India–China Border Dispute

A recent debate in The Hindu revisited the historical evidence and maps relating to the India–China border, offering contrasting perspectives on the boundary alignments and their legitimacy.

Introduction

• The India–China border dispute remains one of the most complex territorial conflicts in Asia, involving divergent historical claims, colonial-era treaties, and geopolitical interests.
• Historical maps and agreements, including Manchu-era maps and the Simla Convention (1914), are central to the interpretation of boundary legitimacy.

Historical Evidence of Boundaries

• Manchu Maps (1644–1911)
  • Kang-hsi’s Map (1721): Showed Tibet’s southern boundary confined to the Himalayas; excluded Tawang and tribal belts (today’s Arunachal Pradesh).
  • Ch’ien-lung’s Map (1761): Defined Eastern Turkestan without extending south of the Kunlun Mountains; thus, Aksai Chin was not part of Chinese conception.
• Simla Conference (1913–14)
  • Republic of China (RoC) delegate admitted Tibet had no claim over territories south of the Himalayan divide.
  • India incorporated these tribal areas into Assam, leading to the 1914 alignment (McMahon Line).
• 1899 Alignment (Aksai Chin)
  • Proposal based on the watershed principle between Kashmir and Xinjiang, representing a pragmatic boundary framework.

Shifting Chinese Claims

• 1943 & 1947 Maps: Republic of China (RoC) introduced expansive claims, discarding earlier Manchu maps.
• 1954: Chou En-lai acknowledged maps were “mostly old” and not definitive, suggesting lack of deliberate boundary alteration at the time.
• 1960 Talks: Chou attempted to weaken India’s claims through reinterpretation of evidence, while avoiding reliance on Chinese-origin evidence.

Negotiation Dynamics

• Chou En-lai proposed moving beyond maps and documents to agreed principles for settlement, raising suspicion of a strategic trap.
• No concrete evidence of a formal territorial swap proposal exists (Aksai Chin for Arunachal Pradesh).
• Both sides discussed a package deal covering the entire boundary, trade, and geopolitical issues.

Comprehensive Analysis

• Strengths of India’s Position:
  • Historical maps (1721 & 1761) show Tibet/China did not control trans-Himalayan or trans-Kunlun regions.
  • Simla Convention validates India’s claim over Arunachal Pradesh.
  • Watershed principle supports the 1899 alignment in Aksai Chin.
• Weaknesses/Challenges:
  • China’s rejection of colonial-era treaties like the Simla Convention.
  • Strategic importance of Aksai Chin for China’s Xinjiang–Tibet highway.
  • Political instability during 1940s and 1950s weakened India’s diplomatic assertion.

Way Forward

• Bilateral Dialogue: Structured negotiations acknowledging historical evidence (1899 & 1914 alignments).
• Confidence-Building: Military disengagement, border management protocols, and improved communication mechanisms.
• Principled Settlement: A solution that avoids “victory–defeat” rhetoric, ensuring equity and dignity for both nations.
• Geopolitical Balance: Incorporate trade and security dimensions into the settlement to create interdependence.