By Tenzin Sangmo
New Delhi, July 4 – Commemorating the 94th anniversary of the July 3 Shimla Convention(1914) the ML Sondhi Institute For Asia Pacific Affairs supported by the Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre (TPPRC) organized a day long seminar on the Agreement and its subsequent consequences at the India International Centre in New Delhi today.
Presenters and subject experts included Dr. Anand Kumar from the Centre for the Study of Social Systems JNU, MP Khiren Rijiju (Lok Sabha) from Arunachal Pradesh, Former Ambassadors Dalip Mehta and Ranjit Gupta, Senior Advocates Rajiv Dhawan and Naresh Mathur (Supreme Court of India), Major General Vinod Saighal and Gandhian Rajiv Vora, Chairman of Swarajpeeth and its Director Dr. Niru Vora.
In the year 1914 representatives of Great Britain Sir Henry McMahon, Secretary in the British-India Government, Ivan Chen Special Commissioner for Foreign Affairs in Shanghai, China and Lonchen Shatra Paljor Dorje, Prime Minister of Tibet met in Shimla to draft a tripartite treaty where the governments of Great Britain and China recognized the latter’s suzerainty over Tibet and the autonomy of Outer Tibet guaranteeing to “respect the territorial integrity of Tibet and abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet (including the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama), which shall remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government in Lhasa.”
The Convention also covered trade issues, the posting of British and Chinese envoys in Tibet and the borders between India and Tibet. China however failed to come to terms after Britain claimed rights to Tawang, northern Arunachal Pradesh which China views as Southern Tibet and refused to sign the treaty. Notwithstanding China’s refusal, the Shimla Agreement came into effect with the three nations participating as equals.
The border in question is the McMahon Line named after Sir Henry McMahon and “extends along the crest of the Himalayas for 550 miles from Bhutan in the west to the great bend of the Brahmaputra River in the east.” It is just about the same line of control that marks the frontier between territories under the Indian side of the fence and that of China. It is regarded by India as the national legal border and is also reiterated by the Tibetan Government in Exile.
Choekyong Wangchuk, member of Tibetan parliament, on the occasion said, “There are two main parts of the Shimla Agreement: that of boundary and suzerainty. On the question of boundary, the Agreement is definitely binding. His Holiness stands by it and so does the TGIE. We are willing to live with the PRC provided they uphold the interests of the minority race which is laid down in the Chinese Constitution.”
China’s claims that it does not recognize the Shimla Convention because Tibet was not a sovereign government and therefore did not have any external affairs authority to conclude treaties fall short of the truth. Nor do their declaration of Tibetan territories (Kham and Amdo) having been under China for years holds ground.
Tibet has been signing treaties as an independent nation since 821 A.D. with China, Ladakh, Kashmir, Nepal, Burma, Sikkim and Great Britain up until 1918.
According to ‘The History of Tibet: Volume III. The modern period: 1895-1959’, “The Tibetan Government’s claims to the disputed territories consisted of three parts: first, historical evidence demonstrating that these territories were Tibetan territories; second, evidence showing that a 1000 year old boundary between Tibet and China already existed; and third, a refutation of the Chinese claims. In stark contrast with the one Chinese document which states that several of the disputed territories have been given Chinese names and converted into the 8th Division of the Sichuan Parliamentary election districts were the ninety documents by the Tibetan Government including inscriptions of boundary pillars, census reports, tax and revenue records, extracts from written histories, registers of legal cases, list of official appointments, monastic records, bonds of allegiance between territories and the Tibet Government, and correspondence between the Chinese and Tibetan Government regarding certain territories.”
Rajiv Vora in his presentation said, “China has no qualms about being untruthful, about being what Mahatma Gandhi would call ‘mischievous’ to truth. It has gained an upper hand only over its nakedness of untruth”
The day’s seminar was divided into two sessions-the pre lunch and post lunch conference. Specialists presented facts and data based on historical analysis. Safe to say all those gathered agreed that China whatsoever had no concrete case morally, legally or otherwise to back her tall claims.
