In the last part of my response
to Mrs. Bhalla's article "Refugee Tragedy in the Making" (Today May
16, 2005), I'd like to look at "Arunachal Pradesh" and the main point
of this article.
"Arunachal Pradesh" is
the Indian name for the land that never belonged to India before the latter's
invasion in 1951. Instead, It has
been Tibetan territory. As the
author mentioned, this time correctly, that the 6th Dalai Lama, Tsangyang
Gyatso (1683-1706), was born and grew up here before he was recognized by
Beijing as the reincarnation of 5th Dalai Lama and went to Lhasa in 1697. Tibet had county government, tax office
as well as a small police force there.
The traditional boundary between
India and Tibet, as well as other Himalayan nations, had been the foothill of
Himalayas. However, this was
changed arbitrarily in late 19th century by Sir Henry McMahon, who argued that
the border between British India and Tibet, according to "international
tradition", should be the natural landform, in this case the crest of
Himalayas. According to A. Tom
Grunfeld, the author of <The Making of Modern Tibet> (p63, Revised Edition, New York, 1996),
Sir McMahon purposely cheated British government back at London that his
demarcation is same as the traditional one, and obtained approval. However, the new demarcation pushed
British India border "sixty miles north from the foothills of the Assam
Himalayas to their crest".
(BTW, even Assam was not
traditionally India territory but was annexed by British India from Myanmar)
However, British India
government never attempted to implement this arbitrary demarcation, better
known as McMahon Line, even when British India army sacked Lhasa in 1904 or
during Imperial China's collapse in 1911.
The farthest step it took was in 1937, when Japan invaded China, that
Britain published a map that for the first time marked the new demarcation.
After India's independence, it
adopted a more forward policy than its colonial predecessor. India rejected Tibet's appeal to return
land that was seized by the British.
Furthermore, in 1951, when Lhasa and Beijing was negotiating a truce
following Lhasa's fiasco in Chamdo, India stabbed Tibet on its back by sending
army to implement the colonial McMahon Line and drove away local Tibetan
authority.
The difference between
"Arunachal Pradesh" and Aksai Chin is: the latter is no man's land
whereas in the former there was legal government. Therefore, what British India and India government did was essentially:
arbitrarily claim a land, send army there and throw away its existent
government.
After the communist reunited
China, Beijing expressed wishes to solve the land dispute via negotiation. China wouldn't recognize the colonial
McMahon Line, yet was willing to demarcate along the line of control (which is
essentially the same as McMahon Line).
However, same as in Aksai Chin issue, India government insisted that
there was no land in dispute and refused negotiation, even though China was to
leave "Arunachal Pradesh" under India.
China also made numerous
proposal for demilitarization of this disputed land, and both armies stay 20 km
behind the crest borders. India
never accepted such proposal, but rather, continued its encroaching by building
posts behind China army's posts.
In 1962, China initiated attack
and drove India army out of the disputed land back to the traditional border
before 1951. It then defeated the
reinforced and redeployed India army.
After these two battles, China army unilaterally retreated to the crest
border, and move 20 km further back, so as to make "Arunachal
Pradesh" demilitarized.
So what did India do? The Indian Army did not return on the
heels of the Chinese. Instead,
India government sent emigrants to Arunachal first, the army came back
afterwards. Nor did they hold
themselves to the 20 km line south of the crest boundary, instead they further
marched to the new line, which is 20 km north to the ridge that Chinese army left
for buffer.
It is against international law
to send emigrant to land in dispute so as to create de facto sovereignty!
Mrs. Bhalla talked a lot about
aboriginal tribes in "Arunachal Pradesh". What she didn't mention is that immigrants from India have
already outnumbered the local.
This is why local people are influenced by India culture.
China government shows no eager
to take "Arunachal Pradesh" back. It is absurd for Mrs. Bhalla to create such a groundless
warning about so-called "refugee". As I indicated in my previous email, she confused the basic
pursuits of China and India government, thus made such a unnecessary fuss.
Even if China would take
"Arunachal Pradesh" back, the local Tibetans and aboriginal tribes
would probably choose to stay in their homeland whereas the Indian immigrants
may probably choose to leave.
However, it was not China's responsibility to move them to
"Arunachal Pradesh" in the first place. It was India who refused China's demilitarization proposal
before 1962, and moved its population into this disputed region after 1962,
violating international law. Now
someone acting as a humanitarian appeals that border should be demarcated
through unpopulated area. Well, if
this makes any sense, why not India send population to all over the world, then
claim the whole earth to India?
I would be more than happy to
see India and China solve their land dispute according to de facto line of
control, seal the past awful memory and walk on shoulder by shoulder to the
future. However, it is irritating
to see that someone who has little history knowledge, someone who has already
benefited from illegal emigration policy, someone claims herself to be a
converted Singaporean but sticks to narrow national interest of India, keeps
making trouble by releasing irresponsible information to the public.
Best regards,
Wang Zai-Tian
The
Philharmonic Choral Society
Copyright
2000-2007 Wang Yi