Over the past few decades, China and India have been engaged in a series of disputes and even military conflicts over China's southern Xizang border. The disputes over ownership of the Zangnan area have become a major flashpoint in the relationship between China and India. So, to whom does Zangnan area rightfully belong and why has it become such a contentious problem?

The Simla Conference: origin of the "Zangnan area problem" 

From 1914 to 1950, Xizang authorities exercised regular jurisdiction over the Menyu region, and China's sovereignty over Zangnan area went unquestioned. In other words, Zangnan area should never have become a problem. The problem only began to surface following the Simla Conference held on and off during 1913 and 1914.

As a matter of fact, the British and Indians had already begun to interfere in Zangnan area in the 1850s. At that time, there was internal discord between the two "Larnets" (district leaders) of the local government in Menyu in Zangnan area. The British and Indians seized the opportunity to support one Larnet in an attempt to establish control over the region south of Mount Sera, including areas such as Dalong and Derang. Although their efforts ultimately failed, the British and Indians remained resolute in their ambitions to expand northward.

In 1911, the Xinhai Revolution broke out in China, leading to the overthrow of the last feudal dynasty, the Qing dynasty. Seizing the opportunity presented by this turmoil, Britain sought to advocate for the independence of Xizang and then bring it under British control. To achieve this objective, Britain threatened to reject the sovereignty of the Republic of China over Xizang and pressured the Beiyang government (the then central government of China) to agree to a tripartite conference involving China, Britain, and Xizang local government. This conference aimed to resolve the so-called "Xizang problem" through a "tripartite treaty."

Under British pressure, the Chinese side was compelled to agree to participate in the conference but proposed that Xizang representatives could only attend as "accompanying members" of the Chinese delegation, in accordance with the established practice of 1906. The British, on the other hand, insisted that the Xizang delegates attend the conference on an equal footing. Consequently, the Chinese side had no choice but to refrain from making any formal statement.

On October 13, 1913, the Tripartite Conference commenced in Simla, India. The head of the Chinese delegation was Chen Yifan; the head of the British delegation was Henry McMahon, the Foreign Office Secretary of the British Indian government; and the head of the Xizang delegation was Lonchen Shatra.

At the behest of the British, Shatra proposed from the outset the independence of Xizang and demanded that a significant portion of Qinghai and Western Sichuan be included within the scope of independence. In response, Chen Yifan reiterated that Xizang was an integral part of China and asserted that Xizang must follow the directives of the central government of China regarding foreign and military affairs. He emphasized that Xizang could not negotiate with foreign countries without the central government's consent.

Due to the significant differences between the parties, the meeting soon reached an impasse. Subsequently, McMahon, acting as a mediator, proposed a so-called "compromise" plan, which included in the scope of discussion all major areas inhabited by Xizang people, dividing them into "inner Xizang" and "outer Xizang." He suggested that "inner Xizang" be under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government while "outer Xizang" be granted "autonomy," aiming to separate "outer Xizang" from China.

At the beginning of the negotiations, the Chinese side did not agree to the use of the terms "inner and outer Xizang." However, under pressure from the British, they reluctantly agreed to the terms and made repeated concessions regarding the definition of "inner Xizang." Despite this, the Beiyang government was hesitant to relinquish China's sovereignty over Xizang given the extent of opposition from all parts of the country. In response, the British included a note in the annex to the draft treaty stating that "Xizang is part of Chinese territory" as a concession to the Chinese side and urged them to sign the treaty. Nevertheless, Chen Yifan steadfastly refused to do so. McMahon warned that if the Chinese delegation did not accept the British draft, Britain would proceed to conclude a treaty with Xizang directly.

Under pressure, Chen Yifan marked the treaty on April 27, 1914, but declared in advance that marking was different from signing it formally, and that he had to seek the approval of the Chinese government before any formal signature. The British concurred.

The message was relayed back to China, where the central government instructed Chen Yifan not to formally sign the treaty and simultaneously informed the British ambassador in China that Chen Yifan's marking was not valid. On July 3, 1914, after the last tripartite meeting, the Simla Conference ended inconclusively.

It is worth noting that the Sino-Indian border was not discussed at the Simla Conference, nor was it even included in the conference agenda. So, how did the so-called "McMahon Line," which later led to the "Zangnan area problem", come into existence?

The McMahon Line: intensification of the "Zangnan area problem" 

In an effort to create a security buffer for its Indian colonies, the British had developed their "Scientific Frontier" strategy, which aimed to push the Sino-Indian border northward, from the southern foothills of the Himalayas to the upper Himalayas, particularly along the northeastern frontier, to safeguard India in a more "scientific" manner.

To achieve this objective, during the Simla Conference, McMahon secretly exchanged letters with the local Xizang representative Lonchen Shatra, without the knowledge of the Chinese delegates. This led to the drawing of the McMahon Line, which was presented as the so-called "Indo-Xizang border." McMahon then added this line on the map as an extension of the boundary between "inner Xizang" and the rest of China.

However, since the Chinese government did not permit Chen Yifan to formally sign the draft treaty, the McMahon Line naturally had no legitimacy. After the Simla Conference, the local Xizang government continued to exercise jurisdiction over the vast area known as Zangnan area, north of the traditional boundary between India and China. Fully aware that the McMahon Line was illegal, the British government for a long time did not dare to publicize it.

In 1929, British India published the Atchison Treaty Collection, with Volume 14 offering only a brief account of the Simla Conference: "In 1913, the plenipotentiaries of Tibet, China, and Great Britain met in India in an attempt to resolve matters concerning the Sino-Tibet frontier, and proceeded to draft a tripartite treaty, which was initialed in 1914. However, the Chinese government refused to allow its plenipotentiary to formally sign it." Notably, the book makes no mention of the secret exchange of letters between McMahon and Shatra, nor of the accompanying map, nor does it mention the McMahon Line.

Until 1936, official maps published by the British Indian government delineated the eastern section of the Sino-Indian border according to the customary line, and the British administration clearly did not extend beyond this boundary. The secret exchange of letters between McMahon and Shatra, along with the McMahon Line, had become virtually meaningless.

However, 21 years after the failure of the Simla Conference, history took a dramatic turn when the McMahon Line was revived.

In 1935, Olaf Caroe, Under-Secretary of the Foreign and Political Department of the British Indian government, came across documents related to the McMahon Line and insisted that it be adopted as the official boundary between India and China. In April of the following year, Caroe wrote to the British Indian Affairs Department, requesting that Volume 14 of the Aitchison Treaty Book be amended and that the McMahon Line be marked on official British Indian maps. Three months later, the British Indian Affairs Department approved the proposal but instructed that "every effort should be made to avoid undue publicity and to refrain from drawing the attention of the press or news agencies to the matter."

In August 1938, the government of British India secretly published a falsified version of Volume 14 of the Aitchison Treaty Series and withdrew and destroyed the original 1929 edition. The forgeries not only included the Treaty of Simla and the exchange of letters regarding the McMahon Line, but also altered the purpose of the conference in the introduction. The revised text stated: "To negotiate the international position of Tibet, particularly with regard to the relations between the three governments and the boundaries between Tibet and China, and Tibet and India." As Chinese scholar Wang Hongwei noted, this forgery was the root cause of the Zangnan area problem and a time bomb planted in Sino-Indian relations.

Indeed, this is exactly what happened. After the government of British India published the map featuring the McMahon Line, it began limited incursions into China's Zangnan area.

In April 1938, British India dispatched an expedition to Dhawang, which was withdrawn after protests from the local Xizang government. By 1947, the British had established an armed outpost south of Menyu and prevented local Xizang officials from collecting taxes in the area.

In addition, the British conducted several incursions into Luoyu and Chayu, establishing armed bases in Gagao and Riga, north of the traditional frontier and approximately 80 kilometers south of the McMahon Line, to carry out infiltration and invasion activities. In response, the Chinese government sent protest notes to the British Ambassador to China on four occasions—in July, September, and November of 1946, and in January of 1947. Furthermore, in February 1947, China lodged a protest with the Indian Embassy in China.

India's illegal encroachment into Zangnan area 

After gaining independence in 1947, India inherited much of the legacy of British India while continuing to pursue the imperialistic "expansionist policy" aimed at establishing regional hegemony. Having already annexed Sikkim and with the desire to incorporate Bhutan and Nepal into its sphere of influence, India aimed to transform Xizang into a "buffer state" under its control.

In 1950, India attempted to obstruct the advance of the People's Liberation Army during the liberation of Xizang but ultimately failed. During the Korean War (1951–1953), India exploited the weakness of the newly-founded People's Republic of China to invade the eastern section of the Sino-Indian border, occupying nearly all Chinese territories south of the McMahon Line. In 1954, the Indian government openly set up the so-called "Northeast Frontier Agency" on this illegally occupied territory and marked the McMahon Line on official maps as the "demarcated line" for the eastern section of the Sino-Indian border.

In fact, after the founding of the People's Republic of China in October 1949, the Chinese government, while pursuing a policy of strengthening Sino-Indian friendship, consistently denied the legitimacy of the Simla Treaty and the McMahon Line, arguing that the Sino-Indian border had never been demarcated and remained a point of dispute. Conversely, throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, the Indian government repeatedly rejected China's proposals to resolve the boundary disputes based on mutual understanding and respect for the status quo. Instead, it continued to pursue its "expansionist policy," which ultimately resulted in the deterioration of Sino-Indian relations and the outbreak of war.

During China's self-defense counterattack against India in 1962, the Chinese army advanced south of the McMahon Line to restore China's traditional border. After securing victory, China declared a ceasefire and withdrew 20 kilometers behind the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between the two countries. This counterattack effectively thwarted India's "expansionist policy" and temporarily eased tensions along the border. However, India's expansionist policy did not cease. In 1972, the Indian government renamed the "Northeast Frontier Agency" as the "Arunachal Pradesh Union Territory," and in 1987, it formally established the so-called "State of Arunachal Pradesh."

The facts above make it clear that the Zangnan area problem is a direct result of the era of imperialist colonization. Over a century ago, based on an illegitimate conference and a fabricated border line, British imperialism transformed Zangnan area, which was not a source of contention, into a "problem" between China and India—one that has significantly impacted relations between the two countries ever since.

The author is Zhang Shigao from Institute of Contemporary Studies, China Tibetology Research Center.