Boundary, sovereignty, and imagination

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes See Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question (hereafter Boundary Question) (New Delhi, 1961). Sir E. Gait, A History of Assam, Second Edition (Guwahati, Assam, 1992 reprint), 303–09; M. Bose, British Policy in the North-East Frontier Agency (New Delhi, 1979), 47–100; and M. Aris, ‘Notes on the History of the Mon-yul Corridor’, in M. Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi (eds.), Tibetan Studies: In Honour of Hugh Richardson (Warminster, 1980), 9–13. This included the dispatch of envoys from the tribal chieftains to join the ceremonial functions held by British India, and the exchange of gifts and letters at a semi-official level. See H.E. Richardson, Tibetan Precis (Calcutta, 1945), 110–19; J.N. Chowdhury, Arunachal Pradesh: From Frontier Tracts to Union Territory (New Delhi, 1983), 199–225; and F.M. Bailey, China-Tibet-Assam: A Journey, 1911 (London, 1945). On the British expedition to Lhasa in 1904, see F. Younghusband, India and Tibet: A History of the Relations which have Subsisted between the Two Countries from the Time of Warren Hastings to 1910; with a Particular Account of the Mission to Lhasa of 1904 (Hong Kong, 1985 reprint). See E. Sperling, ‘The Chinese Venture in K'am, 1904–1911’, Tibet Journal, 1, 2 (1976), 10–36; and R.H.G. Lee, ‘Frontier Politics in the Southwestern Sino-Tibetan Borderlands during the Ch'ing Dynasty’, in Joshua Fogel and William Rowe (eds.), Perspectives on a Changing China: Essays in Honor of Professor C. Martin Wilbur on the Occasion of His Retirement (Boulder, CO, 1979), 35–68. P. Mehra, The McMahon Line and After: A Study of the Triangular Contest on India's North-eastern Frontier Between Britain, China and Tibet 1904–47 (London, 1974), 103–70; and C. Christie, ‘Great Britain, China and the Status of Tibet, 1914–1921’, Modern Asian Studies, 10, 4 (1976), 481–508. A. Lamb, The McMahon Line: A Study in the Relations between India, China and Tibet, 1904–1914 (London, 1966); and M. Goldstein, A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State (Berkeley, CA, 1989), 65–76. C. Sen, Tibet Disappears: A Documentary History of Tibet's International Status (London, 1960), 63–64; W.W. Smith, Jr., Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations (Boulder, CO, 1996), 200–02. It should be pointed out that these exchanged notes were not communicated to the Chinese government afterwards. The Chinese abstention from these discussions and exchanges of notes allowed the subsequent Chinese Nationalist and Communist regimes to maintain that the McMahon Line was invalid and had no legal basis. See also the following discussion. Mehra, The McMahon Line and After, 295–346; and I. Klein, ‘British Imperialism in Decline: Tibet, 1914–1921’, Historian, 34: 1 (1971), 100–15. Largely relying on Qing Chinese unpublished official archives and primary sources, Feng Mingzhu's work provides a detailed account of the Sino-British negotiations over the Tibetan issue after the Simla Conference, see Feng, Jindai Zhong-Ying Xizang jiaoshe yu Chuan-Zang bianqing (Sino-British negotiations over Tibetan issues and Sichuan-Tibetan border affairs in the modern era) (Taipei, 1996). On Chiang Kai-shek's regime and the history of the Nationalist era, see J.E. Sheridan, China In Disintegration: The Republican Era in Chinese History 1912-1949 (New York, 1975); F.G. Chan and T.H. Etzold, China in the 1920s: Nationalism and Revolution (New York, 1976); and L. Eastman, The Nationalist Era in China, 1927–1949 (Cambridge, 1991). L. Benson, The Ili Rebellion: The Moslem Challenge to Chinese Authority in Xinjiang, 1944–1949 (London, 1990), 10–19. The political belief that the Kuomintang regime would try every possible means to reinforce its lost authority into Tibet can also be found in the analytical reports of foreign powers (particularly the British) in the 1930s. See Confidential report written by C.G.N. Edwards (Foreign and Political Department, Government of India) to D. Macdonald (former British Political Officer in Sikkim), 28 April 1931, L/P&S/12/3977, Oriental and India Office Collections (OIOC), British Library; and Sir Eric Teichman's memo, Foreign Office, Sept. 1933, 48–49, OIOC, L/P&S/20/D219. The four new provinces in Inner Mongolia are Chahar, Rehe (Jehol), Suiyuan and Ningxia. See Tien Hung-mao, Government and Politics in Kuomintang China, 1927–1937 (Stanford, CA, 1971), 5–15. E. Teichman, Travels of a Consular Officer in Eastern Tibet (Cambridge, 1922), 33; Hu Jilu (ed.), Xikang Jiangyu Suogu lu (A collection of the traces of the history of Xikang territory) (Taipei, 1970 reprint), 68–69. Since the early Republican China, wars had occurred periodically between the Chinese and the Tibetans. The largest armed clashed occurred in 1917–18, when Tibetan troops came into conflict with the Chinese garrison troops stationed in Sichuan. The Chinese were badly defeated, and eventually the British stepped in to negotiate a truce. A de facto boundary was reached along the Upper Yangtze River, which the Chinese subsequently never recognised. See unpublished manuscript by Shi Qingyang (Head of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, Nationalist Government), 1933 (n.d.), President Chiang Kai-shek Papers (CKSP), Tejiao Dang'an (Miscellaneous papers), Vol.58, Academia Historica (Taipei); and Teichman, Travels of a Consular Office, 52–59. Government of India to India Office, extracted from the Foreign Office memo, 17 Aug. 1936, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4188. On the Xikang provincial boundary in the 1930s China, see Ding Wenjiang et al. (eds.), Zhonghua Minguo Xinditu (The new map of the Republic of China) (Shanghai, 1934), plate 50. Ouyang Wuwei, Dawang Diaocha ji (An investigation of the Tawang area) (Taipei, 1954 reprint); and G. Samuel, Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Society (Washington, DC, 1993), 68–70. In his report to Nanking in the summer of 1929, Liu Wenhui noted candidly that the creation of Xikang province was in fact impractical, owing not only to the extremely poor conditions of infrastructure, finance and tax revenues in that area, but also to the fact that nearly two-thirds of the theoretical provincial territory was actually in the hands of the Tibetans, thus making the declaration of this province entirely unrealistic. See ‘Liu Wenhui's proposal with regards to the making of Xikang province’, in Meng-Zang Weiyuanhui Gongbao (Gazette of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission), 3/4 (Aug. 1929), Nanking, 2–5. Bose, British Policy in the North-East Frontier Agency, 175–208; A. Lamb, Tibet, China & India 1914–1950: A History of Imperial Diplomacy (Hertingfordbury, 1989), 12–21. Foreign Office to India Office, 21 Dec. 1917, OIOC, L/P&S/10/3260. In 1907 Britain and Russia reduced the tensions of the Great Game by concluding a treaty addressing their relative spheres of influence in Inner Asia. Persia was divided between British and Russian influence; Russia recognised Britain's predominant interests in Afghanistan; Russia also recognised that Britain had a special interest in the maintenance of the status quo in the external relations of Tibet. Both parties recognised China's ‘suzerainty’ in Tibet, and agreed neither to interfere in the internal affairs of Tibet nor to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese government. See I. Klein, ‘The Anglo-Russian Convention and the Problem of Central Asia, 1907–1914’, Journal of British Studies, 11, 1 (1971), 126–47. India Office to Foreign Office, 8 March 1920, OIOC, L/P&S/10/3260; and Memo by Eric Teichman, enclosed in Foreign Office to India Office, 18 May 1920, OIOC, L/P&S/10/716. India Office to Foreign Office, 3 July 1925; India Office to the Government of India, 13 Aug. 1925; and Foreign Office to India Office, 27 July 1925, OIOC, L/P&S/10/857. However, it should be noted that parts of the 1914 Anglo-Tibetan agreement had been included in the 1929 edition of the Treaties. The most important piece included the McMahon-Lonchen Shatra notes, but without the accompanying maps. See Sir Charles Aitchison (ed.), A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads: Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries, Vols. 12 & 14 (Calcutta, 1929), esp. the Tibet section. Government of India to India Office, 22 May 1928; India Office minute paper, 19 June 1928; and Foreign Office to India Office, 5 July 1928, OIOC, L/P&S/10/1192. However, the Chinese source materials suggest that, as late as 1940 when the high-profile Kuomintang mission was sent to Lhasa to participate in the enthronement of the new 14th Dalai Lama, high officials of the Chinese government were still unaware of the existence of the McMahon Line. See Huang Musong, Wu Zhongxin, Zhao Shouyu, Dai Chuanxian, Fengshi Banli Zangshi Baogaoshu (Reports by Huang Musong, Wu Zhongxin, Zhao Shouyu and Dai Chuanxian of their missions in dealing with Tibetan affairs) (Beijing, 1993), 127–32, 197–98. Government of India to India Office, 17 Aug. 1936; and Minute by India Office, 22 Aug. 1936, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4188. Regarding Chinese cartographic attempts to absorb Indian borderlands and create the imaginary southwestern province of Xikang, officials of British India pointed out the Chinese custom of pretending that a state of affairs existed and so persuading as many people as possible that it did exist. Olaf Caroe, then head of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, particularly drew attention to the failure of British India to publish the 1914 agreement with Tibet relating to the Indo-Tibetan frontier. Knatchbull-Hugessen (British Ambassador to China) to Foreign Office, 12 Oct. 1936; and Foreign Office to the British Embassy in China, 24 Nov. 1936, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4188. The British might have been affected by the developments in Outer Mongolia. In March 1936 a ‘Protocol of Mutual Assistance’ between Soviet Russia and Mongolia was concluded. Chiang Kai-shek's government immediately sent a strong protest, asserting that the Protocol was ‘illegal’ and that China could in no circumstances recognise it or was in any way bound by it. Captain G.S. Lightfoot's report on the Tawang Expedition, 1938 (n.d.), enclosed in the Government of Assam to the Government of India, 7 Sept. 1938, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4200. Richardson, Tibetan Precis, 36; and Boundary Question, CR 48–49. Report by R.W. Godfrey (Political Officer at Sadiya Frontier Tract) on his tour to Rima, 1939, enclosed in the Government of Assam to the Government of India, 29 May 1939, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4213; and Richardson, Tibetan Precis, 36–37. Godfrey's travel report to Rima, 27 Feb. 1940, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4214; and Chowdhury, Arunachal Pradesh, 239–40. Conference minute, prepared by B.J. Gould and J.P. Mills, 1 Aug. 1940, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4200. Mehra, The McMahon Line and After, 439–41; Bose, British Policy in the North–East Frontier Agency, 140–74; and Chowdhury, Arunachal Pradesh, 187–226. N. Clifford, Retreat from China: British Policy in the Far East 1937–1941 (London, 1967), 149–50; and A.N. Young, China and the Helping Hand, 1937–1945 (Cambridge, MA, 1963), 216. Conference minute of the Executive Yuan of the Nationalist Government, 8 Feb. 1941; Ministry of Communication of the Nationalist Government to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 3 April 1941; and Executive Yuan to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 10 Feb. 1941, Chinese Foreign Ministry Archives (CFMA), 172-1/0099-1, Academia Historica (Taipei). Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission of the Nationalist Government to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 13 Sept. and 6 Oct. 1941; and Memo by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 10 Nov. 1941, CFMA, 172-1/0099-2. Conference minute of the Executive Yuan, 18 Oct. 1941; and Report submitted by the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission to the Nationalist Government, 10 Nov. 1941, CFMA, 172-1/0099-1. S. Dutta, ‘The Matak Kingdom and the Frontier Policy in the North-East’, in M.S. Sangma (ed.), Essays on North-East India (New Delhi, 1994), 165–82; and Lamb, Tibet, China & India 1914–1950, 456–57. Government of India to India Office, 11 March 1943, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4200; and Chowdhury, Arunachal Pradesh, 240–43. India Office to the Government of India, 17 April 1943, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4200; and Boundary Question, 201–11. On the origins of the NEFA, see also H.K. Barpujari, Problems of the Hill Tribes: North-East Frontier, 1873–1962 (Gauhati, Assam, 1981), Vol.3, 254–65. Report on the NEFA for the period from 23 Oct. 1943 to 30 June 1944, OIOC, L/P&S/12/3114; Intelligence report from the Chinese Ministry of Military Ordinance to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 30 May 1944; Xikang Provincial Government to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 7 July 1944; and Ministry of Military Ordinance to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 9 Oct. 1944, CFMA, 172-1/2670. The Kuomintang government came to know the British activities in Lower Zayul through the Tibetan officials stationed at Chamdo. According to the Chinese archival resources, the Lhasa authorities used to urge the British to leave Walong, yet the British refused to do so. Barpujari, Problems of the Hill Tribes, 265; Reports from the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 20, 24 July 1944; and Memo by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 2 Sept. 1944, CFMA, 172-1/2670. Sir B. Gould to the Government of India, 16 July 1944, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4214; and Memo by the Chinese Foreign Ministry entitled ‘Notes on the British invasion of Tawang’, 22 June 1946, CFMA, 172-1/2670. Gould to the Government of India, 1 Nov. 1944; and Government of India to India Office, 15 Nov. 1944, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4217. Memo by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 9 Oct. 1944; Ministry of Military Ordinance to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 13 March and 18 June 1945, CFMA, 172-1/2670; and Memo by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 29 Dec. 1944, CFMA, 172-1/0014. According to the recently released Chinese archival resources, the Kuomintang government had been trying to persuade the Tibetans to co-operate with the Chinese on the Indo-Tibetan frontier disputes. The Tibetans, although resentful at being deprived by the British of their rights in areas south of the McMahon Line, refused to allow the Chinese to get involved in their negotiations with the British. See Report from the Chinese Mission at Lhasa, enclosed in the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 2 Sept. 1947, CFMA, 172-1/0011. It is also important to note that both previous English-language studies and Chinese primary sources have suggested that, between January and October 1944, the Tibetan armed force did fight against British activities in Lower Zayul and some damage was caused as the result. See Lamb, Tibet, China & India 1914–1950, 463–64; and Confidential report from the Yunnan Provincial Government to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 19 Feb. 1945, CFMA, 172–1/2670. Sir Horace Seymour (British Ambassador to China) to Foreign Office, 2 March 1945, Foreign Office Record (FO), 436/16995 F1761/186/10, The National Archives, London (formerly Public Record Office); and Analytical report submitted by the Government of India to the India Office, 19 Sept. 1945, OIOC, L/WS/1/1042. This survey activity was perhaps the first and the last time the Kuomintang officials ever stepped onto the NEFA soil where they had long claimed sovereignty. On the investigative journey and the report, see Memo entitled ‘An investigative report on the Tawang and Zayul areas’, prepared by Qi Demao (Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission Special correspondent at Chamdo), enclosed in Chen Xizhang (Chinese Acting Representative to Lhasa) to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 13 Feb. 1946, CFMA, 172-1/2670. The over-optimistic views held by Kuomintang officials were sufficiently revealed in the following documents: Minute of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 8 Nov. 1945, CFMA, 172-1/0017; Memo entitled ‘A statement on stabilizing the situation in Tibet’, enclosed in Shen Zonglian (Chinese Representative to Lhasa) to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 26 Oct. 1946, CFMA, 172-1/0002; and Memo by the European Affairs Division of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 6 Nov. 1946, CFMA, 172-1/2670. Note from the Chinese Foreign Ministry to British Embassy in Nanking, 2 July 1946, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4223. According to Lamb's work based on the British archives, the Chinese had been pushed to make this protest by their Tibetan guests then visiting China proper. See Tibet, China & India 1914–1950, 490. Nonetheless, it was perplexing to discover that, in their protest to the British, the Chinese did not mention the cases of Tawang and Loyul at all. Nanking's omission of the situation in Tawang was particularly intricate, as the Tibetans had had tremendous interest in this area and would never tolerate their privilege being taken away by the British. Obviously the Chinese were so ignorant of the real situation on the Tibetan-Assam border that they had missed an opportunity to win the favour of the Tibetans by broaching the Tawang case to the British. Ralph Stevenson (British Ambassador to China) to Foreign Office, 10 Aug. 1946, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4223; and British Embassy in Nanking to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 20 Aug. 1946, CFMA, 172-1/2670. Note from the Chinese Foreign Ministry to the British Embassy in China, 11 Sept. 1946, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4223. According to Chinese sources, the two detailed maps were exactly based on the secret on-the-spot investigation conducted in the summer of 1945. On the two maps to the British embassy offered by the Chinese, see Chinese Foreign Ministry to the British Embassy, 11 Sept. 1946, CFMA, 172-1/2670. Note from the British Embassy to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 30 Oct. 1946, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4223. Proposal of the establishment of the Yunnan-Xikang Border Commissioner's Office, enclosed in the Chinese Ministry of Home Affairs to the Foreign Ministry, 14 Feb. 1947, CFMA, 172-1/2670; and Report submitted by the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission to Chiang Kai-shek, 20 Oct. 1947, CKSP, Geming Wenxian (Revolutionary endeavors), Vol.40, Politics/Frontier Affairs, 543–44. Chinese Foreign Ministry to the Indian Embassy, 5 Feb. 1947; Memo by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 13 May 1947, CFMA, 172-1/2670; and British Embassy in Nanking to Foreign Office, 2 May 1947, OIOC, L/P&S/12/4223. Draft note from the Chinese Foreign Ministry to the Indian Embassy, 19 April 1947, CFMA, 172-1/2670; Report from Liu Shishun (Acting Foreign Minister) to Chiang Kai-shek, 17 Oct. 1947, CKSP, Geming Wenxian, Vol.40, 539. The British archives reveal that as late as the summer of 1948, the Kuomintang made its final requests to the British government concerning the Tibetan as well as the Sino-Indian border issues. The British nevertheless remained aloof from any possible dealings concerning the frontier dispute. See ‘Monthly summary for July 1948’, enclosed in R. Stevenson to Foreign Office, 4 Aug. 1948, FO 405/17912, F11270/35/10. G. F. Hudson, ‘The Frontier of China and Assam: Background to the Fighting’, China Quarterly, 12 (1962), 203–06. Boundary Question, CR 103–05

Ancient history · Boundary (topology · British Empire · China · Empire · Frontier · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Sovereignty · History · Law · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East · South Asian Studies and Conflicts · Southeast Asian Sociopolitical Studies

• Bordering the Eastern Himalaya

  Susan M Walcott•Geopolitics•2010

  Add to list

• The fear of being compared

  Open Access•Bérénice Guyot-Réchard•Political Geography•2019

  Add to list