While the world's
attention continues to focus on a combination of Brexit, U.S. domestic politics
and North Korea, the news from the Himalayas remains tense. Maybe the mere
thought that China and India might actually be going to war still seems
implausible to many outside the region, but the obvious diplomatic routes out
of the Doklam standoff are closing fast. Just last week an absurdly racist
video broadcast on Chinese state television revealed–if anything–a casual
disregard for the dangers of treating large, powerful states as a kind of
roadkill on China's rapid rise.
Well,
people like me (us) may never understand Foreign relations, military strategies
and more ~ we are often steered by the media view points. A war is never good for anybody – it is no
longer the days of invasion, foreign occupation and plundering – modern War is
more about strategy, World relations, gadgets, technology, arms and ammunition,
geographical supremacy, support of neighbouring and other powerful
countries. To begin with, the Indo-China stand-off at Doklam looks a
boisterous show off than any misunderstanding, but at each point where
either side might have made overtures towards a de-escalation, the situation
has merely worsened. Here is some
history !
Henry Charles Keith
Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne, KG, GCSI, GCMG, GCIE,
PC (1845 – 1927) was a British statesman who served successively as the fifth
Governor General of Canada, Viceroy of India, Secretary of State for War, and
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In 1917, during the First World War, he
wrote to the press (the "Lansdowne Letter") vainly advocating a
compromise peace. He has the distinction of having held senior positions in
both Liberal Party and Conservative Party governments. Lord Lansdowne was
Governor General during turbulent times in Canada. His Irish connections made
him unpopular with the Catholic Irish element.
Lord Lansdowne departed Canada, "with its clear skies, its
exhilarating sports, and within the bright fire of Gatineau logs, with our
children and friends gathered round us” to his regret. Lady Lansdowne was
decorated with the Order of Victoria and Albert and the Imperial Order of the
Crown of India.
Lord Lansdowne was
appointed Viceroy of India in the same year he left Canada. The viceroyalty,
which he held from 1888 to 1894, was offered to him by the Conservative prime
minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil. Upon his
return, as a Liberal Unionist, he aligned with the Conservative Party. The
Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, appointed Lord Lansdowne to the post of
Secretary of State for War in 1895. The
unpreparedness of the British Army during the Second Boer War brought calls for
Lansdowne's impeachment in 1899.
Moving away, ‘McMahon
Line’ is a border line between Northeast
India and Tibet proposed by Henry McMahon at the 1914 Simla Convention. It is
the effective boundary between China and India, although its legal status is
disputed by the Chinese government. The
line is named after Henry McMahon, foreign secretary of British India and the
chief negotiator of the convention at Simla. It was signed by McMahon and
Lonchen Satra on behalf of the Tibetan Government. It extends for 550 miles (890 km) from Bhutan
in the west to 160 miles (260 km) east of the great bend of the Brahmaputra
River in the east, largely along the crest of the Himalayas.
The McMahon Line is
regarded by India as the legal national border, but China rejects the Simla
Accord and the McMahon Line, contending that Tibet was not a sovereign state
and therefore did not have the power to conclude treaties.
With the
present imbroglio, hopeful that India and China can negotiate a peaceful
resolution to the ongoing Doklam standoff, a senior Trump official has said the
US "supports return of status quo" of the tri-junction point. The US
is concerned about "sovereignty issues and adherence to international
law" amidst increased tension between the two Asian giants, said a senior
administration official. "We are monitoring the (Doklam) situation very
carefully. We are concerned. We hope that the two sides can negotiate a
peaceful resolution to the issue. We support return to the status quo," a
senior administration official told PTI. "We're also concerned about
Bhutanese sovereignty issues. We're concerned in general terms about
sovereignty issues and adherence to international law. I think that certainly
pertains to this particular issue," said the official who spoke on condition
of anonymity, given the sensitive nature of confrontation between India and
China. Even as China- both its officials and the state-sponsored media- have
increased its rhetoric over the past few months, which at times is seen as
entering the domain of threatening; New Delhi, which has taken a mature and
strong stand against Beijing, according to experts, is believed has not reached
out to Washington on this issue.
Do you
know that besides McMohan line existed another treaty on borders ! Here
is something interesting read in MailOnline – written by Claude Arpi titled ‘ Why
China needs a history lesson on the 1890 Convention’:
India
has won a battle on the ridge in western Bhutan by not allowing China to change
the status quo and build a strategic road near the trijunction between Sikkim,
Tibet and Bhutan. But Delhi has lost other battles.
In
2003, China's Central Military Commission approved the concept of 'Three
Warfares': one, the coordinated use of strategic psychological operations; two,
overt and covert media manipulation; and three, legal warfare designed to
manipulate strategies, defence policies, and perceptions of target audiences
abroad. While some in India are satisfied with preventing the construction of
the road, the other aspects of the standoff should be looked into (and indeed
India does have strong legal and historical arguments). For example, Delhi has
been unable to explain to the Indian public the background about the Chinese
'trick' regarding the 1890 Convention repeatedly quoted by the Chinese
authorities. The spokesperson of the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs in
Beijing vociferously managed to convince many that it was a valid treaty. However,
the fact that the main stakeholders, Tibet and Sikkim (and Bhutan for the
trijunction), were not even consulted, made it an 'Imperial Treaty' with no
validity (in any case, the survey of the trijunction was done several decades
after the agreement was signed; so China can't justify 'fixing' the trijunction
by quoting this treaty).
In
Tibet: a Political History, Tibetan politician and historian Tsepon WD Shakabpa
explained: 'In 1890 a convention was drawn up in Calcutta… without consulting
the government of Tibet. 'The first
article of the convention agreement defined the (northern) boundary between Tibet
and Sikkim, and the second article recognised a British protectorate over
Sikkim.' Three years later, the trade regulations about increasing the trade
facilities across the Sikkim-Tibet frontier were discussed: 'Again, the
provisions of that agreement could not be enforced because Tibet had not been a
party to the negotiations,' says Shakabpa. The Convention of 1890 and the Trade
Regulations of 1893 proved to be of no use to the British as Tibet never
recognised them; this eventually led London to directly 'deal' with Lhasa and
send the Younghusband expedition to Lhasa in 1904 and open the doors to
organise the Tripartite Simla Convention in 1914, with British India, Tibet and
China sitting on equal footing.
Today,
Beijing speaks of 'renegotiating' the 1890 Convention; it would imply that the
treaties signed with the Tibetans, particularly the Simla Convention and the
border agreement (defining the McMahon Line) in 1914, would be scrapped and
India would have no defined border with Tibet in the Northeast. The Chinese
have tried similar tricks earlier. One factor which has led to losing the
battle of information is the lack of a Historical Division in the Ministry of
External Affairs (MEA). In April 1960,
Nehru and Zhou Enlai, the Chinese Premier, had several meetings: 'The talks,
however, did not resolve the differences that had arisen and the two Prime Ministers
decided that officials of the two governments should examine the factual
materials in the possession of the two governments in support of their stands,'
said a joint communiqué. Subsequently
five rounds of talks were held between officials of India and China; the Indian
side was headed by JS Mehta, director, China Division, and Gopal, the then
Director of MEA's Historical Division. The historian was assisted by
knowledgeable colleagues such as TS Murthy, G Narayana Rao and K Gopalachari. The
first two meetings were held in Peking, in late June and late July 1960; the
next two in New Delhi, in late August and late September 1960, and the last in
Rangoon in early December 1960. The outcome is the Report of the Officials,
still today a reference for any study on the Tibet-Indian border. The border
issue could probably have been sorted out at that time.
Ironically,
the Indian point of view was so well documented (by the historical division)
that the MPs were in no mood to agree to a compromise solution; India and China
probably lost a chance to solve the dispute.
The Convention of
Calcutta so referred as Treaty of 1890 was a treaty between the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland and the ruling Chinese Qing dynasty relating to Tibet
and the north Indian Kingdom of Sikkim. It was signed by Governor-General of India
Lord Lansdowne and the Chinese Amban or
resident in Tibet, Sheng Tai on 17 March 1890 in Calcutta, India.
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
27th Aug
2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment