Himalayan Times (1962)

November 25, 1962 Himalayan Times

Seven

The McMabon Liue
was not arbitrarily drawn
by the British and Tibe-
tan representative behind
the back of the Chinese re-
presentative. It was shown
in a map placed b?fore the
conference by the British
representative on Feb-
ruary 17, 1914 as the
"historic Tibetan Fron-
tiers." It was also shown
by a red line on the map
attached to the Conven
tion, initialled by the
Plenipotentiaries of India,
Tibet and China on April
27, 1914, and signed "by
the Plenipotentiaries of
India and Tibet on July
3, 1914-

Kven so, Chinese ad-
herence to the Indo-Tibe.
tan Agreement of Maroh
1914 was not necessary,
Tibet had in the past
entered into a number of
treaties which were not
only considered as valid
by the parties concerned,
but were in actual ope-
ration for decades. The
Treaty of 1842, which
Tibet signed with Ladnkh
and Kashmir, conf rmed
Tibetan traditional bounda-
ries in the west and re-
gulated trade relations,
and it had been in ope-
ration right up to our
own times. Similarly, the
Nepal Tibet Treaty of 1856
was in actual operation
until abrogated by the
bino-Nepale6e Treaty of
1956. It is thus olear
that the McMahon L'ue
is valid and legal.

The McMahon Line

thus merely formalised the
traditional boundary bet.
ween India and Tibet.
According to international
law and usage, & cunto-
naary and traditional
boundary, following un-
changing and distinctive
natural features, stands
defined and needs no
further or formal defini-
tion.

That the traditional
boundary lay along the
Himalayas to proved by
various sources The Yo-
gini Purana of the eighth
century states that the
kingdom of Kamarupa
extended up to the Kanja
Hills, i.e. the Himalayan
Hangs. In the thirteenth
century, the tribal area
south of the Himalayas
came under the political
authority of the Ahoms
A work written in the
seventeenth century, en-
titled the Political Geo-
graphy of the Assam
Vailey' mentions Akai,
DhS*b and Bhutias, as
tributaries of the Abonr
Kings,

Desideri. an Italian
traveler in Tibet
(1716-1729). stated that
Tibetans hedd no dealings
with the tribal people.
Horace Delia Penoa, ano-
ther traveller, who visited
Tibet in 1730, wrote that
Tibet is bounded in the
south by Lhoba (tribal
territory). In 1S83, Mi-
chell, in his Report on
the North East Frontier
of Indie, said that the

northern boundary of the
\bors is the Nainphala(
i.e.; the Himalayas.

These account are
confirmed by Chinese
works. According to the
Wai Tsang Tu Chin, Loyu
(tribal territory) is the
south of the Tibetan ter°
ritory. Another Chinese
work Heiteang Tu Kao
(1886) states that Loyu
belonged to the British.

Unofficial maps, both
Chinese and others, prove
the traditional basin of
the Indian alignment. A
map compiled by certain
Jesuit Missionaries and
Lamas under the orders
of Emperor Kang Hi bet-
ween 1711.1717 sbowa the
southern boundary of Ti-
bet along the Himalayan
Range, The map published
by the Peking University
in November 1925, depic-
ting the maximum extend
of China in the dayo of
the Ching dynasty shows
the frontier of India as
lying where the present
Indian alignment lies.

The entire tribal area
upto the McMabon Line
has been under continuous
Ahom aud later British
administration. Under the
latter, fron; the outset
the tribal areas were under
the jurisdiction of Politi-
cal Agents or Deputy
Commissioners of the ad-
joining districts. In 1912,
the area, was divided into
three Frontier Tracts each
under a Political Officer,

( Continued on page 3>