Identifying when, where, and how India and Asia collided is a prerequisite to better understand the evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau. Whereas with essentially the same published paleomagnetic data, a large range of different India-Asia collision models have been proposed in the literature. Based upon the premise of a northwards-moving Indian plate during the Cretaceous times, we analyze the significant variations in relative paleolatitude produced by a nearly 90° counterclockwise(CCW)rotation of the plate itself during the Cretaceous. Interestingly, recent studies proposed a dual-collision process with a Greater India basin or post-Neo-Tethyan ocean for the India-Asia collision, mainly in the light of divergent Cretaceous paleolatitude differences of the Tethyan Himalaya between the observed values and expected ones computed from the apparent polar wander path of the Indian plate. However, we find that these varied paleolatitude differences are mainly resulted from a nearly 90° CCW rotation of a rigid/quasi-rigid Greater Indian plate during the Cretaceous. On the other hand, when the Indian craton and Tethyan Himalaya moved as two individual blocks rather than a united rigid/quasi-rigid Greater Indian plate before the India-Asia collision, current available Cretaceous paleomagnetic data permit only multiple paleogeographic solutions for the tectonic relationship between the Indian plate and the Tethyan Himalayan terrane. We therefore argue that the tectonic relationship between the Indian plate and the Tethyan Himalayan terrane cannot be uniquely constrained by current paleomagnetic data in the absence of sufficient geological evidence, and the so-called Greater India basin model is just one of the ideal scenarios. Identifying when, where, and how India and Asia collided is a prerequisite to better understand the evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau. Whereas with essentially the same published paleomagnetic data, a large range of different India-Asia collision models have been proposed in the literature based on the premise of a northwards-moving Indian plate during the Cretaceous times, we analyze the significant variations in relative paleolatitude produced by a nearly 90 ° counterclockwise (CCW) rotation of the plate itself during the Cretaceous. Interestingly, recent studies proposed a dual-collision process with a Greater India basin or post-Neo-Tethyan ocean for the India-Asia collision, mainly in the light of divergent Cretaceous paleolatitude differences of the Tethyan Himalaya between the observed values ​​and expected ones computed from the apparent polar wander path of the Indian plate. However, we find that these varied paleolatitude differences are mainly resulted from a nearly 90 ° CCW rotation of a rigid / quasi-rigid Greater Indian plate during the Cretaceous. On the other hand, when the Indian craton and Tethyan Himalaya moved as two individual blocks rather than a united rigid / quasi-rigid Greater Indian plate before the India -Asia collision, current available Cretaceous paleomagnetic data permit only multiple paleogeographic solutions for the tectonic relationship between the Indian plate and the Tethyan Himalayan terrane. We therefore argue that the tectonic relationship between the Indian plate and the Tethyan Himalayan terrane can not be uniquely constrained by current paleomagnetic data in the absence of sufficient geological evidence, and the so-called Greater India basin model is just one of the ideal scenarios.