag to talk about the scramble for Tibet between three empires--Russia, Britain and the Manchurian Empire. It is wrong because it confuses invasions with the invaded and illegal moves with legal moves.

In accordance with its established policy of expanding northward from India, Britain leased Darjeeling from Sikkim in 1835 as the "Summer resort" of the East India Company. Henceforth, Britain secured a foothold in the Himalayan areas. In 1846 Britain engulfed the Chamoli-Kashmir area in northwestern India and seized control of Ladakh in Tibet. In 1860, the British attacked Sikkim and placed the king under palace arrest the following year, forcing him to sign the Anglo-Sikkim Treaty, which ceded large tracts of land to British rule. Also in 1860, the British signed a treaty with Nepal, which allowed British control of Nepal in greater depth. In 1864, the British attacked Bhutan and forced the defeated Bhutan government to sign a treaty in 1865, forcibly taking away large tracts of Bhutan's lands. Using Sikkim as a springboard for invasion of Tibet, the British built roads in Sikkim for a northward march conducted in accordance with its strategy of subjecting Tibet under British administration and freeing India from China threat.