Bharat Rakshak

tsarkar wrote:
https://salute.co.in/cover-story-tibet- ... -nathu-la/

COVER STORY-TIBET ABANDONED AND THE LESSONS OF NATHU LA
written by Maj Chandrakant Singh, VrC August 14, 2017

The stand off between Indian and Chinese troops on the Dolam plateau in Bhutan has all the potential of leading to full scale war. My Battalion 4 Guards (1RAJPUT) has had three tenures in Sikkim including two at Jelep La and I have been fortunate to have visited the state several times thereafter. I also have personally known Gen. Sagat Singh and the Sikkimese Princesses Pema Tseuden and Pema Choki whose contributions to India and Tibet need to be better known.

The Chumbi Valley is like a dagger pointed at the neck. Only a thin strip of land between the Himalayan state of Bhutan and Tibet connect Assam to the rest of India. In 1903 it was through the Jalep La pass and Chumbi Valley that the Younghusband mission went to Lhasa massacring many innocent and unarmed Tibetans on the way. Not many people know that both the 1890 Anglo Chinese Convention and the 1893 Tibet Sikkim Convention have a Hong Kong link. The negotiations were carried out between two Englishmen Henry Durand from the Indian side and James Hart representing the Chinese Imperial Customs and Frontier Service. The British were keen to obtain concessions for their interests in China particularly Hong Kong and Kowloon. To obtain these they accepted some spurious demands of the Chinese. Hong Kong as an entre-port for opium was a more attractive market than barren Tibet. The 1890 treaty was thus signed by a Britisher who was employed by the Chinese, and not by any Chinese official! Also not well known is the fact that the Chumbi Valley towns of Gyantse and Yatung used to be the summer capitals of Sikkim till 1948.In 1903, it was through the Jelep La pass and Chumbi Valley that the Young husband mission went to Lhasa massacring many innocent and unarmed Tibetans on the way.

History

Chinese claims over Tibet are weak at best, notwithstanding their high decibel claims that Tibet was always a part of China, which is not factual. Chinese claims on Tibet are premised on the fact that during the reign of the Mongol Emperor Chengez Khan and his heirs particularly Kublai Khan when Marco polo visited China, Tibetan representatives were seen in the Court at Peking. But at that time, China itself was a part of the Mongolian Empire and Tibet and Mongolia have always had close relations which continue even till today. When Chengez and Kublai ruled China, the relationship between Tibet and Mongolia was never between master and vassal, but as equals. So why did Nehru cede Tibet to China?

Nehru’s knowledge of history was sketchy and moreover stemmed from the viewpoint of the English, who wrote that history. But more than his lack of knowledge of history was his shocking ignorance of geography. In a letter he wrote to the Chief Ministers during his journey from Sikkim to Bhutan via the Chumbi Valley, he expressed surprise at seeing trees and forests when all he expected was a barren waste land, which perhaps also explains why he thought Ladakh too was a wasteland where not a blade of grass grew! His admiration of the socialist cause and the Stalinist model of governance made him more amenable to the Chinese viewpoint at the expense of the Tibetan people, which has led to the near extinction of an ancient civilisation and people, and also created an insoluble problem for India. Morally and legally, the ‘Hanification’ of the Tibetan population is genocide by another name. Linguistically, racially, culturally, and genetically the Tibetan are a different race from the Han Chinese and so are the Mongols, Manchurians, and many other ethnic minority groups, millions of whom have been killed in the process of Hanification.

Few people know that prior to the adoption of Buddhism as a state religion and its emphasis on ahimsa as a guiding principle for state policy and individual conduct, the Tibetans were a powerful and warlike people who dominated an immense swath of land starting from China to Western Iran. This lesson perhaps must never be lost on nations who seek to maintain their independence. Also not well known is the fact that when the Chinese Army invaded Tibet in 1950, they found themselves short of food even after having ransacked the country side of all food supplies. It was the Nehru government which supplied huge quantities of rice from India via Jelep La Pass in Sikkim. Then, in 1952, Nehru agreed to downgrade India’s representation in Tibet to consul general, implicitly conceding that Tibet’s foreign relations were controlled by China. Two years later he agreed to withdraw the Indian Military posts and trade representative from the Chumbi Valley that had been established by Young husband. During the hasty and ill planned withdrawal from Yatung and Gyantse several lives were lost including that of the Company Commander of the 2nd Battalion Jat Regiment Major Nagal, whose son, Lt Gen BS Nagal is the present Director of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS). With great difficulty and persuasion was a team from 1Maratha under Major Brar allowed to proceed to Yatung and recover the bodies (Brar later rose to the rank of Lt Gen. and is more prominently known for his role in clearing the Golden Temple of terrorists). Nehru also had the telegraphic link to Lhasa and other facilities handed over to China. India thus, not only gave up all claims in Tibet but also surrendered Tibet’s rights to have independent relations with the outside world. India’s trade representatives at Kashgar, Gartok, Yatung and Gyantse were withdrawn cutting off centuries old links to Tibet. In the Panchsheel Agreement signed a year later at the Bandung Conference, whatever residual interests and rights that India had in Tibet evaporated.

Another fact which has been kept hidden from the gaze of the Indian public is that in 1951, just after the relics of the Buddha’s disciples which had been returned by UK had been exhibited in Gangtok and Kalimpong, India not only facilitated the journey to Lhasa but played host to the newly appointed Chinese Military Governor of Tibet, General Chang Chin Wu even after having received reports of atrocities being committed by the first batch of Chinese invaders led by General Liu Po Cheng. At this point in time, access to Tibet from China was very difficult, so much so that the Chinese Military Governor of Tibet had to proceed to Lhasa via Calcutta and Sikkim like Younghusband before him. If one Chinaman found it difficult to go to Lhasa directly how much more difficult it would have been to move an entire Army and then support it. India’s blindness after Independence led to the fiasco in 1962.
PRINCESS PEMA TSEUDEN OF SIKKIM WAS MARRIED TO A HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OF TIBET WHO BELONGED TO A NOBLE FAMILY RELATED TO AN EARLIER DALAI LAMA. IT WAS SHE WHO WARNED THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OF THE INVASION OF TIBET BY CHINA IN 1950. SHE WAS KNOWN FOR HER BEAUTY, CHARM, SOPHISTICATION AND DEDICATION TO THE TIBETAN CAUSE. MANY PEOPLE WHO MET HER WERE CAPTIVATED BY HER AND EVEN NEHRU WAS REPUTED TO HAVE BEEN ENTRANCED. AFTER THE TAKEOVER OF TIBET BY CHINA SHE MOVED TO CALCUTTA AND STARTED A BUSINESS MANUFACTURING TIBETAN JEWELLERY. NEHRU HAD ARRANGED A LICENCE FOR HER TO IMPORT SEMI-PRECIOUS STONES. FOR MANY YEARS SHE WAS THE BEST SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THE HAPPENINGS INSIDE TIBET AND OUR INTELLIGENCE BUREAU AND THE CIA MADE USE OF HER SERVICES AND THOSE OF HER SISTER PEMA CHOKI MORE POPULARLY KNOWN AS PRINCESS KULA.

The Face-off at Nathu La At this point, mention need to be made of what happened in 1967, just a few years after the debacle in 1962. Here, the role of General Sagat Singh needs special mention. Sagat is rightfully remembered for his role in the 1971 War, but to me, his audacity and moral courage in disregard of his superior’s orders in taking on the Chinese in Sikkim in 1965 and 1967 is unequalled. It must not be forgotten that these actions took place just three years after India had been humiliated by the Chinese in 1962. Our Government and the defence establishment was extremely apprehensive and nervous about our Army’s ability to handle the Chinese. Sagat however had no such doubts and turned the tables on the Chinese. For this action alone he deserves a special place in the annals of Indian military history, for the action at Nathu La restored our self-confidence and pride which proved to be battle winning factors in 1971.

In 1965, during the Indo Pakistan War, the Chinese, in order to help Pakistan, issued an ultimatum to India to vacate Nathu La, Jelep La and the adjacent passes on the Sikkim Tibet boundary. General Manekshaw was the Eastern Army Commander and General Aurora was GOC XXXIII CORPS under whom was 17 Division with Sagat as GOC at Gantok, responsible for Nathu La and Cho La. Jelep La near the tri-junction of India, Bhutan and Tibet was under GOC 27 Mountain Division. Eastern Command and HQ XXXIII Corps had issued orders to 17 Div and 27 Div that in case of hostilities they were to vacate the posts on the watershed and fall back to the depth positions at Chhangu and Lumthu respectively, leaving behind only observation posts at the passes.

Sagat however felt that the natural boundary was the watershed at the passes and adjoining heights and refused to pull back his troops. Instead, he went about having the border demarcated by laying a wire fence at the pass to clearly demarcate the boundary. Sagat understood that in the mountains, anyone who controlled the heights had an unassailable advantage so he went about strengthening his positions and siting his observation posts from where they could look deep into the Chumbi Valley and bring down effective artillery fire right up to Yatung. There was a lot of pushing and jostling the like of which we have seen recently on TV but Sagat refused to budge and in fact at Cho La which is a few kilometres North of Nathu La there was a fire fight and the Chinese were pushed back a couple of kilometres.

Whilst Sagat’s Division was holding its ground and refusing to vacate the dominating features, the GOC of 27 Division at Jelep La and the Tri-junction area withdrew his troops to the rear positions vacating the dominating heights which were promptly occupied by the Chinese. This domination of the heights is what is making the Chinese assume an aggressive posture. The defence of this area is critical for India, should we lose it then it is all the way downhill to the plains of North Bengal and the narrow strip of land barely thirty kilometres wide that connects Assam to the rest of the country. Having gained an upper hand at Jelep La, the Chinese felt confident enough to try their luck again at Nathu La in 1967 but here they did not take into account the presence of Sagat. Having gained an upper hand in 1965 he was not the man to give it up, come what may. He had appreciated that dominating Nathu La was critical to the defence of Gangtok which is a few thousand feet lower and not too far from the pass. Loss of Nathu La would thus endanger Gangtok. So, keeping the national interest in mind, he was prepared to take on the Chinese with all the resources at his command, even at the risk of incurring the disapproval of his superior commanders and putting his career on the line.

On 13 August 1967 our observation posts reported that some Chinese troops had crossed over and dug some trenches on our side of the border. When they were challenged they filled up the trenches and withdrew. But they installed several loud speakers and beamed propaganda on to our side. Sagat countered this by installing more powerful loudspeakers in a tit for tat game of one-upmanship. He however realised that the Chinese were starting something new and after getting a clearance from Corps Headquarters decided to demarcate the border and strengthen the barbed wire fencing with concertina coils. The Chinese tried to prevent this and several eye ball to eye ball encounters which ended in scuffles took place. The Jat troops of 3 Grenadiers like all Jats are big in build and have a powerful physique so they always got the better of the Chinese. The Chinese, realising that they could not best the Grenadiers started to resort to stone pelting which was answered in a like manner by our troops. Several minor injuries were sustained by troops on both sides. On 11 December things came to a head when the Chinese opened fire on our troops laying the wire. Col Rai Singh, CO 2 Grenadiers was hit and so were several other troops. Seeing their CO hit, the Grenadiers went mad with rage and charged the enemy positions. Several of our men were mowed by Chinese machine guns but some managed to reach their bunkers and took on the Chinese with their bayonets and hand to hand combat. But a company of 18 Rajputs and the Engineer personnel laying the wire were caught in the open and suffered heavy casualties. Sagat, as was his habit, was close to the front. Seeing the situation had escalated and we had suffered considerable casualties, he ordered artillery fire from his medium 5.5 inch guns to be brought down on the Chinese positions. Ever since he had taken over 17 Division in 1965 he had positioned his artillery observation posts on heights overlooking the Chinese positions not only in the front but deep inside Chumbi Valley upto and beyond Yatung. These artillery OPs did a sterling job, and the Chinese positions at Nathu La were devastated and positions in the rear were also targeted and destroyed. Sagat as a Divisional Commander did not have the authority to open fire with his medium guns, so the moment HQ Eastern Command and XXXIII came to know that he had deployed his medium guns they called for an explanation. Anticipating this, Sagat made himself unavailable on radio and telephone and continued to conduct the battle according to his own plan till all Chinese positions at the pass had been neutralised. Thereafter, a ceasefire was declared and bodies of the dead exchanged. Many acts of unprecedented valour were performed and Sagat ensured that they received due recognition. There were also a few cases of desertion of duty which Sagat enquired into and the guilty were brought before courts martial and those found guilty were punished. We had suffered heavy casualties — 65 dead and about 145 wounded — but the Chinese had lost many times more. Their dead were about three hundred and of the wounded about twice that number. After the ceasefire when normalcy had returned Sagat’s Division was in a commanding and advantageous position at Nathu La, but his superiors were none too pleased at his open defiance of their instructions and after a couple of months Sagat was shifted to the command of a non-operational formation, 101 Communication Zone based at Shillong. But no one could keep Sagat down, for just a few months later, Sagat was leading the campaign against the rebels in Mizo Hills and in two years had successfully restored normalcy.

Whereas Sagat went on to win further laurels in the service of India his counterpart, the obedient commander of 27 Division at Jelep La who vacated the pass when not even threatened has left behind a permanent headache and security problem for India. The problem has got more complicated as the exact spot where the recent incident has taken place lies within Bhutan and we are guarantors of Bhutan’s defence. It was heartening to see big built Sikhs pushing back the Chinese in the present face off at Dolam.

At this point in time, access to Tibet from China was very difficult, so much so that the Chinese Military Governor of Tibet had to proceed to Lhasa via Calcutta and Sikkim like Younghusband before him. If one Chinaman found it difficult to go to Lhasa directly how much more difficult it would have been to move an entire Army and then support it. India’s blindness after Independence led to the fiasco in 1962.

Suraj wrote:

srin wrote:Regarding Taiwan, IIRC Taiwan has the same PRC policy for Tibet. So, asking us to abandon the "One China" policy related to Taiwan but without being explicit about their stance on Tibet is a bit disingenous.

I think we should publicly revoke the "One china" policy regarding Tibet. As far as Taiwan goes, it should be reciprocated by their revocation of claims over Tibet and shifting a significant percentage of investment of Taiwanese companies (like Foxconn) to India.

No this is incorrect. Please see the following series of conversations earlier in this thread:
Does Taiwan have the same territorial claims China makes ?
This is a very common sleight of hand, and almost always performed by Chinese and their western puppets. If we are going to seriously discuss China topics, it's important to understand the basis of these claims in detail instead of making easily digestible but misleading comments like this. Not blaming you - this kind of simple interjection is FUD the Chinese want to see.

For many in Taiwan today, the Republic of China seems like a historical relic with diminishing relevance for the democracy of 24 million people. Taiwan has long abandoned Chiang’s goal of reconquering what he knew as the mainland, and polls show that more and more Taiwanese don’t want any unification with China.

But celebrating the Republic of China is strategically useful for Tsai’s government. It allows her to sidestep the question of formal independence, avoiding a potentially devastating conflict with China while providing cover to create a distinct political and cultural identity for Taiwan -- ultimately undermining President Xi Jinping’s goal of subsuming it under Communist Party rule.

sudarshan wrote:End result is the same anyways, and should certainly be treated the same - firing squad. What to do onlee - many moons ago, yours truly was so misguided that he took it upon himself to compose a poem for Nehru on "children's day" (in English of course) and even proudly recited it in front of the entire school assembly . Trying to do prayaschittam/ atonement now, but gilty pheeling not going away wonlee .

sudarshan wrote:......many moons ago, yours truly was so misguided that he took it upon himself to compose a poem for Nehru on "children's day" (in English of course) and even proudly recited it in front of the entire school assembly . .....

sudarshan wrote:End result is the same anyways, and should certainly be treated the same - firing squad. What to do onlee - many moons ago, yours truly was so misguided that he took it upon himself to compose a poem for Nehru on "children's day" (in English of course) and even proudly recited it in front of the entire school assembly . Trying to do prayaschittam/ atonement now, but gilty pheeling not going away wonlee .

suryag wrote: Dont tell me you composed the song "chacha nehru purush mahaan" that we used to sing in school

g.sarkar wrote:Chetakji,
The current standoff in South China Sea,Taiwan and Ladakh, to name a few hot spots created by China, cannot continue forever. Either China will have to back down and assume a more benign posture or it will escalate and start a war with the rest of the world. The Kra Canal is not a project that can be implemented any time soon. It is at least a few years away, and so its effect in the present confrontation with China is zero. China’s predatory behavior with smaller nations is now well known. It has embarked on an era of Neo-colonialism in Africa and Asia. We all know how China now controls the Sri Lanka port of Hambantota and the Pakistani port of Gadwar. Under the present circumstances Thailand may not fall for Chinese tricks. Of course we should not underestimate the power of Chinese bribery.
Gautam

srin wrote:Ultimately, irrespective of who builds the Kra canal, the one who controls the Kra canal is the one who controls the Thai Govt. Suez got nationalized. So, builder can get shafted.
And Thailand is borderline stable and can become Nepal (ie go under Chinese thumb) overnight.
Though the gap between Andamans and Nicobars (ten degree channel) is huge, by putting a transhipment port in either place, we can neutralize the Kra.
The Kra is more of a threat to Singapore than to India.

The US has signed a framework for defence cooperation with the Maldives to deepen engagement in support of maintaining peace and security in the strategic Indian Ocean

Adrija wrote:Chetak ji, not sure if Kra canal would be the "get out of jail" card as much as the Hans hope.... both the entry and exit points are as vulnerable to Khan chokehold as the Malacca Straits ones are. Someone already has commented on this on the board in detail IIRC so will refrain from repeating it fully. But the entry is through Andaman Sea (India controlled) and exit is South China Sea (Khan's lake)...

The only real options for the Hans is overland (CPEC/ Central Asia OBOR) and hence whole the whole splash there...

JM2paise and IMVVHO and all that of course

I always go for chana masala and naan, tweets Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen
https://www.wionews.com/india-news/i-al ... wen-335385

chetak wrote: g.sarkar saar,
whether the cra canal is delayed, takes time or is done eventually by non cheeni companies, the effect is one and the same.
the kra stays out of cheeni hands, out of their sphere of influence and is not available to them in times of need.
.....

China angered as U.S. names human rights envoy for Tibet
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKBN2700W3
...
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Wednesday that Robert Destro, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, would assume the additional post, which has been vacant since the start of President Donald Trump’s term in 2017.
...

https://www.law.edu/about-us/faculty-an ... index.html
Robert A. Destro is Professor of Law and founding Director of the Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion at The Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C. He has been a member of the faculty since 1982 and served as Interim Dean from 1999-2001. From 1983 to 1989 Professor Destro served as a Commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights, and led the Commission's discussions in the areas of discrimination on the basis of disability, national origin and religion.
Expertise
International Human Rights
Freedom of Religion
Speech
and Association
Bioethics

g.sarkar wrote:

chetak wrote: g.sarkar saar,
whether the cra canal is delayed, takes time or is done eventually by non cheeni companies, the effect is one and the same.
the kra stays out of cheeni hands, out of their sphere of influence and is not available to them in times of need.
.....

Sirji,
What I am trying to say in my poor ability of expression, is that if it takes 5-10 years to build the Cra, China is either the godfather of the whole world. Or it has been broken up into pieces in trying to become a super power. Cra is not going to affect China right now, when it needs all the help it can get.
Gautam

darshan wrote:

China angered as U.S. names human rights envoy for Tibet
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKBN2700W3
...
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Wednesday that Robert Destro, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, would assume the additional post, which has been vacant since the start of President Donald Trump’s term in 2017.
...

V_Raman wrote:all this also feels like encirclement of India by the USA - they are killing 2 birds in one agreement with maldives.

Philip wrote:Intel says that he bit off more of India than he could chew!

Philip wrote:Intel says that he bit off more of India than he could chew!

On a more serious note, " Crook" Abdullah should be arrested for treason for calling upon the PRC to help liberate J&K or words to that effect. Like Vidkun Quisling, and "Lord Haw Haw", William Joyce, both names became synonymous with traitors,we can now add the name " Abdullah" to the list of rogues why betrayed their country. GOI, please arrest this traitor immediaptely.

V_Raman wrote:all this also feels like encirclement of India by the USA - they are killing 2 birds in one agreement with maldives.

nandakumar wrote:Someone in one of the mail group that I am part of said during one of recent public appearances Xi Jinping was found coughing uncontrollably and the State Television was desperately trying to edit it out. It was not sourced to any media outlet or person. Does anyone have any information on this?

V_Raman wrote:all this also feels like encirclement of India by the USA - they are killing 2 birds in one agreement with maldives.

chetak wrote:

V_Raman wrote:all this also feels like encirclement of India by the USA - they are killing 2 birds in one agreement with maldives.

for what it is worth, the US actually consulted India before it went ahead and signed the agreement with the maldives.

nandakumar wrote:chetak
Take a look at the news report a few hours ago in adelaidenow.com which I suppose is an online news media outlet from Australia.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/wor ... 4fc284dcc7

South Block’s mistakes will now be corrected by Army

Indian diplomats have committed several blunders while negotiating with the Chinese in the past. It is thus heartening to have the Army commandeer border talks this time around.

Claude Arpi
October 15, 2020

The most vital concern today is not to lose the advantages gained on the ground at a negotiating table, as it has often happened in the past. So far, nothing has been lost during the seven rounds of border talks conducted in Ladakh, by Lt Gen Harinder Singh, the commander of the Leh-based 14 Corps.

After five months since the beginning of the standoff with China in eastern Ladakh, it is time to draw up a temporary balance sheet of the conflict. Militarily, India’s position changed for the better on the night of 29-30 August, when Tibetan commandos occupied the ridges south of Pangong Lake. It was an important strategic victory, but also a psychological one, showing that the Tibetans are with India in the battle against China’s hegemonic advances.

The most vital concern today is not to lose the advantages gained on the ground at a negotiating table, as it has often happened in the past. So far, nothing has been lost during the seven rounds of border talks conducted in Ladakh, by Lt Gen Harinder Singh, the commander of the Leh-based 14 Corps. However, to have transferred the ‘ground’ negotiation from the Ministry of External Affairs is a victory in itself. In the past, the MEA has often been the weak ‘diplomatic’ link, as the mandarins are often satisfied by simply ‘cutting the apple in two’. The ‘original sin’ of the present situation on the Indian border is due to this particular weakness. While it had been known for years that China was building a road across the Aksai Chin, South Block had kept quiet, probably to not offend Mao and his cohorts.

On 18 October 1958, the then Foreign Secretary had politely written to the Chinese Ambassador that Delhi’s attention had been drawn to the fact that China had built a road “across the eastern part of the Ladakh region of the Jammu Kashmir state, which is part of India. This road seems to form part of the Chinese road known as YehchangGartok or Sinkiang Tibet highway, the completion of which was announced in September 1957.”

The Indian official had complained: “In view of [this], it is matter of surprise and regrets that the Chinese government should have constructed a road through indisputably Indian territory without first obtaining the permission of the Government of India and without even informing the Government of India.” With the danger of such a preposterous reaction looming large over Ladakh, one can only rejoice that the government has involved mainly the Army in the talks. As mentioned in a previous column, it was nevertheless positive that Naveen Srivastava, the MEA Joint Secretary dealing with China, was present in Moldo/Chushul.

Lt Gen P.G. Kamath, a defence analyst (and a ‘thinking general’) recently wrote, “I have always been rubbing the point that the MEA is a relic of the Nehruvian era and is unable to respond to the extremely fluid and dynamic geostrategic imperatives. To make matters worse, we have put a career diplomat in charge of the MEA.” However, the presence of S. Jaishankar, with his ‘chromosomic’ antecedents (his father being one of the sharpest Indian strategists) and his long experience in the Ministry, has definitively brought improvements, though the minister has had to deal with the antiquated work culture and old mindset of an ‘elite’ corps, who has a tendency to think that they know everything.

The problem is compounded by a series of innumerable blunders committed by South Block over the decades — to give a few examples, the Nehru government remaining quiet when the Indian Consulate in Kashgar was closed by China in December 1949, (“we can do nothing about it, the times have changed”); the weak protests made when Tibet was invaded 70 years ago; and, in 1954, the Panchsheel Agreement not only giving away the Indian rights in Tibet to China, (which included military escorts), but worse, the border issue not even being brought to the table, with the consequences that we see today in Ladakh. The first three ‘principles’ promised “mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty”, “mutual non-aggression”, and mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.” By accepting that Tibet belonged to China, India could no longer claim her genuine interests in Tibet. Today, what makes things more complicated is that the Indian diplomacy accepted the concept of a Line of Actual Control (LAC) which has never existed on a map or on the ground.

The recent blitzkrieg from Beijing about a November 1959 LAC is pure Information Warfare (IW) using some gullible Indian newspapers. Where is the Line that Zhou Enlai mentioned on 7 November 1959 to Nehru? Is there a map? On what is it based — on a clearly-defined watershed, on customary rights of the local grazers, on land or house taxations? No, it is pure Chinese bluff. But there is worse: the MEA has inked several agreements with China, forgetting to define the main object of the accords — the LAC. It is hard to believe that Delhi signed on the dotted line without any definition or map of the LAC, leaving sufficient space to Beijing to change the posts. On 7 September 1993, India and China entered into an agreement “in accordance with the Five Principles” which speak of the “Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the LAC,” but nowhere is the LAC itself defined, though it says, “… pending an ultimate solution to the boundary question… the two sides shall strictly respect and observe the LAC between the two sides.” It is truly amazing, but there is no map of the LAC in the Western Sector even today.

Then, on 29 November 1996, an agreement “on Confidences Building Measures in the Military Field along the LAC” was negotiated, “believing that it serves the fundamental interests of the peoples of India and China to foster a long-term goodneighbourly relationship in accordance with the five principles.” Both parties were “convinced that the maintenance of peace and tranquility along the LAC in the India-China border areas accords with the fundamental interests of the two peoples.” Yet again, the LAC was not defined or delineated. In 2000, both sides agreed that they would initiate a process for the clarification and determination of the LAC in all sectors of the boundary.

A meeting took place in March 2000, where maps of the middle sector were exchanged. On 17 June 2002, both sides met again and maps of the Western Sector were seen by both sides for about 20 minutes, before the Chinese withdrew their maps. Ten years later, in January 2012, there was still no map when both sides established “a Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination” which mentioned a non-existent LAC: “Firmly believing that respecting and abiding by the LAC pending a resolution of the Boundary Question between the two countries.” Then, on 23 October 2013, an official accord acknowledged “the need to continue to maintain peace, stability and tranquility along the LAC in the India-China border areas and to continue implementing confidence building measures in the military field along the Line of Actual Control.” It spoke in particular of “flag meetings or border personnel meetings at designated places along the LAC.” But where is this LAC? This time, the Indian Army will make sure that China does not escape without the proper definition of a line that the Indian jawans can defend. The nation has its fingers crossed.

The writer is a French-born author, journalist, historian, Tibetologist and China expert. The views expressed are personal.

Don’t Comment On Our Internal Affairs If You Expect Us To Not Comment On Yours: India Warns China Amid Worsening Tensions In Ladakh



Swarajya Staff
Oct 16, 2020

The Ministry of External Affairs on Thursday delivered a sharp warning to China after its comments on India’s internal matters, including New Delhi’s decision last year to give Ladakh the status of a Union Territory.

This comment was made in response to China’s statement earlier this week, in which it had said it “does not recognize the Ladakh Union Territory illegally set up by India. China had also said that the development of infrastructure in border areas is “the root cause for the tensions between the two sides”.

Dismissing the first claim, MEA spokesperson Anurag Srivastava has said the Union Territories of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh “ have been, are, and would remain an integral part of India”. Srivastava added that China has no locus standi to comment on this issue as it is an internal matter of India.

“We hope that countries will not comment on India’s internal matters, as much as they expect the same of others,” he said, warning China.

The MEA also dismissed China’s claim on Arunachal Pradesh, the northeastern Indian state claimed by China as “south Tibet”.

Arunachal “is an integral and inalienable part of India,” Srivastava said.

Philip wrote: On a more serious note, " Crook" Abdullah should be arrested for treason for calling upon the PRC to help liberate J&K or words to that effect. Like Vidkun Quisling, and "Lord Haw Haw", William Joyce, both names became synonymous with traitors,we can now add the name " Abdullah" to the list of rogues why betrayed their country. GOI, please arrest this traitor immediately.