McMahon Line and sino Indian dispute
Introduction
India has large boundary with Peoples Republic of China- our neigbor- in the Himalayan region. The disputed regions are mainly in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. Let us glance through historic background of these regions.
Historic background
Both these regions have border with Tibet, presently a province of Peoples Republic of China. Ladakh is inhabited mostly by Buddhist who follow more or less the Tibetan rituals. Ladakh is historically close to Tibetan culture and traditions. The Buddhist monks in Ladakh are also known as Lama just as in Tibet. There is very little history of Ladakh on records prior to the year 950 when kingdom of Ladakh was established. Most kings were of Tibetan origin. In the year 842, the Tibetan monarchy ended. So suzerainty of Tibet over Ladakh came to an end. Later the region was conquered by Sikh monarch Ranjit Singh. However, there are some inscriptions that indicate that once Ladakh was part of Kushan empire. There are also some inscriptions in Brahmi, an ancient Indian script. In course of time, the region came in control of Dogra kings. Ultimately, Ladakh was merged with the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Presently, Ladakh is a autonomous Hill Council within the state of Jammu & Kashmir. There are many Tibetan refugees in the region.
Arunachal Pradesh was formerly known as North East Frontier Tracts. Later Government of Independent India changed the nomenclature to NEFA (North Eastern Frontier agency) and ultimately Arunachal Pradesh. To the North of the region is Peoples Republic of China. The natives are of Tibetan- Burmese origin. The McMahon Line lies on the Northern Border. It is said that the Sixth Dalai Lama was born in Tawang- an important place in the region. However, the region has also links with ancient Indian traditions and epics. It is said that Parshuram, legendary figure of Ramayana, washed his sins in this region. Lord Krishna of Mahabharata fame married Rukmani in this region. As a matter of fact, there is nothing unusual to find common traits in residents of border regions as the boundaries between nations are man made and political and not natural. The entire world is like a rainbow and there are no abrupt changaes in racial attributes, language or customs when you cross a nation's boundary.
What is McMahon Line
M
McMahon Line is named after Sir Henry McMahon, who was foreign secretary of British Indian Government He was also chief negotiator of the Simla convention. This line is considered as boundary between India and China. China rejects this line as this was not signed by China. China had suzerainty over Tibet and hence Tibet was not competent to sign any international convention or treaty. In 1907, Britain and Russia had accepted Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and also decided not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through intermediary of the Chinese government. The Mcmahon line is a part of Simla Accord, a treaty signed in 1914. The line extends for 550 miles (890 Kilometers) from Bhutan in the west to 160 miles (260 Kilometers) east of Brahmaputra river in the east, largely from the crest of the Himalayas. The line was almost forgotten. In 1935, the government published Simla convention and used the McMahon line in government maps. India considers McMahon line as national border whereas China repudiates its validity.
According to Chinese Government maps, sixty five thousand square kilometers south of the McMahon line is part of South Tibet or Tibet Autonomous region. It may be recalled that China forcibly occupied this region for brief period during the war in 1962. China accepts Line of actual control, which also includes portion of the McMahon line.
Tawang region in Arunachal Pradesh is an issue of prestige to India as well as China. Britain concluded treaties with Beijing regarding Tibet's boundary with Burma and Sikkim. Tibet refused to accept these. British forces invaded Tibet in 1904 aind imposed a treaty on Tibet. China dispatched military to establish Chinese administration in Tibet in 1010-12. During same period, North East Frontier tacts was created for administration of the region now called Arunachal Pradesh. The outer line extended further to north leaving Tawang as Tibetan territory. In 1913, Tibet expelled Chinese and declared independence.
In 1913, the Simla conference was attended by Britain, China and Tibet. It was decided that 'outer Tibet' of 'Tibet autonomous region' as known now would be under Dalai lama's government though would be under suzerainty of China. Surprisingly, the accord was ambiguous as regards textual boundary limitats or descriptions. The reference to a map had very little details. The map had no signature of Chinese representative although similar draft of it had been signed by them in 1914. The map also did not contain any label like 'British India' for he area covering the present arunachap Pradesh. The McMahon Line map of 24-25 March was more detailed but this was signed only by Tibetan and British representative and naturally this is not recognized by China.
In 1937, Survey of India published a map that showed McMahon line as official boundary. In 1938, the monastery in Tawang was informed that the district was now in Indian territory. However, the district remained in Tibetan control until 1951. In 1949, China came under communist rule. The new regime decided to 'liberate' Tibet. India also gained independence in 1947 and declared McMohan line as the national boundary.
Post Independence scenario
There was an era of Hindi Cheeni Bhai Bhai for some time. India accepted Chinese claim to Tibet and relinquished the extra territorial rights. Tibet had long been treated as so called Buffer state. Many in India wanted that Tibet should be free from Chinese control. India published maps showing Aksai Chin (ladakh region) and hill crest as boundary in NEFA sector even though this is slightly north of McMahon line at some places.
The Tibetan uprising in 1959 failed and refugees from Tibet including 14th Dalai Lama entered India. Dalai Lama not only got asylum in India but was also allowed political activities. India built many military posts on the Sino Indian border. These events made Chinese suspicious. Ultimately, China launched a major offensive in NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh) as well as Ladakh region. China unilaterally withdrew and repatriated the Indian war prisoners.
The NEFA region was renamed as Arunachal Pradesh in 1972. China considers this region as South Tibet. There have been a series of talks between India and china but without success. In 1984, India intelligence set up observation post a few kilometers north of McMahon line but left before winter. In 1986, China deployed troops in the valley before arrival of Indian team. There was big tension over these activities but confrontation was defused.
There have been some efforts to solve the boundary dispute. The Indian Prime minister visited China in 1988 and agreed to a joint working group on boundary issue. In 1993 also a group was set up for the purpose but wihout no positive results. There are frequent clashes. Generally, the disputed area is within one KM.
There is an uneasy calm. China indulges in irritating acts like issuing staple visa to residents of Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. At one occasion, China refused to give visa to Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh on the plea that visa could not be given to own nationals and that the Chief Minister of Arunacal Pradesh being in fact a citizen of China needed no visa to travel in China.
Boundary dispute and remedy
Apparently, no sincere steps have been taken to address the issue of border disputes. India is a non aligned secular state and has played very vital role in international politics. India and China both had entered in Panch sheel agreement that provided that all disputes would be settled peacefully. Nehru had a very broad outlook. India believes in Vasudhev Kutumkam (Entire world is a family). There is no question why India should adopt belligerent or aggressive policy. China is also a great nation with rich cultural heritage. There is no reason why these two Asian giants cannot solve the border disputes in spirit of good humanist international spirit.
We must remember that human history is very long. There were small kingdoms throughout the world. There were some cultural similarities in big regions but there were no large political entitities. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the border areas like Tibet, Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh could be conquered by one king or the other. If we look at history, no border region was always in control of one monarch. We cannot depend entirely on past history to make territorial claim. We need to recognize the ground reality as exists presently and take best possible decision in interests of people of the region and nations. The approach must not be expansionist and imperialist. Tawang was in Tibetan control But then territories were not so much politically developed. British managed areas controlled by them according to their administrative convenience.
The McMahon line ia considered by India as international boundary. This is not acceptable to China. We cannot go to very remote past. It will be best to decide on basis of recent past. It will be best to settle the border disputes by treating the actual control in disputed territories when Brfitish left India and China became Peoples Republic. McMohan line may not be legally acceptable to China but is the best basis to begin with. The dispute at any particular point is not more than one KM. So, there should not be much difficulty. The boundary needs be redrawn treating McMahon line as a basis only with some adjustment ensuring that whole districts or villages are not divided between two nations.
National boundary is not the only issue that creates tension. Tibet is one issue. Tibet was a separate country but Chinese suzerainty was recognized. British had a notion of so called 'Buffer state' for Tibet region. By making Tibet a 'buffer state' the British Indian government wished to ensure that China remains at a safe distance. By direct control on Tibet, China could prove dangerous to India or other neighbors. Pt Nehru was very sincere and above petty chauvanistic thoughts. So, he did not approve of so called 'buffer state' status for Tibet and accepted Tibet as a province of China. There is a proverb- Do to others as you would be done by. Tibet is to China what kashmir is to us. Tibet is as much intregral part of China as Kashmir is of India. Although India recognized Chinese status in Tibet, she annoyed China by the way Dalai lama was not only given asylum in India but also allowed to fan anti Chinese propaganda from soil of India. There is nothing wrong in allowing Dalai Lama and other Tibetan refugees to be in India on humanitarian grounds. But it is not appropriate to allow him to campaign against China from India- his host country.
China and India are permanent neighbors. Ex P.M. Atgal Behari vajpayee rightly said that we cannot choose neighbors. Neighbors are permananet. There is no way other than to live peacefully. The boundary issue as well as the issue of Dalai Lama need be sorted out. As regards boundary, there is no need to harp on very ancient boundaries by digging history and mythology. The best course would be to accept boundary as existed when India attained independence and/ or China became People Republic. As regards Dalai Lama, it is a matter of satisfaction that he also accepts Chinese rule in Tibet. India may facilitate a dialogue between Dalai Lama and Chinese leadership to ensure that all Tibetan refugees go back to their home land and contribute to prosperity and progress of their nation.
India should insist on China not to issue stapled visa to Indian citizens- of Kashmir as well as Arunachal Pradesh- and thus help normalization of realtion. Negotiation on bounary dispute can be held even while going by procedure of visa and passport on current reality.
It is okay to settle our differences with China peacefully but we must always be prepared militarily for any adverse circumstances. Unless you are strong, your voice is insignificant. It is okay to negotiate but this should be from a position of strength and not weakness. It will not be irrelevant to quote Late President Kennedy of U.S.A.- "we do not fear to negotiate but we do not negotiate out of fear."
Images from wiipedia
Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this article on other bookmarking websites.