INDIA CHINA BORDER DISPUTE – A REVISIT FOR REALITIES

AND RECENT TENSIONS – SEPT 2020

P. LAZAR
Ex-NaibSubedar,
E-Mail ID: lazar28111951@gmail.com
Mobile : 98414 55145

ABSTRACT

This article readdresses, the past centuries incidents on the delimiting of boundaries between
India and China, hither to unfitable, unused ancient to highlight diplomatic communications between
each country. It envisaged and discuss how perceptions, associated with the boundary lines over
time to mutant the meaning and reality. This endorsed that “traditional customary boundary” was
not inflexible. There was a sudden change happened across the successive times. It concluded that
biased cartographic evidences over a time, initiated undesirable incidents and tensions for 60
decades. Construction of a concrete wall on the McMohan line alignment would be the best remedy
to avoid forthcoming threats to the war,aftermath a consistent solution by the negotiation between
India & China.

INTRODUCTION

An undesirable history, appeared within political scenario, has directly affected the
opportunities of peace among India and China. It is worthy to note that, still today, no clearer
understanding of details of claims associating with demarcation of boundaries between the
countries rather than, there was in 1962, while two biggest countries went to clash. The
efforts to elucidate and establish a linear boundary line between India and China, since last
century and early time period of 20thcentuary, were found in several Accords, Treaties with
the principles of "exclusive territorial jurisdiction" (Masahiro,2016), that was emerged
during 20 decades ago (in Medieval era). Consequently add legal resistance to the State
associated with foreign powers, exclusive jurisdiction and primacy over territory and local
populace (Ibid). The course of demarcation of boundaries, between British India and China,
was found to be a typical exemplar or model and outcomes of the political practice of that
times.

The India-China border line is broadly divided into three fragments or sectors – the
eastern sector, a proximate region of Arunachala Pradesh along with Tibet, also the centre

1
segment, covering proximate region of Uttarakhand and Himachal pradesh with Tibet.
whereas Western region includes close areas of Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir along
with Tibet and a stretch, presently, Pakistan occupying Kashmir connecting with Sinkiang.
Highly creditable scholars like ParshotamMehra, Noorani, Karunakar Gupta and exemplary
earlier investigators have examined claims of both countries to the varied extent, and this
manuscript presents to focus on diplomatic communication in establishing boundary
exercises in Great Himalayas with cartographic evidences for the dispute and to represent the
present tension at the Kalvan valley lake platform. This script also finds a response for
research question such as - “Are there any undetectable internal conclusions in the
representation of both countries claims as its customary territorial boundary ? ”

EMERGENCE OF WESTERN BOUNDARY SEGMENT

The claim of India, in Western fragments emerged as a result of Britain's efforts to

explicate and determine a demarcation of boundary with China. This sector has trifurcated
such as a long extend from Wakhan (on the verge of Afghanistan) to the Karakoram path so
called, between Kashmir and Sinkiang, succeeded by an unbend line from the Karakoram
path to Lanak La that constituted an alignment including barren wastes of AksaiChin and
Lingzi Tang plains. Third segment covers Lanak La to Demchock (intermediate section of
Ladakh and Tibet) (ParshotamMehra, 1992).

Fig.1 Kalvan Valley – a "hot spot of tension"

2
 Changes or shifting of boundary
Fig.2 Adopted from Joe Thomas Karachkattu et al.,(2015)

Our Indian stand has been claimed that a complete Ladakh segments, covering Aksai
Chin converted into a part of the Jammu and Kashmir State as concluded and declared in a
treaty agreed in 1842, inpersence and support of Maharaja Gulab Singh and the Lama
Gurusahim of Lhasa and the Emperior of China representatives (Rose, 1912). The Great
British Government exercised several surveys in the late decades of 18 th century in order to
differentiate the line limit of Kashmir, however, the chinese Government did not participate
in those surveys.

3
 I feel it is important to emphasis here that in notes of Chinese Commissioner, has
placed a clarirfication on 13th January, 1847 as given below (Ibid, p.91)

"I beg to observe that, borders of these territories have been sufficiently, distinctly fixed, so
that it would be best to adhere to this ancient arrangements, and it will prove for more
convenient to abstain from any additional measure for fixing them" (Mehra, 1992)

Among earliest official custody of the Northern partition of India indicated in

lithographed sections of part of the survey of Kashmir, Ladak and Baltistan (Little Tibet)
depicting the "Boundary of His Highness the Maharajah of Kashmir" (Oct. 1868). During
the 19th Century, a rivalry among Russia and Britain in central Asia made a "Great Game"
(Wendy Palace.,2005). Increasing fear of Russian vicinity to India and served as battle
ground as it was trijunction of Afghanistan, India and China. Still 1870s, British accorded
direct jurisdiction over these northern marches in the hands of the Maharaja of Kashmir via
his Waziri-Wazarat at Gilgit (Ibid, p.3)

Interestingly, Sir Clause Mc Donald, British Minister addressed a note to the Tsungli
Yamer (A Chinese Foreign Office), on 14th March, 1899. It was treated as official
communication from the British Government to the China without annexing map, defining
the limits of India in Western sector (29). This line showed geographical characteristics and
a reference to Sir George Macartney's inputs associated with a map shared by Hong Jun,
indicating Aksai Chin as a part of Kashmir, and so called, "Macartney – Mc Donald" line.
Subsequently, complications raised, due to the modification of these lines in Western Sector
by British Government in 1905 and 1912 that correlating with collapse of the Qing Dynasty
in 1917, while no information was shared with china.

4
 Fig. 3 Shifting of boundary line fixed by China
( Traditional Customary line based on Atlas of China.)

RECENT TENSION
Thousands of Chinese and Indian troupes were gathered in the Ladakh region high in
the Himalayas in early date of May 2020. On June 15th, in the Kalwan valley, a clash was
reporting by Indian Army officials that clash leads to 20 deaths, whereas China Government
officials and media not displayed casualty figures from Chinese troops. However, unreliable
source reported that more than 40 died. On the same day, Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of
India emphasized in media and addressed that India wants peace. However, on provocation,
will give a fitting reply.

5
 Fig. 4 shows recent construction site of China

Fig.5 Tensed situation along the LAC

Ladakh is a crucial point of complexity, with abnormal geological characteristics.

China started to laid a road, crossing the area in 1956 – a link between Tibet to Xinjiang and
unusual occupation since 1962. As we mentioned early, surveying and mapping the huge
terrain region is challenging and historically proved. Earlier historical evidence showed
colonial-era efforts to survey this segment using natural indicators such as water shed, as
focal point and did not demarcate based on cartographic alignment, where both countries

6
territory begins and closed. India maintains Mc Mohan line, 550 miles partition that expands
through Himalaya, is the legal demarcation of boundary line between China and India.

SIMLA ACCORD
On November,1913, from the prior memos offered on the subject of accord, there was
evident that a map referring to Tibet to be discussed, and Mc Mohan proposed a split of Tibet
into inner and outer zones, where, Lhasa, covering in outer zone was to be autonomous, other
integral portions were to be the direct control of China.

It was approved by His Majesty s Government (Tibet Conference, confidential, Final

memorandum, India Office Records).Noticeably, Aksai Chin was kept in Tibet .However,
representatives of Chinese Government was not participated in the treaty.

Nehru Statement
Beyond the aim of this script to revisit the 1962 war ground, or the policy influences
in India and China that resulted a rigid interpretation of boundaries. Nehru’s own opinions on
the Western sector that described as quoted below,

The actual boundary of Ladakh with Tibet was not very carefully defined. It was
defined to some extent by British officers who went there. But I rather doubt if they did any
careful survey. They marked the line, It has been marked all along in our maps. They did it.
As people do not live there, by and large, it does not make any difference. At that time,
nobody cared about it.

On the Eastern sector also his view was not complete inflexible, refers that :

'' Having accepted broadly the Mc Mohan Line, I am prepared to discuss any interpretation of
the Mc Mohan Line; minor interpretation here and there; that is a different matter – not these
big chunks but the minor interpretation where this hill is there or this little bit is on that side
or on this side, on the facts, on the maps, on the evidence available. That I am prepared to
discuss with the Chinese Government'' Similarly, the Chinese attitude was not very worse to
the idea of doctrine or rigidity in the initial period. One of the points, which Zhou Enlai
accepted to Nehru in 1960, stated :

7
 ''Since we are going to have friendly negotiations, neither side should put forward
claims to an area which is no longer under its administrative control. For example, we made
no claim in the eastern sector to across south of the McMahon Line, but India made such
claims in the western sector''.

CONSEQUENCES AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

It is to state that , India is more powerful in safeguarding its sovereignty, with equal
nuclear power of neighbours and stand very clear and maintains its integrity with unique
alignments and offers respect to the adjacent countries boundaries .Occurrence of incidents,
hither to a total of 68 were reported on the India-China border violation, based on Times of
India, Indian Express and The Hindu published sources during 2003-2014. Very recently, 20
dies caused a major tension to the both countries border, for an unused, archives, unfit to the
living being . A war between two popular biggest democratic countries is not a remedy for
these unwanted incidences. War is an ultimate, With equivalent population strength, adequate
nuclear weapons, air riffles, recently evolved aircrafts, would result a intolerable limit of loss
of human beings, asserts, economy of the country and ''Peace'' of the people of both countries.
After war, residual population would remain unhealthy, mentally retarded, heavy mental
illness. Is it a victory?.

It is obvious to put forward for their claims, using diplomatic strategy with a concrete
position in the border issue. This study provides an outcome that, political influences of
British Government India, Russians great Games, caused a ''sudden changes'' in the
customary lines of boundaries and were hidden and not communicated to each others. By
concluding this study suggested an establishment of concrete wall along the legalised Mc
mohan alignment, at an extend of 3800 km would be a possible approach for a permanent
solution, after arriving a final negotiation between top authorities.The Chinese long wall was
emerged against the Mangolians attacks for a long back.. Similar, strategy can be tried ,More
over, there is an evident to implement such task, a wall emerged in between USA and
Mexico. appeared to be safe,from any dispute in forth coming historical era.It is to suggest
that,creation of long gigiantic poles with 30 feet hight with a distance of 100mtr , can be laid
on the alignment is also faesible,if budget exceeds in sin economy of the country, during
corona virus out break .

8
The poles with a base, ratio of 3x3m, 3x30m length, width and height, aid for easy
visualisation. These can be numbered, direction basis, using fluorescent sign boards. Finally,
I conclude, using high technology, advancement in scientific inventions would offer a
permanent solution in this approach. JAI HIND.....

9
REFERENCES
M. Masahiro, “Sovereignty and International Law”, paper presented at Durham University,
available online at
https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/conferences/sos/masahiro_miyoshi_paper.pdf;
Accessed 7 April 2016, p. 2.
Ibid.
ParshotamMehra, An ‘Agreed’ Frontier: Ladakh and India’s Northernmost Borders, 1846–
1947 (Delhi, 1992),p. 136.

Rose (1912), pp. 214–215.

Ibid., p. 91.

Mehra (1992), p. 31 also notes that the British boundary commissions came up with a sketch
map showing the boundary between the territories of Maharaja Gulab Singh and British India
as determined by them,except the Ladakh–Tibet boundary, which the commissioners could
not reach owing to Governor Imam-ud-din’s
rebellion in Kashmir but described as “sufficiently defined by custom” with the exception of
its extremities.
Wendy Palace, The British Empire and Tibet 1900-1922, (New York, 2005), p. 2.
Mehra (1992), p. 31 is also an excellent reading on the tribes inhabiting those
regions, comprising the Hunza. Kokandis and Shimsalis, among others. He describes how
despite not being subjects of either India or China in the conventional sense, they had some
‘dependency’ relationship with China (ceasing upon British intervention).It is discernible that
these areas were outside the pale of the ‘empire’, for both India and China (even the Qing
government had stopped collecting customs from southern Xinjiang neighbourhoods from
1832).

10