MASTER'S THESIS M-734 ESPOSITO, Bruce John. THE SINO-INDIAN BORDER DISPUTE. The American University, M. A ., 1965 Political Science, international law and relations University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan SINO-INDIAN BORDER DISPUTE A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of International Service American University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in International Relations and Organization Signatureff^of C Cha irmani L A//, L & ^ / Dean_oy the School by ^ AMERICAN . LRS1ÏY Bruce Esposito LIBRARY 1964 WASHINGTON. B. C, # oô^O TABLE OP CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION ............... 1 CHAPTER II. THE PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE PERIOD (1954-1958) ....................... 35 CHAPTER III. THE MILITANT PERIOD (1959-1961)...... 55 CHAPTER IV. CONCLUSIONS ... 87 EPILOGUE (1962)...................... 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 104 MAPS PAGE FIGURE 1. POLITICAL MAP OF INDIA ............... 115 FIGURE 2. NORTHERN FRONTIER OF INDIA........... 116 HISTORIGAL INTRODUCTION The major problem of this thesis is to present an account of Communist China's foreign policy in the Sino-Indian border dispute. The supporting problems will be to trace the historical development of Chinese and Indian policies toward the border areas. Mo attempt will be made to Judge the validity of the Chinese claims^ nor to establish a "just" boundary between the two nations. This thesis will trace the events of the Sino-Indian dispute up to and including December 1961, A brief epilogue will describe developments in 1962. This study is based exclusively on primary and secondary sources in the English language. The Tibetan sources translated into English were not exceedingly rewarding as they chiefly dealt with ^See Margaret Fisher, Leo Rose and Robert Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (New York: Frederick A. Fraeger, 1963), Chapter 11, for an analysis of the Chinese claims. religious events and they lacked historical per­ spective. On the other hand, the Chinese sources which have been translated into English show the remarkable Chinese historical sense and were extremely useful. The major part of the primary documentation used in this thesis was released by the Government of India. These documents usually contaih the Indian note and the Chinese reply. The Indian versions of the Chinese notes have been compared with the English translations released by the Chinese government wherever possible. The differences in translation can all be attributed to the individual styles of the translator. A study of the border dispute is important for two reasons. The first is the dispute is between the two "giant" powers of Asia. Both states, which follow different patterns of industrialization and different forms of government, are contending for the lead of the people of other Asian and African states. The ramifications of this dispute have great significance for the Afro-Aslan nations as well as for the United States and its allies. The second reason is that no detailed analysis of Commu­ nist China's foreign policy toward the border dispute exists. Before discussing the Sino-Indian border dispute it is wise to sketch a brief outline of Chinese and Indian policies toward the border regions and how the frontier evolved into its present alignment. The border area comprises the states of India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Tibet. Tibet, because of its geo­ graphic position, has played a crucial role in the early development of the boundary between India and China. Tibet was an independent state until it was conquered by the Mongols in 1247 and incorporated by China during the Yuan Dynasty (1280-1368). With the decline and overthrow of the Yuan, the Chinese ties with Tibet for three hundred years were practically o non-existent. Chinese sources mention that after the Yuan, Tibet still paid tribute to China,^ but Tibetan sources do not mention this tribute.^ With the coming of the Ifanchus to power in China a struggle developed with several Central Asian tribes. One of these tribes, the Dzungars, invaded Tibet, at a time of the selection of a Dalai Lama, and installed their own candidate as the Dalai Lama. The Tibetan Government called for Chinese assistance. In 1720 the Chinese defeated the Dzungars in Tibet and installed two Ambans (Resident Ministers) and a Chinese expeditionary force at Lhasa.^ China's claim to suzerainty Prithwis Chandra Chakravarti, India's China Policy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), pp. 13-14. ^Shen Tsung-lien and Liu Shen-Chi, Tibet and the Tibetans (Stanford University Press, 1953), p. 40. ^Chakravarti, op. cit., p. 14. ^Ibid. , p. 15. See L. Petech, China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1950), Chapters 3-8, for a detailed account of the Dzungar Occupation, the Chinese conquest and establishment of a protectorate in Tibet. appears to date from this time.^ (see note) George N. Patterson, Tibet in Revolt (London: Faber and Faber, 1960), p. 24. Note: "The questions of suzerainty and sover­ eignty are a matter of degree of dependency. Suze­ rainty, a difficult word to give a precise juristic meaning, was defined in 1923 by the Permanent Court in the following terms: 'The extent of the powers of a protecting state in the territory of a protected state depends, first upon the treaties between the protecting state and the protected state establishing the protectorate, and, secondly, upon the conditions under which the pro­ tectorate has been recognized by third powers as against whom there is an intention to rely on the provisions of these treaties. In spite of common features possessed by pro­ tectorates under international law, they have individual legal characteristics resulting from the special conditions under which they were created, and the stage of the development.' On the other hand, sovereignty has been described as the situation when a state occupies a definite part of the surface of the earth, within which it normally exercises, subject to the limitations imposed by international law, jurisdiction over persons and things to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of other states. When a state exercises an authority of this kind over a certain territory, it is popularly said to have sovereignty over the territory." J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), pp. 12 - 12, 150. 6 By the beginning of the nineteenth century Chinese power had begun to deteriorate in Tibet. This was due to the internal weaknesses of the Chinese throne and to the successive encroachments by the foreign imperialistic powers. In 1841 the Tibetans alone had been able to repulse an invasion of the Dogras. In 1842 the authorized representa­ tives of the Kashmir State Government, the Dalai Lama of Tibet signed a treaty which affirmed the O traditional boundary between Ladakh and Tibet. In 1856 however the Chinese failed to protect Tibet from Nepali invaders who were then able to extract from the Tibetans extraterritorial rights and annual Q sums. In 1860 the Lhasa Government, although able to suppress an internal rebellion, requested Chinese 7 Chanakya Sen, Tibet Disappears (Sew York: Asia Publishing House, 1960), p. 6. 8 Fisher, et. al., op. cit., pp. 55-56. In 1847 the Chinese Government informed the British Govern­ ment that there was no need for additional measures for fixing this boundary as it had been sufficiently and distinctly fixed. Chinese Betrayal of India (New Delhi Hind Gyan Mala, 1962), pp. 12-13. Q Shen and Liu, o£. cit., p. 47. assistance but none was forthcoming.In 1876 Great Britain entered into a treaty with China providing, thereby, that a British mission of exploration be sent to Tibet. The Tibetans refused to allow the mission to enter.In 1890 under British insistence Sikkim and China demarcated their mutual border. In 1899 Lord Curzon became Viceroy of India. He believed that if peace and security were to be had on the northern frontiers of India the British Govern­ ment must deal directly with the Tibetans, and not with the Chinese who had shown impotence in previous agreements concerning Tibet. Lord Curzon in the same year received permission from the British Government in London to open up direct negotiations with Tibet. The letters that Curzon sent to the Thirteenth Dalai ^®Patterson, op. cit., pp. 26-27. ^^Chakravarti, op. cit., p. 16. ^^Pradyumna P. Karan and William M. Jenkins, Jr., The Himalaya Kingdoms Bhutan. Sikkim, and Nepal (Princeton: Van Nostrand Company, 1963), p. 77. 8 Lana were all returned unopened.At this time it was rumored that the Dalai Lama was negotiating with the Czar of Russia.Britain was currently engaged with Russia in power rivalries in Central Asia and the Near East. Curzon felt the situation in Tibet endangered Indian security ünd as a result the Young- husband Expedition was formed. The expedition invaded Tibet through the Chumbi Valley and finally stopped at Lhasa.A result of the expedition was the Lhasa Convention of September 1904. The Conven­ tion provided, inter alia: the acknowledgement of Sikkim as a protectorate of Great Britain by the Tibetan Government ; no portion of Tibet should be ceded, sold or leased to any foreign power; and no ^^Chakravarti, op. cit., p. 16. ^^Sir Charles Bell, Portrait of the Dalai Lama (London: Oxford University Press, 1946), pp. 63-64. l^Li Tieh-tseng, Tibet Today and Yesterday (New York: Bookman Associates, 1960), pp. 87-92. See Sir Peter Fleming, Bayonets to Lhasa (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961), chapters VIII-XX for a detailed description of the British 1904 invasion of Tibet. 9 power should intervene in Tibetan affairs.The Lhasa Convention was not signed by the Dalai Lena who fled before the coming of the British, but it was signed by high Tibetan officials who had the Dalai Lama's seal. The 1904 Convention opened Tibet to British trade, eliminated the Russian danger, and secured for Britain an influence over Tibet's external policy.