Geopolitics

The Panchsheel Agreement
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Book Excerpt: Tibet - The Lost Frontier | Date : 05 Aug , 2015

The New Roads

Soon after the PLA entered Lhasa, the Chinese made plans to improve communications and build new roads on a war-footing.10 The only way to consolidate and ‘unify’ the Empire was to construct a large network of roads. The work began immediately after the arrival of the first young Chinese soldiers in Lhasa. Priority was given to motorable roads: the Chamdo-Lhasa,11 the Qinghai-Lhasa12 and the Tibet-Xinjiang Highway (later known as the Aksai Chin) in the western Tibet. The first surveys were done at the end of 1951 and construction began in 1952.

The different incidents which occurred in the early fifties should have awakened the Government of India from its soporific Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai dream-like world. It was not to be so.

As already mentioned, the construction of one of the feeder roads leading to Nathu-la, the border pass between Sikkim and Tibet had some strange consequences. India began feeding the Chinese road workers in Tibet, sending tons of rice through this route.

The official report of the 1962 China War prepared by the Indian Ministry of Defense gives a few examples showing that the construction of the road cutting across Indian soil on the Aksai Chin plateau of Ladakh was known to the Indian ministries of Defense and External Affairs long before it was made public.

To quote the Report: “B.N. Mullik, who was then Director, Intelligence Bureau, has, however, claimed that he had been reporting about the road building activity of the Chinese in the area since as early as November 1952. According to B.N. Mullik the Indian Trade Agent in Gartok also reported about it in July and September 1955, and August 1957.”13

The different incidents which occurred in the early fifties should have awakened the Government of India from its soporific Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai dream-like world. It was not to be so.

Instead of alarming Nehru, these disturbing reports reinforced his determination to bolster the friendship with China. The first of these incidents was the harassment of the Indian Trade Agent posted in Gartok in Western Tibet. Though Nehru wrote to Zhou Enlai about it, no follow up action was taken and no proper analysis of Chinese motivations was made. Nehru brought the matter to Zhou’s notice almost apologetically: “Recently, some incidents have taken place when the local authorities in Tibet stopped our Trade Agent in Western Tibet from proceeding on his official tour to Rudok and his staff to Taklakot, both important trade marts for Indian traders and pilgrims. There has been a forcible seizure of his wireless set which is essential for the performance of his duties. We learnt of this incident with surprise and regret, because it did not seem to us in consonance with the friendly relations between our two countries…14

India had been trading with Central Asia and more particularly Kashgar and Yarkand for millennia. Just because ‘revolutionary changes’ had occurred in China, the Government of India accepted the closure of its trade with Sinkiang as a fait accompli.

The harassment of the Indian Trade Agent in Western Tibet was without doubt linked to the work which had started on the Tibet-Xinjiang highway. Rudok, located midway between Lhasa and Kashgar is the last small town before entering the Aksai Chin. The presence of an Indian official there was embarrassing for the Chinese as they had started building a road on Indian soil. Did Nehru see the implications of the incident or did he still believe in Chinese goodwill? It is difficult to say.

His letter concludes thus: “I would invite Your Excellency’s Government to confer with our Government at the earliest suitable opportunity, either in Delhi or in Peking, on all such matters affecting relations between our two countries.”

The Official report also mentions S.S. Khera, a Cabinet Secretary in 1962, who later wrote that “information about activities of the Chinese on the Indo-Tibetan border particularly in the Aksai Chin area had begun to come in by 1952 or earlier.15

The closure of the Consulate in Kashgar

If the Indian government had been ready to read beyond the Chinese rhetoric and Zhou’s assurance of friendship, it would have seen many more ominous signs. One of them was the closure of the Indian Consulate in Kashgar.

Here again, as in several other cases, Nehru justified the Chinese actions without taking any retaliatory measures or even protesting. India’s interests were lost to the ‘revolutionary changes’ happening in China. He declared in the Parliament:

When revolutionary changes took place there, it is perfectly true that the Chinese Government, when they came to Tibet, told us that they intended that they wanted to treat Sinkiang as a closed area. …Our Consul remained there for some time, till recently… but there is now no work to be done. So we advised him to come away and he did come away.”16

It was indeed a great victory for Beijing while they were building the road in the Aksai Chin. The Indian side seems to have been unaware of the reality on the ground.

India had been trading with Central Asia and more particularly Kashgar and Yarkand for millennia. Just because ‘revolutionary changes’ had occurred in China, the Government of India accepted the closure of its trade with Sinkiang as a fait accompli.

More Reports

During the negotiations for the Panchsheel Agreement, one of the objections by the Chinese was the mention of Demchok as the border pass for traders between Ladakh and Western Tibet. Very cleverly, Chen, the main Chinese negotiator ‘privately’ told T.N. Kaul, his Indian counterpart, that he was objecting because they were not keen to mention the name ‘Kashmir’ as they did not wish to take sides between India and Pakistan. This argument is very strange and though Kaul could see through the game, the Indian side gave in once again. Later Kaul wrote:

However, their real objection was, I believe, to strengthening [their] claim to Aksai Chin (in the Ladakh province of Kashmir) which they needed for linking Sinkiang with Western Tibet. An agreed formula “the customary route leading to Tashigong along the valley of the Indus river may continue to be traversed in accordance with custom was worked out and Delhi approved it.”17

This formulation would have very serious consequences. Instead of using the opportunity to clarify the already contentious border issue, the Chinese were allowed to walk away with a vague statement which was open to future dispute. It was indeed a great victory for Beijing while they were building the road in the Aksai Chin. The Indian side seems to have been unaware of the reality on the ground.

More authors have mentioned the building of the Aksai Chin road and the fact that it was known during the mid-fifties to the Ministries of Defense and External Affairs. In his book The Saga of Ladakh,18 Maj. Gen Jagjit Singh mentions that in 1956, the Indian Military Attaché in Beijing, Brig Mallik received information that China had started building a highway through Indian territory in the Aksai Chin area. Mallik had reported the matter to Army Headquarters in New Delhi and a similar report was sent by the Indian Embassy to the Foreign Ministry.

The Government of India never acknowledged that it had information about the Aksai Chin road as early as 1954–55. It would be discussed for the first time in the Lok Sabha only in August 1959.

Brig S.S. Mallik, the Indian Military Attaché in Beijing made a first reference to the road-building activities of the Chinese in a routine report to the Government as early as November 1955. Five months later, in a special report to Delhi, the Military Attaché drew pointed attention to the construction of the strategic highway through Indian territory in Aksai Chin. Simultaneously, he also sent a copy of the report to the Army H.Q..

The Official Report of 1962 War states: “The Preliminary survey work on the planned Tibet-Sinkiang road having been completed by the mid-1950’s, China started constructing motorable road in summer 1955. The highway ran over 160 km across the Aksai Chin region of north-east Ladakh. It was completed in the second half of 1957. Arterial roads connecting the highway with Tibet were also laid. On 6 October 1957, the Sinkiang-Tibet road was formally opened with a ceremony in Gartok and twelve trucks on a trial run from Yarkand reached Gartok. In January 1958, the China News Agency reported that the Sinkiang-Tibet highway had been opened two months earlier and the road was being fully utilised.”

The Government of India never acknowledged that it had information about the Aksai Chin road as early as 1954–55. It would be discussed for the first time in the Lok Sabha only in August 1959.

General Thimayya, the Indian army chief who was forced to retire in 1961, one year before the Chinese attacked India, is supposed to have said in his valedictory address to the Indian Army Officer Corps: “I hope that I am not leaving you as cannon fodder for the Chinese communists.”

The Opening of the Road

On October 6, 1957, a Chinese newspaper Kuang-ming Jih-pao reported:

The Sinkiang–Tibet – the highest highway in the world – has been completed. During the past few days, a number of trucks running on the highway on a trial basis have arrived in Ko-ta-k’e in Tibet from Yehch’eng in Sinkiang. The Sinkiang-Tibet Highway… is 1179 km long, of which 915 km are more than 4,000 meters above sea level; 130 km of it over 5,000 meters above sea level, with the highest point being 5,500 meters.19

It took another year for the Nehru Government to officially complain to Beijing about the ‘intrusion’.

The loop was closed. The two newly-acquired western provinces of Communist China were linked. It took nearly two more years for the news to become public. In August 1959 Nehru dropped the bombshell in Parliament: what the Chinese called the ‘Tibet-Sinkiang highway’ was built through Indian territory.

One cause for the delay to make the news public was that for a few years, New Delhi dithered about how to react. Already in 1957, when the Indian Ambassador to China and his Military Attaché20 had been invited to a special function to celebrate the opening of the road, they politely refused. They had refused to fall into the Chinese trap and give the stamp of the Indian Embassy to the event.

It took another year for the Nehru Government to officially complain to Beijing about the ‘intrusion’. In an Informal Note given by the Foreign Secretary to the Chinese Ambassador on 18 October 1958, New Delhi finally decided to take some action:

A motor road has been constructed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China across the eastern part of the Ladakh region of the Jammu Kashmir States, which is part of India. This road seems to form part of the Chinese road known as Yehchang–Gartok or Sikiang–Tibet highway, the completion of which was announced in September, 1957.”21

The Note concluded that it was a matter of ‘surprise and regret’ that the Chinese Government had built a road through “indisputably Indian territory without first obtaining the permission of the Government of India and without even informing the Government of India”.

The ‘petty dispute’ is still not solved today and the issue has become even knottier.

In conclusion, the Note stated: “the Government of India are anxious to settle these petty frontier disputes so that the friendly relations between the two countries may not suffer. The Government of India would therefore be glad for an early reply from the Chinese Government.”

The ‘petty dispute’ is still not solved today and the issue has become even knottier.22

At the end of the letter, another issue was raised: for some time an Indian patrol had been reported missing. Delhi wanted to know if the Chinese had seen “an Indian party consisting of three Military Officers and four soldiers together with one guide, one porter, six pony owners and thirty-four ponies … out on a normal patrol in this area near Shinglung in Indian territory.”

Indeed, they had been seen and captured by the Chinese border guards on Indian soil. Beijing admitted immediately that they were in their custody, but according to the local Chinese commanders the Indian jawans had trespassed on Chinese side of the frontier at the time of their arrest.23

This was the first of a long series of incidents. Hundred of letters and notes would be exchanged on the subject.

The Lapse of the Agreement

The Panchsheel Agreement ceased to exist in June 1962. At the time of the negotiations, India wanted an accord for a much longer period; however this was objected to by Beijing for its own reasons, though both parties thought at that time that it would be merely a formality to extend if necessary.24

Notes

1. Known as the 17-Point Agreement.

2. Tieh-Tseng Li, Tibet Today and Yesterday (New York: Bookman Associates, 1960), p. 210.

3. The Mauryan Emperor Asoka wrote Edicts on rocks and pillars. These texts preached the Buddhist precepts of non-violence, compassion, brotherhood and good governance based on the dharma. Nehru was a great admirer of Asoka.

4. SWJN, Series II, Vol. 25, Note to the Secretary General and Foreign Secretary, 2 May 1954, p. 468.

5. Ibid.

6. Gopal, Sarvepalli, Jawaharlal Nehru: a Biography, Vol. 2 (London: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 180.

7. Barahoti (Wu-Je for the Chinese) is about one day’s journey from the Niti Pass.

8. White Paper I, Note given by the counsellor of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, 17 July 1954, p. 1.

9. Lall, op. cit., p. 240.

10. One should not forget that in 1950 (when Eastern Tibet was invaded), a caravan from the Chinese border took two months to reach Lhasa, the Tibetan capital.

11. The Sikang-Tibet Highway of the Chinese.

12. Or Tsinghai-Tibet Highway.

13. Mullik, op. cit., pp. 196-97.

14. SWJN, op. cit., Vol. 23, Cable to Zhou Enlai, September 1, 1953, p. 485.

15. Khera, S.S. India’s Defense Problem, p. 157.

16. SWJN, op. cit., Vol. 24,. p. 579. Also the reply to a debate in the Council of States, 24 December 1953, Parliamentary Debates (Council of States), Official Report, Vol. V, Nos. 18-25, 16 to 24 December 1953, cols. 3590-3599.

17. Kaul, op. cit., p. 102.

http://www.lancerpublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=576

Click to buy

18. Jagjit Singh, Maj. Gen., The Saga of Ladakh, (New Delhi: Vanity Books, 1983), p. 37.

19. Ling Nai-Min, Tibetan Sourcebook (Hong Kong: Union Research Institute, 1964), p. 263.

20. Brigadier S.S. Mallik.

21. White Paper No. 1, op. cit., p. 26.

22. Soon after Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee returned from China in June 2003, a Chinese patrol was caught trespassing on Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh. Similar incidents have been reported on the U.P.-Tibet border a couple of years ago. As long as there is no agreed border these incidents will continue to occur.

23. They would eventually be released a few months later.

24. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Agreement: “the Agreement shall remain in force for eight years”. Both governments had ratified the Agreement on June 4, 1954, therefore it expired and ceased to be in force on June 3, 1962.

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

7 thoughts on “The Panchsheel Agreement

    • True. He was a secular person who promoted scientific temper ruining Hindu superstition and myths.He argued that chanting mantras doesn’t help but hard work does. He promoted international peace after 1947, he should have conquered Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal to create “akhand bharat” and revive our Indian religions.

      May he be cursed forever.

  1. Our leaders were extremely inexperienced in the art of statecraft then. They were also naive & trusting – two characteristics which do not assist diplomacy in the present age, or in any age for that matter. They had, obviously, not studied the excellent treatises of our brilliant ancient sages – Chanakya & Kautilya either. The nation suffered a terrible humiliation as a result. I do hope wisdom has dawned & they won’t repeat their mistakes of the past,

More Comments Loader Loading Comments