Geopolitics

The border is fixed: The Simla Conference
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Book Excerpt: 1962 and the McMahon Line Saga | Date : 17 Aug , 2015

On March 25, Lonchen Shatra officially replies:

As it was feared that there might be friction in future unless the boundary between India and Tibet is clearly defined, I submitted the map, which you sent to me in February last, to the Tibetan Government at Lhasa for orders. I have now received orders from Lhasa, and I accordingly agree to the boundary as marked in red in the two copies of the maps signed by you subject to the condition mentioned in your letter, dated 14th March, sent to me through Mr. Bell. I have signed and sealed the two copies of the maps. I have kept one copy here and return herewith the other.

Thus the McMahon Line was born in the form of a fat red line on a map showing the Indo-Tibetan boundary in the eastern sector. The British and the Tibetan delegates signed and sealed the map.

The Simla Convention

The Convention itself was finally initialled on 27 April 1914.

China pledged not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province, while Great Britain was not to annex any portion of the country.

We shall go through some of the Articles of the Simla Convention and study their implications for the three nations.

In Article 2, the contracting parties recognised ‘the autonomy of Outer Tibet’ and engaged “to respect the territorial integrity of the country, and to abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet (including the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama), which shall remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa.”9

More importantly for the Tibetans: “The Government of China engages not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province” while the British Government engaged not to annex Tibet or any part of her [its] territory.

The following Article would have very serious political repercussions when in 1947, the Government of newly independent India took over the mantle from the British. It recognized “the special interest of Great Britain, in virtue of the geographical position of Tibet, in the existence of an effective Tibetan Government, and in the maintenance of peace and order in the neighbourhood of the frontiers of India and adjoining States.”

In 1947, not only did the Government of India step into Britain’s shoes, but it was also felt that due to the geographical proximity, the Indian Government naturally had a ‘special interest’ in Tibet and should give a lead in any policy concerning it. This explains why the Western governments chose to always align themselves with India’s position at that time.

The use of the term ‘foreign power’ to describe China in the 1904 Convention was cancelled. The Tibet Trade Regulations of 1893 and 1908 were also cancelled and the Tibetan Government and the British agreed to negotiate new Trade Regulations for Outer Tibet.

The borders of Tibet, and the boundary between Outer and Inner Tibet, were drawn on maps attached to the Convention.

The Chinese did not want to accept the new demarcation line between Inner and Outer Tibet and between Inner Tibet and China. After the conquests of Zhao Erfeng, China was not keen to surrender the newly-acquired territories and the Tibetans were more than reluctant to let go of any territories inhabited by Tibetans, especially in areas where Tibetan monasteries were commanding great authority and revenue.

It was the thorniest point of the negotiations and eventually became the reason (or pretext) for their breakdown.

Although in April Ivan Chen initialled the draft Convention, he received an order from his government not to sign the final Convention.

Finally, the British lost their legendary tolerance: “the patience of His Majesty’s government is exhausted and they have no alternative but to inform the Chinese Government that, unless the Convention is signed before the end of this month, His Majesty’s Government will hold themselves free to sign separately with Tibet.”

On July 3, 1914, Great Britain and Tibet signed the Simla Convention. The map of the McMahon Line was also attached to the Convention though at a smaller scale than the one exchanged in March 1914.

On the withdrawal of the Chinese, a Declaration was signed by the plenipotentiaries of Britain and Tibet declaring that the Convention was to be binding on the Governments of Britain and Tibet and agreeing that so long as the Chinese Government withheld its signature, it would be debarred from the enjoyment of privileges accruing from it.

The following para was included: “The powers granted to China under the Convention shall not be recognized by Great Britain and Tibet until and unless the Government of China ratifies the Convention.”

The law of impermanence, however, was knocking at Europe’s door.

On August 4th 1914, just one month after the signature of the Convention, Great Britain entered the First World War. This perhaps explained London’s impatience and what Richardson called the “disinclination to assume additional responsibilities.” London now had to concentrate its efforts on the European front.

By not signing the Convention, the Chinese were not only deprived of the benefits of the Convention but also of the Notes exchanged between the signatories. It is in these Notes that the Tibetans had made some major compromises, particularly the one that says that ‘Tibet forms part of Chinese territory.’ This was conditional to the acceptance of the Tibet-China boundary.

The other benefits that the Chinese lost were the recognition of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet; the right of sending a Representative to Lhasa with 300 troops; the admission that China was not a ‘foreign power’ for the purpose of the 1904 Convention.

The new Anglo-Tibetan Trade Regulations were also signed on the 3rd July 1914. As mentioned in Article 7 of the main Convention, these were to replace the Regulations of 1893 and 1908 which stood cancelled by this article.

The new Regulations gave tremendous advantages to the British who became suddenly the main and only player in Tibet. This would remain in force till the signature of the Panchsheel Agreement of 1954. In the meantime, the Government of India had stepped into British shoes in August 1947.

The border agreement between British India and Tibet of 1914 will be the main focus of our study in the following chapters. It was important for Lhasa which for the first time had a demarcated border with India.

The legal implications were not understood by all in Tibet in the 1940’s, but we shall come back to it.

The Following Decades

The relations between Tibet and the British Empire continued to be cordial but in Lhasa many had begun to doubt that the British had the power to bring the Chinese back to the negotiating table and get them to sign the Simla Convention.

Were the British only interested in securing their border and opening trade marts? Were they also able to be an effective protector? These were some of the questions doing the rounds in Tibet.

It was in this context that in 1920 London decided to send to Lhasa, Charles Bell,10 McMahon’s Assistant in Simla, to have a frank discussion with the Tibetan leaders. It has to be noted that for once it was London which took the initiative while the Viceroy’s Office was  shying away from extending more recognition to Tibet. One of the considerations might have been that after the Russian Revolution, the Anglo-Russian Agreement had been declared null and void and the danger from that quarter had faded away.

Charles Bell remained in Lhasa for one year and through his many meetings with his friend, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, he was able to give London a clear picture of the political situation at the Roof of the World. As a result of Bell’s visit, the British Government decided to help the Tibetan Government in its development and also to supply a reasonable quantity of arms and ammunition for its self-defence.

Other projects were also undertaken, such as laying a telegraph line from Gyantse to Lhasa, making a geological survey of Central Tibet, building a small hydro-electric plant at Lhasa and reorganizing the Police. However the most important aspect for Tibet’s security was the training of officers and men by British instructors in Gyantse and in India.

http://www.lancerpublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1235

Click to buy

On the diplomatic front with China, no positive development occurred as a result of “disunity in China, the low prestige of the Central [Chinese] Government and the prevalence of a chauvinistic spirit made progress impossible” as Richardson put it.

Although the British position was clear, as seen from Lord Curzon’s declaration in 1921: “We should regard ourselves at liberty to deal with Tibet, if necessary without referring to China; to enter into closer relation with the Tibetans …to give the Tibetans any reasonable assistance they might require in the development and protection of the country,” the Tibetan issue remained unresolved and the situation on the eastern front was very unstable.

Notes

  1. Ten years earlier, Curzon had already thought of Simla as the place for such a Conference.
  2. Lieutenant Colonel Sir Arthur Henry McMahon, (1862 — 1949) was a British diplomat and Indian Army officer who served as the High Commissioner in Egypt from 1915 to 1917. He was also an administrator in British India, and served twice as Chief Commissioner of Baluchistan. McMahon is best known for the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, as well as the McMahon Line between Tibet and India. He also features prominently in T.E. Lawrence’s account of his role in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I, Seven Pillars of Wisdom. In 1914, he was Foreign Secretary to the Government of India.
  3. All the documents had to be examined and initialled by Sir Henry McMahon, the president of the Conference.
  4. McMahon left his name to the famous line demarcating the border between Tibet and India.
  5. It has to be noted that the major stumbling block in the negotiations between the present Dalai Lama’s administration and the Chinese government between 2002 and 2009 was the definition of Tibet’s territory. The Chinese want to negotiate for the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) only, which corresponded roughly to McMahon’s ‘Outer Tibet.’
  6. The map referred to in this letter was published for the first time in An Atlas of the Northern Frontier of India, issued on 1st January 1960 by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
  7. We shall study the implications of this clause in a later chapter.
  8. Shakabpa, op. cit., pp. 256-257.
  9. For text of Convention, see Richardson, op. cit. p. 283 ff.
  10. Adapted from Wikipedia: “Charles Alfred Bell was born in Calcutta in 1870. Educated at Winchester school and New College, Oxford, Charles also joined the ICS in 1891. He was transferred to Darjeeling in 1900. It was there that he had his first contact with Tibetans and became fascinated with the people and their culture. Bell at once applied himself to learning the Tibetan language. During the next few years Bell became increasingly involved in the political affairs of Tibet and the surrounding regions. In 1904-5 he was put in charge of administration of the Chumbi Valley, an area that had been temporarily ceded by Tibet to Britain under the terms of the Younghusband Treaty. Bell also served as the acting Political Officer for Sikkim, Bhutan and Tibet during the absence of John C. White, before succeeding him in the post in 1908. After meeting the Thirteenth Dalai Lama in 1910, Bell formed an intimate and lasting friendship, which was to prove critical to the British in their future negotiations and dealings with Tibet after the Dalai Lama’s return to Lhasa in June 1912. In 1920, he was sent for a few months to Tibet by the British Government.”
1 2
Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Claude Arpi

Writes regularly on Tibet, China, India and Indo-French relations. He is the author of 1962 and the McMahon Line Saga, Tibet: The Lost Frontier and Dharamshala and Beijing: the negotiations that never were.

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left

3 thoughts on “The border is fixed: The Simla Conference

  1. We seem to forget that the old adage which alluded to possession being accounted for as three fifth’s of the law. The rest is all verbiage! Throw the illegal occupants out if you can or keep quiet and carry on with your photo op protests till the cows come home. As Indians, we were then colonial subordinates to the British- they did what ever suited the English interest. We slumbered through 1947 & till 01 October 1949 when the PRC was formed. We may now say that we were in the throes of our partition pangs and foreign affairs was the least of the then Government’s concerns. What prevented us from resolving the issue to our advantage in the 50s when the PRC was still consolidating?. It went nuclear only in 1964. Our military incompetence gave us a bloody nose in 1962 for the world to see. Now we trot out all manner of insinuations marshalling what we feel are arguments that prove our point when the facts are otherwise.China grabbed Tibet in the 50s when it was not very strong in a military sense- they had just wrought a stand still on the Western borders along Yalu river before they pushed further further SW to the 38th parallel and could use battle hardened veterans against a nimby pamby pest to their East to annex Tibet. Negotiations or talks won’t get us back what we have lost. There is a lot of pragmatism & real speak in diplomacy. We have yet to learn that.

More Comments Loader Loading Comments