SINO-INDIA TALKS ON TIBET CONFLICT

BY SABA SAFDAR BURNEY*

BACKGROUND

            Forty years ago, a border conflict broke out between China and India, two neighbors that had maintained traditional friendship for thousands of years and had fought no wars. Since then, the "brothers" have been bogged down in long-term confrontation and mistrust and the boundary question remains unresolved. The eastern sector of this traditional customary boundary runs along the southern foot of the Himalayas, the middle sector along the Himalayas, and the western sector along the Karakoram Range. This traditional boundary was not only respected by China and India over a long period of time, but also reflected in early official British maps.

            Before 1685, the delineation of the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary in official British maps coincided roughly with the traditional line, and before 1936 so did the eastern sector. But from the second half of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th, British imperialism was actively engaged in conspiratorial activities of aggression against China's Tibet and Sin kiang provinces. Various attempts were made to obliterate the traditional boundary line, carve up China's territory, and expand the territory of British India. In 1947 and 1949, respectively, India and China attained independence. Thanks to their mutual efforts, they established diplomatic relations quite early, jointly initiated the famous Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, and signed the Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet Region of China and India. But Tibet was forcibly occupied by China in 1950, and declared it as its integral part, so the Indian government pressed forward in an all-out advance on the illegal McMahon Line in the eastern sector and completely occupied Chinese territory, including Tawang, south of that line and north of the traditional boundary. China still does not recognize the so-called McMahon Line, yet in the interest of settling the Sino-Indian boundary question through negotiations, it has refrained from crossing it. From 1950 to 1958, tranquility prevailed along the Sino-Indian border because China adhered to the policy of seeking an amicable settlement of the boundary question. . On November 16, 1959, it put forward a counter-proposal, suggesting that all Chinese personnel in the Aksai Chin area of China's Sin kiang withdraw to the east of the line that India claimed to be the international boundary, and all Indian personnel in this area withdraw to the west of the one that China claimed to be the international boundary. Since Indian personnel had never actually come into this area, the Indian proposal was tantamount to demanding the unilateral withdrawal of Chinese personnel from vast tracts of their own territory. This was obviously rejected by the Chinese government.

TALKS

            To prevent a deterioration of the situation, Premier Zhou and Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister Marshal Chen Yi visited New Delhi in April 1960 and held extensive talks with Prime Minister Nehru and other Indian leaders. At the conclusion of the talks, Premier Zhou summed up the following six points as points of common ground or of close proximity emerging from the talks. Hence, three further meetings between officials of the two countries in Beijing, New Delhi, and Yangon from June to December 1960 failed to yield results. In the following years of 1961 and 1962, the sincerity for conciliation demonstrated by the Chinese government during talks between the prime ministers was taken by the Indian side to be an indication that China was weak and could be bullied, and China's unilateral halting of border patrols was taken as an opportunity to be seized.

            But New Delhi not only repeatedly rejected the fair proposal of the Chinese, but also added new and more pre-conditions, finally blocking the door to negotiations. On October 14, then Indian defense minister Krishna Menon called for fighting China to the last man and the last gun. On November 21, 1962, the Chinese government issued a statement that from October 22, 1962, the Chinese frontier guards would observe a ceasefire along the entire Sino-Indian border, and from December 1, 1962, the Chinese frontier guards would withdraw 20km from the line of actual control existing along the entire border on November 7, 1959. As for the Sino-Indian boundary question, the two governments, after many rounds of talks since 1981, have reached a consensus of "mutual understanding and mutual accommodation" and "mutual adjustment" to settle the issue. In 1993 and 1996, China and India signed two important agreements on the boundary question -- one on the maintenance of peace and tranquility along the LAC and another on confidence building measures along the LAC.

CURRENT SITUATION

            It has not undertaken serious efforts to settle the Tibetan problem by granting autonomy. This has meant that 150,000 Tibetan refugees and the Dalai Lama continue to live in India since 1959. What added fuel to the fire was India’s reticent attitude to political activities carried out by Dalai Lama and his followers living in India as refugees? http://www.friendsoftibet.org/databank/usgeneral/usg5.html

            Dalai Lama has been raising the issue of regional autonomy for Tibet for   over four decades in the past His lobbying in the United States in 1980s, and his special address to the US Congress as back as 1987, campaigning for cultural, linguistic and internal autonomy and protection of Human Rights in Tibet gathered some momentum. But at the same time, Chinese leaders have been dubbing it as an interference with its internal affairs. Apart from it, the Indian government’s decision allowing Panchan Lama to stay in India has sparked off a serious controversy, creating misunderstanding between India and China. Recently, Tibetan leader Delek Rinpoche Tenzia was picked up by the Chinese police on 7 April 2002,when he was found propagating that Dalai Lama was a soul to him.

POSITIVE ASPECTS

            In realistic terms, India, has already recognized Tibet as an integral part of China and has also reconciled itself to the fact that Tibet can never be a separate entity from China. The Indian defence minister George Fernandes, known for his sympathy for the Tibetan cause, is optimistic about   the positive outcome of the dialogue between the PRC and Dalai Lama’s representatives. China has also been giving the impression to the world community that it adheres to international norms and practices on the Human Rights issue. In the wake of the globalization of democracy and human rights, China can now ill-afford   to suppress the people ruthlessly.

CONCLUSION

*STUDENT, B.A (HONS) IIIRD YEAR, DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI