D Roy wrote:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opi ... 939408.cms
Like I said in the IS thread, the above article is the worst apology for a sell out yet.
I suggest a sticky thread is made with previous discussions on Neville Maxwell's book and its problems and on new discussions about the invalidity of the chinese position in Tibet.
What crap is this article trying to peddle? Let us dissect this article step by step
Interested folks should lay their hands on just three books - India's China War by Neville Maxwell, India-China Boundary Problem by A G Noorani and Himalayan Blunder by Brig. J P Dalvi, the senior-most officer taken prisoner after Independence and the ill-fated commander of 7 Brigade - the formation around which the 1962 tragedy started and ended.
When any writer starts with three authors, each of which had a biased take on the situation we know where the article is headed. A.G. Noorani's view-points, and let us be very clear what is written in these books are view-points, are best described as archaic.
It may be noted that till the 10th/11th century, Ladakh was part of Tibet.
Part of Tibet yes, but not of China. Let us be very clear on that part, because it has bearing on the later part.
Still later came the Macartney-Macdonald Line of 1899 that extended the 1873 line slightly into Aksai Chin beyond the Karakoram. This line is significant. It is the only line formally communicated to the Chinese - which evoked no reply.
This is important, the lines were communicated to the Chinese and which did not evoke a reply. And why were they not communicated to the Tibetians directly is another story, which the author simply washes out. And if the Chinese had a problem with this so called line, it is not communicated.
Taking advantage of the weakness of China, the British convened the Simla Conference in 1913 with Tibet and China, to now create a buffer between China and British India. There, one of the most underhand deals of deceit was played out.
....
....
The Simla Conference, as Neville Maxwell puts it, was one where there were two participants in a tripartite conference openly signing a secret declaration, one text of a draft convention initialled by three parties, another initialled by two, and a map initialled by all three!
....
....
But the net result was that the conference produced nothing that was accepted by China. The McMahon Line was virtually forgotten till 1935, and here came another sleight of hand. International treaties, pacts, agreements, etc, are published in Atchison's Register much like the Lloyd's register for shipping. Having missed announcing the 1913 Tibetan Convention in the 1929 edition, the British in 1937 published what was passed off as the 1929 edition.
All copies of the original 1929 edition were to be suppressed and were recalled and destroyed. One survived - in the Harvard University library. This falsification of evidence was to enable the British to state that the Simla Convention was always valid from 1914.
British took advantage of chinese weakness and convened the Simla Conference? Statements without anything backing them up.
How does one
openly sign a secret declaration? Tibet was within its right to sign a declaration of its choosing with British Indian authorities. China did not have sovereignty over Tibet. Not by any yardstick.
Is Atchison Register the final word on international treaties?
Is it accepted that anything not written in the so called "Atchison's Register" is not a valid treaty between states?
And if a treaty is not listed in the Atchison Register but gets listed some years after that, does it mean that the treaty is not valid?
Can the author please provide the reference to the register which has the necessary treaties, which say that Tibet is part of China or China has sovereignty over Tibet?
It is entirely possible that the British realizing that they made a honest-to-god mistake in not getting the treaty listed and tried to correct it. The treaty is valid from the day it is signed or is ratified.
The claim "deals of deceit" is not backed up anything substantial. It just appears to be a view held by the author, without any backing up. If the author is able to show something more substantial, we would welcome it, but till then I dont think any of these words hold any water.
Finally is there any line or alignment which Chinese had sent to British Raj claiming the boundary to follow so and so? And did India or British Raj accept it as such?
The leaders of Pakistan and India adopted the Canadian/Australian model and accepted "transfer of power from British hands and devolution of treaties concluded by the British. They were stopped from contesting that position."
....
....
The nuances of these words may make sense only to someone steeped in international law, but was the Indian National Congress aware of the consequences? If so, has it kept this hidden from its people so far? We had bound ourselves to treaties as far back as 1792, concluded by the East India Company!
It was not hidden from me. Why does the author think that it is hidden? Our position on the macmohan line flows from this hand over of power. But we get a glimmer of the motives of the author over here and his objectivity.
Noorani adds that while the 1914 Indo-Tibetan treaty on the Mcmahon Line concerned British India, the Aksai Chin province was never a part of British India, although a part of the British Empire. This distinction is significant. Was this fact known and, if so, was this also hidden?
So if we take AG Noorani at its word, then "Aksai Chin" was a part of British Empire. So does not that immediately preclude this territory to be
outside of Chinese sovereignty?
This distinction is significant is not what the author is telling us but what the author is trying to insinuate. What the author is saying that since this was not part of British India, we had no right over it. Fair enough, but if we follow this reasoning then it does not belong to Chinese either. So when Chinese built a road over a territory, they actually built it over non-Chinese territory, which they claimed was theirs.
After Independence, Tibet demanded return of the territories taken by the British! These included large parts of Ladakh, Assam and the districts of Darjeeling and Sikkim.
Yes this is true. This little know incident happened just after our independence. This is not highlighted much but is significant.
South Asian power politics had shifted with the exit of the British and, in retrospect, perhaps we should have accepted Dominion Status while our netas learned statecraft and geopolitical strategy using a military backing.
Like I said the glimmer, but the light is coming and we will find the objectivity of the author torn to shreds very soon. The English left, but left behind people still bound in awe of English These people believe that the best thing that happened to India was the horrible nightmare called British Raj.
In 1954, Jawaharlal Nehru decided to redraw maps showing firm boundary lines where earlier colour wash reflected an unsettled boundary. Aksai Chin became entirely Indian territory. Nehru further declared that the border was firm and not open to discussion.
Here we find the glimmer transform into light. All the references to INC, "hidden from its people so far" and the reference to JLN are laid thread bare. The author is out to malign JLN. This is not about taking apart nuances of the position this is about targeting one individual, without taking the merits of the situation into account. JLN was not blameless, his appointment of the incompetent Menon as Defense Minster and his political interference in the army to point of putting incompetent generals and brigadiers in charge will forever blemish this great man's reputation.
In 1956, the Chinese started building a road from Yarkand to Gartok, 1,200-km long with about 180 km in Aksai Chin claimed by India! The joke is that the Chinese completed a road right across 'our territory' without us knowing about it till 1957 - from press reports in China congratulating the building of the road!
Nehru kept this hidden from Parliament till 1959, till a patrol sent to establish the configuration of the road just disappeared.
Okie I am confused. We knew in 1957 and parliament was not informed till 1959? Who is this "we", does it include everybody excluding the parliamentarians? And Nehru kept this hidden? How come Nehru could keep some 300 plus people from knowing this, when
"we" knew. Again statements without anything to back them up. Can the author please give us one convincing reason, without making outlandish claims. But this article is nothing but baked outlandish claims stitched together on tits and bits which have no bearing.
But the fault for deciding on a collision course was set by Nehru by his inexplicable intransigent approach. He and the country paid a heavy price for this. While claiming Aksai Chin, Nehru defended the government's ignorance of the road by stating that it was remote, no one lived there, nothing grew there, etc.
Again we see the author blaming JLN. And Aksai Chin is a place which is remote, no one lives there and nothing grows there. What JLN stated was true then and is true even today. But we should not forget the author is in thrall of the so called supermen called English. How dare some brown fella try to claim what is his right? Did he take lessons from the english on how to do it?
We unilaterally drew borders that even the British, a more powerful nation, took care not to.
We did not draw any borders. We simply reiterated our position.
To effect a border settlement would mean to admit the tacit error of Nehru and exorcising the belief that we were innocent victims in 1962 and that the Chinese cannot be trusted.
JLN error was to allow his judgement to be clouded by incompetent soldiers and his defense minister. His error was believing that PRC/PLA would not march, because of the adversarial reaction from the world, as if in international relations it matters what one thinks of another. We were victims in 1962 and yes Chinese cannot be trusted.
Those who swear of "not letting go even an inch of territory" should be given guns and sent to the border.
I am all for it. If it increases the strength of the IA or IAF much good will come of it. And for those who believe that we should not do so, please feel free to live in a dream world where the English empire still exists. There are virtual worlds available where one can live in such fantasies.
The country is being held hostage to the ego and the Himalayan blunders of one man, long dead, and probably the worst first CEO of any major country.
Funny JLN was not the CEO but was the PM. But accuracy is not the hallmark of this article. This article makes outlandish claims, without any of its claims getting backed up. If the author can make the confusion between CEO and PM, if the author can make the claim that we knew in 1957 something, but was "kept hidden" from parliament till 1959 then we have to question the objectivity of the author. This articles is just a flawed view point held by an author. The author makes outlandish claims, British took advantage of Chinese Weakness or one of the most underhand deals of deceit took place during Shimla conference of 1913 and so on, without backing them up.
Basically the problem with all these authors, be it Neville or AG Noorani, is that they accept everything done by chinese as binding on India. They claim that since Chinese did not accept the so called MacMohan line, it is an invalid border and the onus is on India to somehow satisfy the Chinese.
