Dinesh Kumar
The move, 100 years ago, behind the Simla Convention of 1913-1914 that led to an agreement being signed on July 3, 1914, to determine the boundary between India and Tibet was initiated by the British colonial government. The agreement has been consistently rejected by the Chinese and a series of questionable actions post-Independence by New Delhi has not helped India's case.
China’s gain
China initialled the agreement in April 1914 but walked away without signing the agreement at the tripartite summit between China, Tibet and British-ruled India, in Simla on July 3, 1914.
Britain did not publicly acknowledge and accept the agreement until 1937, possibly because Britain did not want to offend China since they were both on the same side during World War-I (1914-1919). Much later in 2008, Britain recognised China’s sovereignty over Tibet.
Post-Independence, India gave up its rights on Tibet by declaring that it recognised Tibet to be a part of China
Tibet came out the biggest loser having first been legally truncated and later usurped by China
The agreement
The Simla Agreement of July 3, 1914 comprises 11 Articles
China and Britain recognise that Tibet is under the suzerainty of China and recognise the autonomy of Outer Tibet. They will uphold the territorial integrity of Tibet and abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet which shall remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa
China will not send troops into Outer Tibet, not station civil or military officers and will not establish Chinese colonies in the country.
The escort provided to the Chinese high official posted in Lhasa shall in no circumstances exceed 300 men
Britain will neither station military or civil officers in Tibet, nor troops, nor establish colonies in Tibet.
But the process of countering Russia had begun well before then. The British began involving China in matters pertaining to Tibet. In 1904, it sent a military expedition headed by Colonel Francis Younghusband to Lhasa from where the Dalai Lama temporarily fled to Mongolia. The British managed to open up trade agencies at Gyangtse, Yaltung and Gartok in Tibet, a long cherished desire of London. But the British were unable to make a breakthrough with the Tibetan government in Lhasa which consistently rebuffed all overtures. So in 1905 the British turned to the 9th Panchen Lama in nearby Shigatse, considering that he had influence over a vast area of Tibet bordering India.
With Lhasa discouraging Britain’s moves, London decided to create an autonomous region in that portion of Tibet owing allegiance to the Panchen Lama independent of Lhasa with the purpose of securing India’s northern border. And so Captain O’Conner went to Shigatse and extended an invitation on behalf of the British Indian government to the Panchen Lama to visit India. But then a number of rollercoaster events occurred in quick succession. The Panchen Lama visited India in 1906 but did not get the expected attention. Reason: Lord Curzon had been replaced by Lord Minto as Viceroy and suddenly London was no longer that enthusiastic in promoting the Panchen Lama. Lhasa understandably took a dim view of the Panchen Lama’s visit to British ruled India. This was not helped by the fact that in 1911, during a visit of the Dalai Lama to India, the Chinese took the step of bringing the Panchen Lama to Lhasa and putting him up at the Norbulingka, the Dalai lama’s traditional summer residence.
Breaking point
Tensions were building up and a breaking point was now fast approaching. In 1910, Chinese General Chao Erh-feng forced his way into Lhasa, which resulted in the Dalai Lama fleeing to India and spending over two years in Kalimpong. The following year, in 1911, the rule of the Manchu imperial dynasty ended in China and was replaced by the republican nationalists with Yuan Shih K’ai becoming the first President of the Chinese republic.
Then came the breaking point. In April 1912, Yuan Shih K’ai issued a proclamation making Tibet a province of China. Uncomfortable with China as a neighbour of British India, London told Peking (later renamed Beijing) that while it recognised China’s suzerainty over Tibet, it did not recognise China’s right to intervene in Tibet’s internal administration and keeping unlimited troops in Tibet. Further, Britain threatened it would not accord recognition to the Chinese republic and close all communication with Tibet via India unless China gave a written acceptance of this position.
It was then that China agreed to participate in what is known as the Simla Convention. Much to its delight Tibet was invited to the tripartite talks with Arthur Henry McMahon, foreign secretary of the British Indian government, as the chairman. He was assisted by Charles Bell, Political Officer for Sikkim, Bhutan and Tibet who was then McMahon’s adviser on Tibetan affairs. China was represented by Ivan Chen and was clearly uncomfortable at Tibet being invited as an equal partner. Tibet was represented by Lonchen Shatra, a confidant of the Dalai Lama.
On behalf of the Dalai Lama, Lonchen Shatra had at first demanded that Tibet be given full authority over both its internal and external affairs; that it would consult the British Indian government only on a few important foreign affairs issues; that only those Chinese running private businesses in Tibet would be allowed to stay in Tibet; and that Dhartse-doh would be the Tibetan border in the east with China. But all these demands were rejected.
It was on February 27, 1914, that McMahon proposed dividing Tibet into Inner and Outer Tibet that would serve as a buffer between India and China, just as Mongolia had been divided to serve as a buffer between Russia and China. The proposal stipulated that Lhasa would have full authority over ‘Outer Tibet’ while China would have unlimited presence in ‘Inner Tibet’. Much later, after Communist China occupied Tibet in 1959, it turned Outer Tibet into the Tibet Autonomous Region in 1965 and subsequently merged portions of Inner Tibet into adjacent Chinese provinces.
All three representatives initialled the Simla Agreement comprising 11 Articles arising from the convention in April 1914. But when the time came to sign the document, Ivan Chen refused and walked out, leaving McMahon and Lonchen Shatra to sign. Following the Chinese representative’s walkout, a declaration was added that China would not be entitled to any rights and privileges as a suzerain power in Tibet if it failed to sign or ratify the tripartite agreement. No Chinese representative ever returned to sign the document.
One aftermath of the agreement is that Tibet ceded Tawang and some other areas of what is now Arunachal Pradesh to India. These areas continue to be claimed by China. The implication for Tibet was more severe - a legally truncated territory eventually usurped by China.
Clashing convention
What is surprising is that initially the British themselves had rejected the agreement reached at the Simla Convention. The official treaty record, C.U. Aitchison’s ‘A Collection of Treaties’, was published with a note stating that no binding agreement had been reached at Simla. Apparently the agreement was deemed to be incompatible with the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention which was eventually renounced by both Britain and Russia. Yet it was not until 1937 — 23 years after the agreement was signed and 16 years after the Anglo-Russian Convention had been renounced — that the Survey of India published a map showing the McMahon Line to be the official boundary. In 1938, which was just nine years before India got Independence, the British government finally published the Simla Convention in Aitchison’s Treaties.
In October 2008, which is 94 years after the signing of the 1914 Simla Agreement, the British reversed their earlier continuous stand that China only held suzerainty over Tibet by announcing that it recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Then British Foreign Secretary David Miliband described the old position as an anachronism originating in the geopolitics of the early 20th century. "We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China," he stated on October 29, 2008, thereby bringing a closure to the very agreement for which his predecessors had a century ago manoeuvred almost a century ago.
Ironically, it is the signatories (India and Tibet) who have lost out. Soon after Independence, India was quick to first recognise Mao’s take over of China in 1949 making it the second country to do so after Myanmar. Soon after it accepted Tibet to be a part of China. On the other hand a politically weakened Tibet in a post-colonial world of modern realpolitik and with hardly a military force to reckon with was run over by a mighty China which quickly and brutally put down a massive Tibetan revolt against the Chinese in October 1950 leading the Dalai Lama to forever flee to India. The initiator (Britain) has since left the subcontinent and subsequently gone on to disown the convention, governed as it is by its own foreign policy interests. As a result the boycotter (China), which is among the world’s militarily and economically most powerful countries, has so far prevailed. India’s choice lies between taking some radical steps in an attempt to salvage the 1914 agreement or chart a pragmatic course and find a middle way out to resolve the border dispute. Taking either route will be a long drawn affair.
As it stands a century later, the Simla Convention of 1914 is no more. Long live the Simla Convention!
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140704/edit.htm#6
A century ago, on July 3, 1914, an accord was purportedly reached between China, Tibet and then British-ruled India, which continues to have a bearing on Sino-Indian relations to this day. The Simla Convention, which started on October 13, 1913, and concluded on July 3, 1914, was meant to define and demarcate the boundaries between India and Outer Tibet and between China and Inner Tibet. The British had then proposed the 'division' of Tibet into 'Inner' Tibet, which was to be under Chinese control, and 'Outer' Tibet, which was to have a sovereign like status. The accord, or agreement, as it is variously known, reached after tripartite talks between the three, led to the creation of what is popularly referred to as the McMahon Line in the north-east, which China has consistently rejected.
A series of political intrigues had both preceded and succeeded the holding of the tripartite talks, which is important to know in order to understand the context in which the convention was held. It goes back to the start of the 20th century when the ‘Great Game’ was at play. Colonial Britain, with its vast empire in the region, feared that Czarist Russia might be secretly planning to extend its influence over the strategically located Tibet. Whether or not Russia had any such plans in the region is a matter of much debate. But one of the factors that had reportedly sparked off London’s suspicions was the Mongolian-Russian monk Aquang Dorji’s (also referred to by the Russian name Dorzhiev) proximity to the 13th Dalai Lama. His political influence led to the signing of a treaty between Tibet and Mongolia in Ulan Bator (capital of Mongolia) in 1913, which incidentally he had signed on behalf of Tibet under the Tibetan name of Khen-chen Lobsang Ngawang.
A century ago, on July 3, 1914, an accord was purportedly reached between China, Tibet and then British-ruled India, which continues to have a bearing on Sino-Indian relations to this day. The Simla Convention, which started on October 13, 1913, and concluded on July 3, 1914, was meant to define and demarcate the boundaries between India and Outer Tibet and between China and Inner Tibet. The British had then proposed the 'division' of Tibet into 'Inner' Tibet, which was to be under Chinese control, and 'Outer' Tibet, which was to have a sovereign like status. The accord, or agreement, as it is variously known, reached after tripartite talks between the three, led to the creation of what is popularly referred to as the McMahon Line in the north-east, which China has consistently rejected.A series of political intrigues had both preceded and succeeded the holding of the tripartite talks, which is important to know in order to understand the context in which the convention was held. It goes back to the start of the 20th century when the ‘Great Game’ was at play. Colonial Britain, with its vast empire in the region, feared that Czarist Russia might be secretly planning to extend its influence over the strategically located Tibet. Whether or not Russia had any such plans in the region is a matter of much debate. But one of the factors that had reportedly sparked off London’s suspicions was the Mongolian-Russian monk Aquang Dorji’s (also referred to by the Russian name Dorzhiev) proximity to the 13th Dalai Lama. His political influence led to the signing of a treaty between Tibet and Mongolia in Ulan Bator (capital of Mongolia) in 1913, which incidentally he had signed on behalf of Tibet under the Tibetan name of Khen-chen Lobsang Ngawang.
China’s gain
China initialled the agreement in April 1914 but walked away without signing the agreement at the tripartite summit between China, Tibet and British-ruled India, in Simla on July 3, 1914.Britain did not publicly acknowledge and accept the agreement until 1937, possibly because Britain did not want to offend China since they were both on the same side during World War-I (1914-1919). Much later in 2008, Britain recognised China’s sovereignty over Tibet.Post-Independence, India gave up its rights on Tibet by declaring that it recognised Tibet to be a part of ChinaTibet came out the biggest loser having first been legally truncated and later usurped by ChinaThe agreement
The Simla Agreement of July 3, 1914 comprises 11 Articles
China and Britain recognise that Tibet is under the suzerainty of China and recognise the autonomy of Outer Tibet. They will uphold the territorial integrity of Tibet and abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet which shall remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at LhasaChina will not send troops into Outer Tibet, not station civil or military officers and will not establish Chinese colonies in the country.The escort provided to the Chinese high official posted in Lhasa shall in no circumstances exceed 300 menBritain will neither station military or civil officers in Tibet, nor troops, nor establish colonies in Tibet.But the process of countering Russia had begun well before then. The British began involving China in matters pertaining to Tibet. In 1904, it sent a military expedition headed by Colonel Francis Younghusband to Lhasa from where the Dalai Lama temporarily fled to Mongolia. The British managed to open up trade agencies at Gyangtse, Yaltung and Gartok in Tibet, a long cherished desire of London. But the British were unable to make a breakthrough with the Tibetan government in Lhasa which consistently rebuffed all overtures. So in 1905 the British turned to the 9th Panchen Lama in nearby Shigatse, considering that he had influence over a vast area of Tibet bordering India.
With Lhasa discouraging Britain’s moves, London decided to create an autonomous region in that portion of Tibet owing allegiance to the Panchen Lama independent of Lhasa with the purpose of securing India’s northern border. And so Captain O’Conner went to Shigatse and extended an invitation on behalf of the British Indian government to the Panchen Lama to visit India. But then a number of rollercoaster events occurred in quick succession. The Panchen Lama visited India in 1906 but did not get the expected attention. Reason: Lord Curzon had been replaced by Lord Minto as Viceroy and suddenly London was no longer that enthusiastic in promoting the Panchen Lama. Lhasa understandably took a dim view of the Panchen Lama’s visit to British ruled India. This was not helped by the fact that in 1911, during a visit of the Dalai Lama to India, the Chinese took the step of bringing the Panchen Lama to Lhasa and putting him up at the Norbulingka, the Dalai lama’s traditional summer residence.
Breaking point
Tensions were building up and a breaking point was now fast approaching. In 1910, Chinese General Chao Erh-feng forced his way into Lhasa, which resulted in the Dalai Lama fleeing to India and spending over two years in Kalimpong. The following year, in 1911, the rule of the Manchu imperial dynasty ended in China and was replaced by the republican nationalists with Yuan Shih K’ai becoming the first President of the Chinese republic.
Then came the breaking point. In April 1912, Yuan Shih K’ai issued a proclamation making Tibet a province of China. Uncomfortable with China as a neighbour of British India, London told Peking (later renamed Beijing) that while it recognised China’s suzerainty over Tibet, it did not recognise China’s right to intervene in Tibet’s internal administration and keeping unlimited troops in Tibet. Further, Britain threatened it would not accord recognition to the Chinese republic and close all communication with Tibet via India unless China gave a written acceptance of this position.
It was then that China agreed to participate in what is known as the Simla Convention. Much to its delight Tibet was invited to the tripartite talks with Arthur Henry McMahon, foreign secretary of the British Indian government, as the chairman. He was assisted by Charles Bell, Political Officer for Sikkim, Bhutan and Tibet who was then McMahon’s adviser on Tibetan affairs. China was represented by Ivan Chen and was clearly uncomfortable at Tibet being invited as an equal partner. Tibet was represented by Lonchen Shatra, a confidant of the Dalai Lama.
On behalf of the Dalai Lama, Lonchen Shatra had at first demanded that Tibet be given full authority over both its internal and external affairs; that it would consult the British Indian government only on a few important foreign affairs issues; that only those Chinese running private businesses in Tibet would be allowed to stay in Tibet; and that Dhartse-doh would be the Tibetan border in the east with China. But all these demands were rejected.
It was on February 27, 1914, that McMahon proposed dividing Tibet into Inner and Outer Tibet that would serve as a buffer between India and China, just as Mongolia had been divided to serve as a buffer between Russia and China. The proposal stipulated that Lhasa would have full authority over ‘Outer Tibet’ while China would have unlimited presence in ‘Inner Tibet’. Much later, after Communist China occupied Tibet in 1959, it turned Outer Tibet into the Tibet Autonomous Region in 1965 and subsequently merged portions of Inner Tibet into adjacent Chinese provinces.
All three representatives initialled the Simla Agreement comprising 11 Articles arising from the convention in April 1914. But when the time came to sign the document, Ivan Chen refused and walked out, leaving McMahon and Lonchen Shatra to sign. Following the Chinese representative’s walkout, a declaration was added that China would not be entitled to any rights and privileges as a suzerain power in Tibet if it failed to sign or ratify the tripartite agreement. No Chinese representative ever returned to sign the document.
One aftermath of the agreement is that Tibet ceded Tawang and some other areas of what is now Arunachal Pradesh to India. These areas continue to be claimed by China. The implication for Tibet was more severe - a legally truncated territory eventually usurped by China.
Clashing convention
What is surprising is that initially the British themselves had rejected the agreement reached at the Simla Convention. The official treaty record, C.U. Aitchison’s ‘A Collection of Treaties’, was published with a note stating that no binding agreement had been reached at Simla. Apparently the agreement was deemed to be incompatible with the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention which was eventually renounced by both Britain and Russia. Yet it was not until 1937 — 23 years after the agreement was signed and 16 years after the Anglo-Russian Convention had been renounced — that the Survey of India published a map showing the McMahon Line to be the official boundary. In 1938, which was just nine years before India got Independence, the British government finally published the Simla Convention in Aitchison’s Treaties.
In October 2008, which is 94 years after the signing of the 1914 Simla Agreement, the British reversed their earlier continuous stand that China only held suzerainty over Tibet by announcing that it recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Then British Foreign Secretary David Miliband described the old position as an anachronism originating in the geopolitics of the early 20th century. "We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China," he stated on October 29, 2008, thereby bringing a closure to the very agreement for which his predecessors had a century ago manoeuvred almost a century ago.
Ironically, it is the signatories (India and Tibet) who have lost out. Soon after Independence, India was quick to first recognise Mao’s take over of China in 1949 making it the second country to do so after Myanmar. Soon after it accepted Tibet to be a part of China. On the other hand a politically weakened Tibet in a post-colonial world of modern realpolitik and with hardly a military force to reckon with was run over by a mighty China which quickly and brutally put down a massive Tibetan revolt against the Chinese in October 1950 leading the Dalai Lama to forever flee to India. The initiator (Britain) has since left the subcontinent and subsequently gone on to disown the convention, governed as it is by its own foreign policy interests. As a result the boycotter (China), which is among the world’s militarily and economically most powerful countries, has so far prevailed. India’s choice lies between taking some radical steps in an attempt to salvage the 1914 agreement or chart a pragmatic course and find a middle way out to resolve the border dispute. Taking either route will be a long drawn affair.
As it stands a century later, the Simla Convention of 1914 is no more. Long live the Simla Convention!
No comments:
Post a Comment