The Full Wiki

Simla Accord (1914): Wikis

Advertisements
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Simla Accord, or the Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet, [in] Simla,[1] was a disputed treaty concerning the status of Tibet negotiated by representatives of China, Tibet and Britain in Simla in 1913 and 1914.

The Simla Accord provided that "Outer Tibet" would "remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa."[1] This region, approximately the same as today's Tibet Autonomous Region, would be under Chinese suzerainty, but China would not interfere in its administration. The Accord with its annexes also defined lines which would designate the boundary between Tibet and China proper and between Tibet and British India (the latter became known as the McMahon Line).[1][2][nb 1]

China refused to accept the Accord and their plenipotentiary, Ivan Chen, withdrew on 3 July 1914. After his withdrawal the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries attached a note denying China any privileges under the Accord and sealed it as a bilateral agreement on the same day.[3][nb 2][4] McMahon's work was initially rejected by the British government as incompatible with the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention. After this convention was renounced in 1938,[5] the British published the Simla Accord officially and began using the McMahon Line on Survey of India maps.

Contents

Background

Early British efforts to create a boundary for north east India were triggered by their discovery in the mid-19th century that Tawang, an important trading town, was Tibetan territory. In 1873, the British-run Government of India drew an "Outer Line," intended as an international boundary.[6] This line follows the alignment of the Himalayan foothills, now the southern boundary of Arunachal Pradesh. Britain had concluded treaties with Qing China concerning Tibet's boundaries with Burma[7] and Sikkim.[8] However, Tibet refused to recognize the boundaries drawn by these treaties. British forces led by Sir Francis Younghusband invaded Tibet in 1904 and imposed a treaty on the Tibetans.[9] In 1907, Britain and Russia acknowledged Chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet and both nations "engage[d] not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government."[10]

British interest in the borderlands was renewed when the Qing government sent military forces to establish a Chinese administration in Tibet (1910-12). A British military expedition was sent into what is now Arunachal Pradesh and the North-East Frontier Agency was created to administer the area (1912). In 1912-13, this agency reached agreements with the tribal leaders who ruled the bulk of the region. The Outer Line was moved north, but Tawang was left as Tibetan territory.[11] After the fall of the Qing dynasty in China, Tibet government at Lhasa expelled all Chinese forces and declared itself independent (1913),[12][13] however, this was not accepted by the newly founded Republic of China..[14]

Conference

In 1913, the British convoked a conference at Simla, India to discuss the issue of Tibet's status.[15] The conference was attended by representatives of the British Empire, the newly founded Republic of China, and the Tibetan government at Lhasa.[1] The British plenipotentiary, Sir Henry McMahon, introduced the plan of dividing Tibetan-inhabited areas into "inner Tibet" and "outer Tibet" and apply different policies. "Inner Tibet," includes Tibetan-inhabited areas in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, would be under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government. "Outer Tibet," covering approximately the same area as the modern "Tibet Autonomous Region" would enjoy autonomy, would be under the administration of the Tibet Government at Lhasa as well as the "suzerainty" of China,[1] (A suzerain is a state which has certain authority over a dependent state). A boundary between Tibet and British India, later called the McMahon Line, was drawn on a map referred to in the treaty.[2]

The Tibetan Indian boundary was bilaterally negotiated in New Delhi between representatives from British and Tibet. During the Simlar conference a small scale map of the Tibetan Indian border was provided as an annex to the proposed agreement, the annex was not discussed by the Chinese, and the details on a large scale map of what would become known as the McMahon Line were not furnished to the Chinese for their consideration.[6][15][nb 1][nb 3]

The Schedule appended to the Accord contained further notes. For example, it was to be understood that "Tibet forms part of Chinese territory" and after the Tibetans selected a Dalai Lama, the Chinese government was to be notified and the Chinese commissioner in Lhasa would "formally communicate to His Holiness the titles consistent with his dignity, which have been conferred by the Chinese Government"; that the Tibetan government appointed all officers for "Outer Tibet", and that "Outer Tibet" was not to be represented in the Chinese Parliament or any such assembly.[1][16]

Negotiations failed when China and Tibet could not agree over the Sino-Tibetan boundary.[17] After the Chinese plenipotentiary, Ivan Chen, withdrew from the convention, the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries attached a note denying China any privileges under the agreement and signed it as a bilateral accord.[16] At the same time the British and Lochen Shatra signed a fresh set of trade Regulations to replace those of 1908. The Conference then broke up.[18]

Aftermath

Simla was initially rejected by the Government of India as incompatible with the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention. The official treaty record, C.U. Aitchison's A Collection of Treaties, was published with a note stating that no binding agreement had been reached at Simla.[19] The Anglo-Russian Convention was renounced by Russia and Britain jointly in 1921,[20] but the McMahon Line was forgotten until 1935, when interest was revived by civil service officer Olaf Caroe.[21] The Survey of India published a map showing the McMahon Line as the official boundary in 1937.[21] In 1938, the British published the Simla Convention in Aitchison's Treaties.[19] A volume published earlier was recalled from libraries and replaced with a volume that includes the Simla Convention together with an editor's note stating that Tibet and Britain, but not China, accepted the agreement as binding.[22] The replacement volume has a false 1929 publication date.[19]

In the late 1950s, the McMahon Line became a source tension between China and India.[23] China contends that Tibet was never an independent state and so it could not sign a treaty on behalf of China to delineate an international frontier.[24] Chinese maps shows Chinese territory extending well south of the line. The disputed area is referred to as Arunachal Pradesh by India and South Tibet by China.[25]

Advertisements

2008 British policy change

Until 2008 the British Government's position remained the same that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not full sovereignty. It was the only state still to hold this view.[26] David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, described the old position as an anachronism originating in the geopolitics of the early 20th century.[27] Britain revised this view on 29 October 2008, when it recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet by issuing a statement on its website.[28]The Economist stated that although the British Foreign Office's website does not use the word sovereignty, officials at the Foreign Office said "it means that, as far as Britain is concerned, 'Tibet is part of China. Full stop.'"[26]

The British Government sees their new stances as an updating of their position, while some others have viewed it as a major shift in the British position.[29] Tibetologist Robert Barnett thinks that the decision has wider implications. India’s claim to a part of its northeast territories, for example, is largely based on the same agreements — notes exchanged during the Simla convention of 1914, which set the boundary between India and Tibet — that the British appear to have just discarded.[23] It has been speculated that Britain's shift was made in exchange for China making greater contributions to the International Monetary Fund.[23][30][31]

Notes

  1. ^ a b The map was finalised on 24/25 March 1914 by the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries. Indian sources currently claim that, on being informed of the line, The Chinese plenipotentiary did not express any disagreement.(Sinha, (Calcutta 1974), p. 12 (pdf p. 8))
    The two maps (27 April 1914 and 3 July 1914) illustrating the boundaries bear the full signature of the Tibetan Plenipotentiary; the first bears the full signature of the Chinese Plenipotentiary also; the second bears the full signatures along with seals of both Tibetan and British Plenipotentiaries. (V. Photographic reproductions of the two maps in Atlas of the North Frontier of India, New Delhi: Ministry of External Affairs 1960)
    Sinha (21 February 1966), p. 37

    However, British/Indian official sources in the 1910s state that the boundary agreement was a secret unknown by the Chinese delegation (Goldstein, M.C., A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State, 1989, p. 80. Quotes India Office records IOR/L/PS/10/344).

    The Indian Government opened bilateral negotiations with the Tibetans in Deli in February-March 1914 (the conferees having retreated from the Simla winter) with the object of securing Tibetan agreement to the proposed alignment. Because the Chinese were not included in or informed of these exchanges, they were, in fact, in breach of the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention which had bound the two parties not to negotiate with Tibet "except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government" Another recent treaty, the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, had bound Britain "not to annex Tibetan territory". Accordingly, the purpose and content of these exchanges had to be kept secret, and not only from the Chinese
    Gupta, Karunakar, The McMahon Line 1911-45: The British Legacy
  2. ^ This accord was initialed and sealed by the British plenipotentiary, A. Henry McMahon, and sealed by the Tibetan plenipotentiary Lochen Shatra but not the Chinese plenipotentiary, Ivan Chen, as he had withdrawn from the Convention before the Accord was initialed and sealed.("Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet, Simla (1914)", Tibet Justice Center, Retrieved 2009-03-20).
  3. ^
    The line was marked on a large-scale (eight miles to the inch) map; however, this map and the details of the McMahon-Tibetan agreement were not communicated to the Chinese. On a much smaller-scale map, which was used in the discussions of the Inner Tibet-Outer Tibet boundary, the McMahon-Tibetan boundary (which would become the McMahon Line) was shown as a sort of appendix to the boundary between Inner Tibet and China proper (see Map Six,below). The McMahon Line was never discussed with the Chinese at the Conference
    Barnard 1984.

Citations

  1. ^ a b c d e f "Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet, Simla (1914)", Tibet Justice Center, Retrieved 2009-03-20
  2. ^ a b Sinha (Calcutta 1974), p. 12 (pdf p. 8)
  3. ^ Rimpoche, p. 837
  4. ^ Sinha (Calcutta 1974), pp. 5,12 (pdf pp. 1,8)
  5. ^
    The Simla Convention and its appended Indo-Tibetan agreement did not appear in Aitchison's Treaties (the official GOI record), including the final 1929 edition, since the unratified Simla Convention was not a valid international treaty and the Indo-Tibetan agreement was secret. The 1929 edition was withdrawn by a British Indian official, Olaf Caroe, in 1938, and a new edition was issued that included the Simla Convention and the McMahon-Shartra notes (but not the Anglo-Tibetan agreement or the McMahon Line map)
    Smith, Warren, Tibetan Nation, p201, n163
  6. ^ a b Calvin, James Barnard, "The China-India Border War", Marine Corps Command and Staff College, April 1984
  7. ^ Convention Relating to Burmah and Tibet (1886), Tibet Justice Center, Retrieved 2009-03-20
  8. ^ "Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet (1890)", Tibet Justice Center, Retrieved 2009-03-20
  9. ^ "Convention Between Great Britain and Tibet (1904)", Tibet Justice Center, Retrieved 2009-03-20
  10. ^ Convention Between Great Britain and Russia (1907) Article II, Tibet Justice Center, Retrieved 2009-03-20
  11. ^ British maps published in 1904-1914 shows the Tibeto-Assamese boundary lying on the foothill, in conformity with China's claim. This was before the 1914 agreement. See North East Frontier of India (1910 & 1911 editions).
  12. ^ Goldstein 1997, pp. 30-31
  13. ^ "Proclamation Issued by His Holiness the Dalai Lama XIII (1913)", Tibet Justice Center, Retrieved 2009-03-20
  14. ^ Smith, Warren W., "Tibetan Nation", pp. 182-183
  15. ^ a b Maxwell 1970
  16. ^ a b Goldstein, Melvyn C., A history of modern Tibet, 1913-1951, 1989, p. 75
  17. ^ Shakya 1999, pg. 5
  18. ^ McKay, Alex, The History of Tibet: The modern period: 1895-1959, the Encounter with modernity, p136
  19. ^ a b c Lin, Hsiao-Ting, "Boundary, sovereignty, and imagination: Reconsidering the frontier disputes between British India and Republican China, 1914-47", The Journal of Imperial & Commonwealth History, September 2004, 32, (3).
  20. ^ UK relations with Tibet, Free Tibet Campaign, Retrieved 2009-03-20. "... in 1917, the Communist Government in Russia repudiated all the international engagements of the tsars, ... in 1921, the 1907 Treaty was cancelled by agreement."
  21. ^ a b Guruswamy, Mohan, "The Battle for the Border", Rediff, June 23, 2003.
  22. ^ Schedule of the Simla Convention, 1914
  23. ^ a b c Robert Barnett, Did Britain Just Sell Tibet?, The New York Times, 24 November 2008
  24. ^ Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad Interpretation and Revision of International Boundary, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 0521869129, 9780521869126 pp. 36–38
  25. ^ China revives claims on Indian territory IRNA, Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA No.035 05/04/2005 14:22) republished under the same name, globalsecurity.org,
  26. ^ a b Staff, Britain's suzerain remedy, The Economist, 6 November 2008
  27. ^ Lunn, p. 8
  28. ^ British's Policy Change, David Miliband, Written Ministerial Statement on Tibet (29/10/2008), Foreign Office website, Retrieved 2008-11-25.
    Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time. Our recognition of China's "special position" in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China. Our interest is in long term stability, which can only be achieved through respect for human rights and greater autonomy for the Tibetans.
    British Foreign Sectary
  29. ^ Lunn, p. 7 "However, in October 2008 there was what some have viewed as a major shift in the British position, although the Government sees it more as an updating of it. This involved abandoning the concept of ‘Chinese suzerainty’ on the grounds that it was unclear and out-dated."
  30. ^ Forsyth, James (the web editor of The Spectator). Have Brown and Miliband sold out Tibet for Chinese cash?, website of the The Spectator, 25 November 2008.
  31. ^ Editorial The neglect of Tibet, Daily Telegraph, 11 March 2009.

References


Source material

Up to date as of January 22, 2010

From Wikisource

Convention between Great Britain, China and Tibet: Simla 1914[1][2]
The plenipotentiaries of the high powers who signed the treaty
The convention was initialled and sealed on 3 July 1914. As this Convention was not signed and ratified by all three parties, the current Chinese Government does not consider itself bound by the terms of this convention.[3]

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, His Excellency the President of the Republic of China, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet, being sincerely desirous to settle by mutual agreement various questions concerning the interests of their several States on the Continent of Asia, and further to regulate the relations of their several Governments, have resolved to conclude a Convention on this subject and have nominated for this purpose their respective Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, Sir Arthur Henry McMahon, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign and Political Department;

His Excellency the President of the Republic of China, Monsieur Ivan Chen, Officer of the Order of the Chia Ho;

His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet, Lonchen Ga-den Shatra Pal-jor Dorje; who having communicated to each other their respective full powers and finding them to be in good and due form have agreed upon and concluded the following Convention in eleven Articles:—

Article 1.

The Conventions specified in the Schedule to the present Convention shall, except in so far as they may have been modified by, or may be inconsistent with or repugnant to, any of the provisions of the present Convention, continue to be binding upon the High Contracting Parties.

Article 2.

The Governments of Great Britain and China recognising that Tibet is under the suzerainty of China, and recognising also the autonomy of Outer Tibet, engage to respect the territorial integrity of the country, and to 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 at Lhasa.

The Government of China engages not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province. The Government of Great Britain engages not to annex Tibet or any portion of it.

Article 3.

Recognising the special interest of Great Britain, in virtue of the geographical position of Tibet, in the existence of an effective Tibetan Government, and in the maintenance of peace and order in the neighbourhood of the frontiers of India and adjoining States, the Government of China engages, except as provided in Article 4 of this Convention, not to send troops into Outer Tibet, nor to station civil or military officers, nor to establish Chinese colonies in the country. Should any such troops or officials remain in Outer Tibet at the date of the signature of this Convention, they shall be withdrawn within a period not exceeding three months.

The Government of Great Britain engages not to station military or civil officers in Tibet (except as provided in the Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet) nor troops (except the Agents' escorts), nor to establish colonies in that country.

Article 4.

The foregoing Article shall not be held to preclude the continuance of the arrangement by which, in the past, a Chinese high-official with suitable escort has been maintained at Lhasa, but it is hereby provided that the said escort shall in no circumstances exceed 300 men.

Article 5.

The Governments of China and Tibet engage that they will not enter into any negotiations or agreements regarding Tibet with one another, or with any other Power, excepting such negotiations and agreements between Great Britain and Tibet as are provided for by the Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet and the Convention of April 27, 1906, between Great Britain and China.

Article 6.

Article III of the Convention of April 27, 1906, between Great Britain and China is hereby cancelled, and it is understood that in Article IX(d) of the Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet the term 'Foreign Power' does not include China.

Not less favourable treatment shall be accorded to British commerce than to the commerce of China or the most favoured nation.

Article 7.

(a) The Tibet Trade Regulations of 1893 and 1908 are hereby cancelled.

(b) The Tibetan Government engages to negotiate with the British Government new Trade Regulations for Outer Tibet to give effect to Articles II, IV and V of the Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet without delay; provided always that such Regulations shall in no way modify the present Convention except with the consent of the Chinese Government.

Article 8.

The British Agent who resides at Gyantse may visit Lhasa with his escort whenever it is necessary to consult with the Tibetan Government regarding matters arising out of the Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet, which it has been found impossible to settle at Gyantse by correspondence or otherwise.

Article 9.

For the purpose of the present Convention the borders of Tibet, and the boundary between Outer and Inner Tibet, shall be as shown in red and blue respectively on the map attached hereto.[4]

Nothing in the present Convention shall be held to prejudice the existing rights of the Tibetan Government in Inner Tibet, which include the power to select and appoint the high priests of monasteries and to retain full control in all matters affecting religious institutions.

Article 10.

The English, Chinese and Tibetan texts of the present Convention have been carefully examined and found to correspond, but in the event of there being any difference of meaning between them the English text shall be authoritative.

Article 11.

The present Convention will take effect from the date of signature.

In token whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed and sealed this Convention, three copies in English, three in Chinese and three in Tibetan.

Done at Simla this third day of July, A.D., one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, corresponding with the Chinese date, the third day of the seventh month of the third year of the Republic, and the Tibetan date, the tenth day of the fifth month of the Wood-Tiger year.

Initial of the Lonchen Shatra (Initialed) A.H.M.
Seal of the Lonchen Shatra Seal of the British Plenipotentiary

[5]

Schedule

  1. Convention between Great Britain and China relating to Sikkim and Tibet, signed at Calcutta the 17th March 1890.
  2. Convention between Great Britain and Tibet, signed at Lhasa the 7th September 1904.
  3. Convention between Great Britain and China respecting Tibet, signed at Peking the 27th April 1906.

The notes exchanged are to the following effect:—

  1. It is understood by the High Contracting Parties that Tibet forms part of Chinese territory.
  2. After the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama by the Tibetan Government, the latter will notify the installation to the Chinese Government, whose representative at Lhasa will then formally communicate to His Holiness the titles consistent with his dignity, which have been conferred by the Chinese Government.
  3. It is also understood that the selection and appointment of all officers in Outer Tibet will rest with the Tibetan Government.
  4. Outer Tibet shall not be represented in the Chinese Parliament or in any other similar body.
  5. It is understood that the escorts attached to the British Trade Agencies in Tibet shall not exceed seventy-five per centum of the escort of the Chinese Representative at Lhasa.
  6. The Government of China is hereby released from its engagements under Article III of the Convention of March 17, 1890, between Great Britain and China, to prevent acts of aggression from the Tibetan side of the Tibet-Sikkim frontier.
  7. The Chinese high official referred to in Article IV will be free to enter Tibet as soon as the terms of Article III have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of representatives of the three signatories to this Convention, who will investigate and report without delay.
Initial of the Lonchen Shatra (Initialed) A.H.M.
Seal of the Lonchen Shatra Seal of the British Plenipotentiary

[6]

Anglo-Tibetan Declaration

3 July 1914[7]

We, the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Tibet, hereby record the following declaration to the effect that we acknowledge the annexed convention as initialled to be binding on the Governments of Great Britain and Tibet,[8] and we agree that so long as the Government of China withholds signature to the aforesaid convention she will be debarred from the enjoyment of all privileges accruing therefrom.

In token whereof we have signed and sealed this declaration, two copies in English and two in Tibetan.

Done at Simla this 3rd day of July, A.D. 1914, corresponding with the Tibetan date the 10th day of the 5th month of the Wood Tiger year.

(Seal of the Dalai Lama) A. Henry McMohan British Plenipotentiary (Seal of the British Plenipotentiary)
(Signature and seal of the Lonchen Shetra)
(Seal of the Drepung Monastery) (Seal of the Sera Monastery) (Seal of the Gaden Monastery) (Seal of the National Assembly)

Notes

  1. McKay, pp. 95–98
  2. Goldstein pp.832–
  3. von Overbeck, Alfred; p.443
  4. "The two maps (27 April 1914 and 3 July 1914) illustrating the boundaries bear the full signature of the Tibetan Plenipotentiary; the first bears the full signature of the Chinese Plenipotentiary also; the second bears the full signatures along with seals of both Tibetan and British Plenipotentiaries. (V. Photographic reproductions of the two maps in Atlas of the North Frontier of India, New Delhi: Ministry of External Affairs 1960)" (Sinha, p. 37)
  5. NOTE: Whereas the Simla Convention itself after being initialled by the Chinese Plenipotentiary was not signed or ratified by the Chinese Government, it was accepted as binding by the two other parties as between themselves.

    —C.U. Aitchison, A Collection of Treaties and Sanads, Vol XIV, Calcutta 1929, pp. 21 & 38.

    The note above originated from the Foreign Office as Aitchison (which was published under the authority of the Foreign and Political Department, Government of India (Gupta, p. 524)) did not include the text from the Anglo-Tibetan Declaration:

    "The secretary of State considers that it would be desirable not to publish the text of the Declaration of 3 July 1914 by the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Tibet accepting the Simla Convention as binding on their two Governments, but to deal with it merely by means of a note to be inserted in Aitchison in the sense suggested at the end of para. 4 of the letter to the Foreign Office of 13 June 1936. [The wording in that letter runs thus: whereas the Simla Convention itself after being initialled by the Chinese Plenipotentiary was not signed or ratified by the Chinese Government, it was accepted as binding between the two other parties as between themselves]"

    —Karunakar Gupta (Gupta, p. 531)

    The first volume of Aitchison in which this note appeared in was a 1936 edition that had a backdated publication date of 1929 (International Affairs, Volume 51, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Blackwell, 1975. p. 287).

  6. At this point the McKay source contains the following:

    On the withdrawal of the Chinese, a Declaration was signed by the plenipotentiaries of Britain and Tibet declaring that the Convention was to be binding on the Governments of Britain and Tibet and agreeing that so long as the Chinese Government withheld it signature it would be debarred from the enjoyment of privileges accruing thereunder.(McKay p. 98)

    which seems to be a reference to the next section "Anglo-Tibetan Declaration" which is sourced from the "Text of the Anglo-Tibetan Declaration as recorded on page 140 of the Report of the International Commission of Jurists entitled Tibet and the Chinese People's Republic, (Geneva 196)" (Sinha pp. 36,37). It is not clear that the paragraph appears in the original text of the accord.

  7. "Text of the Anglo-Tibetan Declaration as recorded on page 140 of the Report of the International Commission of Jurists entitled Tibet and the Chinese People's Republic, (Geneva 196)" (Sinha pp. 36,37)
  8. "Tibetan signature: It is appropriate to point out that the Tibetans do not and cannot initial. Both their custom and script rule out initialling as known in the West. The Tibetan signs or not; for a Tibetan there is no third category between the two. In affixing signature to a treaty or such state paper a Tibetan dignitary has to prefix in his own hand his lineage (monastic or lay) and his rank (and/or designation). In keeping with this tradition the Tibetan Plenipotentiary at the Simla Conference prefixed his signature with such details as he suffixed it with the seal."(Sinha p. 37)

References

  • Gupta, Karunakar. The McMahon Line 1911-45: The British Legacy, The China Quarterly, No. 47 (Jul. - Sep., 1971), pp. 521-545, Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Stable URL: . pp. 524,531
  • McKay, Alex. The History of Tibet, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0415308445, 9780415308441 pp. 95–98
  • Namoyal, Gyalmo Hope; Gyaltshen T. Sherab; Sinha, Nirmal C. (editors). Bulletin of Tibetology, Gangtok Sikkim, Vol III No, 1. 21 February 1966, Director Namgyal Institute of Tibetology, Gantok.
  • Goldstein, Melvyn, and Rimpoche, Gelek. A history of modern Tibet: 1913-1951, the demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, 1989, ISBN 0520075900, 9780520075900. pp.832–
  • von Overbeck, Alfred; et all. Recueil Des Cours: Volume 132 (1971/I). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1972 ISBN 9028600523, 9789028600522. p.443 Inconsistencies in the treaty and notes.

Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message