When China did not claim what is today's Arunachal Pradesh

A photo China does not like to see
Sir Henry McMahon surrounded by Ivan Chen and Lonchen Shatra

I am posting extracts of an interesting document, the Proceedings of the 3rd meeting of the Tibet Conference (also known as Simla Conference).
During this particular meeting which was held at Delhi (not Simla) on January 12, 1914, the Tibetans and the Chinese representatives presented their views on their common border.

It was the follow-up of extensive discussions between Sir Charles Bell, the Assistant of Sir Henry McMahon, the Indian Foreign Secretary and the plenipotentiaries of Tibet and China.
Today, Beijing would like to believe that this Conference never took place, but it did (see the picture above).
The three plenipotentiaries sat on the table as equals, China has also forgotten this 'detail'.
I am posting here only the Chinese description of its borders with Tibet and India. it shows that Ivan Chen, the Chinese plenipotentiary has clearly little to offer in terms of proofs of 'ownership', while still claiming large chunks of Tibetan in Eastern Tibet; the Tibetans were far better prepared and could document their claims much better (see my website for the long Tibetan statements and the 90 attached documents).

The main discussion of the Conference was around the Sino-Tibetan border in Kham province of Tibet. In their statement, the Chinese representative nowhere claimed that the entire plateau, till what is today Xinjiang, belonged to China.
There is also no trace of claim of Tawang area or India's entire North-East (later NEFA).
The only area close to the Indian border which is mentioned is Zayul.
The Chinese statement says:

Zayul is divided into two parts, the upper and the lower, both of which are outside the pale of the Tibetan control and are inhabited by independent and barbarous tribes called Miris, Abors, and Mishmis.
On the approach of the Chinese army at the place in 1911, the Chiefs of Zayul tendered their submission to His late Excellency Chao Erh Feng [Zhao Erfeng], and he then took effective occupation of it, as evidence of which he caused seals of office to be issued to the Chiefs and placed it under the administration of Szechuan (Sichuan). It is now called Cha-yu Hien.

The truth is the Zhao Erfeng, known as 'Butcher Zhao' for his cruelty, conducted an expedition along the Lohit river till a place called Menilkrai, near Walong.
He planted a pillar and left.
On November 19, 1913, the Secretary of State sanctioned what the Bristish called a 'promenade' in the area.
TPM O'Callaghan, the Assistant Political Officer (APO) in Sadiya was in charge; he was accompanied by an escort of the 1/8th Gurkha Rifles led by Major C Stansfeld and Lt. HR Haringlon.
The British officers visited Rima in Tibet at the invitation of the Tibetan authorities, and cordial relations were established.
On May 6, 1914, Sir Archdale Earle, the Chief Commissioner of Assam writes:

Mr. O'Callaghan's report confirms the information in the possession of the Chief Commissioner that there are at present no Chinese troops anywhere in the neighbourhood of Rima. It urges nevertheless the importance of carrying the Lohit Valley road to our frontier, and of establishing a post as near the frontier as is practicable at the earliest possible date. This view is shared by the Chief Commissioner, but he realises that, for reasons which will presently be stalled, it will probably be found advisable to move slowly in the coming cold weather. He thinks, however, and he trusts that the Government of India will agree in this view, that the impossibility of recognising a Chinese boundary in the neighbourhood of Menilkrai has been finally established, and he regards Mr O'Callaghan's action in removing the boundary posts as thoroughly justified.

The APO had found Chinese markers at Menilkrai, just below Walong. One set dated from 1910 and new markers had been placed in 1912 by the Chinese troops. O'Callaghan removed the markers, repositioned them upstream, near Kahao, just south of the McMahon Line.
O'Callaghan confirms that a post needed to be established at Walong:

I am more than ever convinced of the necessity of the finishing of the road to our frontier and the opening of a post as near our frontier as soon as possible. From Walong to Rima, there is no difficulty in road making and the Lohit Valley road already constructed and open up to Mankum only required continuation to Manglor flat, a distance of less than 30 miles, to make the opening and rationing of the post a practicable scheme. I trust it will be clearly realised that a small force, operating from Walong, could occupy Rima and hold the Rong Chu and Zayul Valleys in 24-30 hours and, vice versa, a force moving from Rima can unopposed be in position on Menilkrai flat within 36 hours and effectually prevent any advance up the Lohit Valley. Should delay be made, it is not impossible that in the years to come it may take much more than the resources which the Local Administration will have at its immediate command, to assert our legitimate rights and claims, which the ready completion of the already sanctioned but uncompleted scheme for the Lohit Valley will confirm.

The APO studied the “the immense cost rationing the post”, but after he made some enquiries, he was “satisfied that within a few years the majority of the rice and other items required for the supplies can be procured locally, either grown or purchased.”
This was unfortunately not enough to convince Delhi at that time, but the India-Tibet border was clearly defined between Kahao (near Kibuthu) and Rima as marked the following year by McMahon on his map.
Ivan Chen did not make any claim on what is today Tawang district.
It is clearly an afterthought. At the end of 1959, Beijing reacted to the escape to the Dalai Lama in India and started wild claims.
Lonchen Shatra the Tibetan Plenipotentiary resumed nicely the situation in his statement:

Therefore unlawful encroachment, like a large insect swallowing up a small one, or in other words asserting 'might is right' — an uncivilised method — it is hoped, will not be permitted, and that lawful rights will be respected and the lawful owner will be allowed to enjoy peaceful possession.

Unfortunately, a century later, unlawful encroachments are still permitted.
The entire proceedings of this meeting is available on my website.
It is worth reading the Tibetan description of the border with China supported by 90 historical documents.

Map showing the Tibetan and Chinese 'perceptions' at Simla and the different proposals
The border with India is not disputed

Here are extracts of the Proceedings the Third Meeting of the Conference (the Chinese views on their borders with Tibet)

Present :-Sir Henry McMahon, G.C.V.O., K.C.I.E., C.S.I., British Plenipotentiary and staff.
Monsieur Ivan Chen, Chinese Plenipotentiary and staff.
Kusho Lonchen Shatra, Tibetan Plenipotentiary and staff.

The Plenipotentiaries took their seats at 11 A.M.

Sir Henry McMahon said that the meeting had been called in order that the Chinese and Tibetan Plenipotentiaries might have an opportunity of laying on the table statements  of the evidence in regard to the respective frontiers claimed by them.
The Lonchen Shatra said that he regretted he had not been able to complete the translation of all the appendices to his statement as he had only one translator, who was in bad health, but the translation of the remaining appendices was being pushed on as fast as possible.
Monsieur Ivan Chen said that since the last meeting of the Conference at Simla, there had been several informal meetings at the last of which it had been arranged that he and his Tibetan Colleague should submit the cases dealing with their respective territorial claims for Sir Henry McMahon's consideration and decision, after the communication of which they would refer to their respective Governments. He accordingly laid his case on the table for consideration.
The Chinese and Tibetan Plenipotentiaries then exchanged copies of their cases.
Sir Henry McMahon said that he would now proceed to consider the cases and communicate his conclusions to his colleagues as quickly as possible.
The Lonchen Shatra raised the question of the custody of the original Tibetan documents of which translations formed enclosures of the Tibetan case. The originals of these documents were produced and shown to the Conference. Sir Henry McMahon and Monsieur Ivan Chen agreed that in view of the great bulk of these documents they should remain in the custody of the Tibetan Plenipotentiary from whom they could be obtained for reference when required.

The Conference rose at 11.25 A.M.

T. G. B. WAUGH,
Acting Secretary to the Conference.

A. H. McMAHON,
British Plenipotentiary.

Enclosure No. 1.

Chinese Statement on limits of Tibet
At the informal meetings on the question of the limits of Tibet on the 5th, the 11th, the 12th, and the 15th of December last, the Chinese Plenipotentiary stated the claims of the Government of the Republic of China to Giamda and all the places east of it, and also gave reasons with which the Chinese Government put forward such claims.
At the last informal meeting on the 19th of the same month, the Chinese Plenipotentiary, being of the opinion that almost no progress had been made, suggested that he and the Tibetan Plenipotentiary should each submit a statement to the full Conference for the consideration of the British Plenipotentiary, who would in due course of time inform them of the result of his consideration, when they will be given time to consider it and telegraph to their respective Home Authorities on the matter. This mode of procedure was then agreed to unanimously.
Under these circumstances the Chinese Plenipotentiary begs to submit the following statement:

I. What are the claims of the Chinese Government in regard to the question of the limits of Tibet?
The Chinese Government claim to have Giamda and all the places east of it, viz., Jyade, Dam, Zayul, Chiamdo (Chamdo), Enta, Markham, Puyul (Poyul), Pemakoi–chen (Pemakoe), Darge (Derge), Lhojong (Lho Dzong), Shobando, and Tenk'e.

II. What rights are the claims of the Chinese Government based upon?
The Chinese Government derive their rights from the historic connections of all those places with China and from what is called in International Law "effective occupation '', evidences of which are given below.
Giamda, Lhojong and Shobando.
Giamda has returned to its allegiance towards China, since 1909, together with Rivoudze, Lhojong and Shobando. During that year, a punitive expedition was sent from Szechuan to Tibet under the command of His late Excellency Chao Erh Feng for the murder of the Chinese Amban Fung Chuan, and as soon as the Chinese army arrived, the native chiefs of all these places tendered their submission to His Excellency Chao, and in 1910 it was settled between him and the Tibetan Authorities that Giamda should be the boundary line between China and Tibet.
This settlement was reported to the Manchu Emperor Hsuan Tung and sanctioned by Imperial Rescript. On the 25th of May 1913, the President of the Republic of China issued a Mandate ordaining that the territorial limit of Szechuan (Sichuan) shall be the same as it has existed in the last days of the Manchu dynasty but no Chinese garrison shall cross to the west of Giamda.

Jyade, Dam
Jyade lies in the valley of the Kara Ussou and is called the thirty-nine "tutze" of Nak Tchou. It is under the control of the Chinese Deputy Amban of Lhasa, called Yeeching Chang-King. Dam is in the same position. A tax, called Kung Ma Nin or horse tax, is levied and collected every year by the Yeeching Chang-King, and its total amount is only about 391$ odd. Under the Yeeching Chang-King, there are Chinese officials, such as Kushanta, Tsuling, Yilling and Yaokeyao and five hundred soldiers in time of peace. The latter are all recruited locally.
When Colonel Younghusband stopped at Kampajong (Kampa Dzong) with his expedition in 1903-04, the Chinese Amban at Lhasa wished to meet him on the frontier, but he was prevented from carrying out his wishes by the Tibetans refusing to supply him with necessary transport. And when he turned to the authorities of Jyade and Dam for transport, they were quite ready to supply it because they were at liberty to do so.
When Tibetans are travelling about, they have to pay a certain toll, in crossing a river, but the people of Jyade and Dam are exempted from paying such a toll and others, if they can produce certificates from the Yeeching Chang-King certifying that the holders of the certificates are natives of Jyade or Dam.
This shows Jyade and Dam have nothing to do with Tibet at all and are absolutely beyond the jurisdiction of Tibet.
In "Mysterious Tibet" by Sir Thomas Holdich, a well-known authority on Tibet, pages 184-85, he says that "Rockhill's Tibetan escort had returned to Lhasa as he was now under direct Chinese jurisdiction in the province of Jyade. This Chinese province extends from east to west over two hundred miles and more of country, with a probable breadth of sixty or seventy miles, touching, to the north, the Dangla and its branches and, to the south, bordering on Lhasa governed provinces! Its people have in the oldest times preferred the Binbo religion (a form of devil worship or Lhamanism which has at one time or another prevailed over most parts of Asia) a creed not tolerated in the kingdom of Lhasa which tried for a long time to crush it out of these regions."
Furthermore all Tibetans can only receive their official appointments from the Chinese Amban on the recommendation of the Tibetan Kab-lon, but the official appointments in Jyade and Dam are made by the Amban on the recommendation of the Yeeching Chang-king.
It is also well known that Tibetans are not at liberty to settle anywhere they like in Jyade and Dam, and that the people of Jyade and Dam call themselves by the name of Gyashokpa, or, in other words, that they claim that they are of Chinese race and do not belong to the Tangut stock.
By what is stated in the above it is incontestably established that Jyade and Dam have been long administered by China as a Chinese province and Tibet has not the least claim to them.

Chiamdo, Gartok-Markham, Draya.
In Tibet there are four principalities which are directly under the Chinese control. These are Draya and Chiamdo on the east. Tashilumpo and Sakya Kongma to the south-east of Tashilumpo.
The Commander-in-Chief of Yunnan was formerly stationed in Chiamdo, and it was in the beginning of the reign of Yung Cheng that the administration of this place was transferred to the authorities of Szechuan.
There are Chinese civil and military officials in charge of the local revenue and the Chinese garrison. It is the same case with En-ta.

Poyul, Pemakoi-chen.
Poyul has never belonged to Tibet. It is a country inhabited by lawless herdsmen, and in the southern part of it there is a large number of Chinese settling there, with the result that there is now a thriving trade in blankets, baskets, silver and iron works, red pepper, and remarkably fine flour. Poyul is practically independent and Tibet has never been able to exercise any influence over the place. It surrendered its submission to China in 1909, and in the winter of that year Chinese officials were appointed to govern the place by His late Excellency Chao Erh Feng who was at that time stationed in Chiamdo.

Darge (Derge)
This place is situated in the north-east of Chiamdo. It is under a ''tutzi" whose head-quarters are in Kenching which has been instituted as a Chinese district and is now called Teh Hwa Chow.

III. With regard to the Tibetan claims in regard to the question of the limits of Tibet, the Chinese Plenipotentiary further begs to submit the following statement as a reply to them.

Batang, Litang, Nyarong, etc.
These places are all east of the range of Ning Tsin Shan and have been under Chinese administration since the early period of the reign of Yung Cheng. About one hundred miles west from Batang there is a boundary pillar bearing Chinese inscriptions which state that east of this range it is Chinese territory while west of it it is Tibetan. This was however the demarcation of the boundaries between China and Tibet for that time only, for after the death of Emperor Young Cheng, the Emperor Kien Lung, successor of Yung Cheng, formally annexed Tibet in 1720 and since then Tibet has been under Chinese sovereignty and the whole of Tibet cannot be otherwise considered than Chinese territory.
In order to show the effective occupation of these places, a Bill, passed in 1912 by the House of Senators of the National Assembly in Peking to constitute them as the eighth division of the Parliamentary election districts of Szechuan, is herewith appended.

Kokonor or Ching-hai (Qinghai)
The Kokonor regions were taken by Chinese, in the time of Yung Cheng (in about 1700) from Lopotsangdantsin, the great grandson of Gushi Khan, on account of his intrigues with the Sungarians for compassing a conquest of Tibet. The Chinese victorious army was under the command of Nien Ken Yao and Yo Tsung Ki, two well-known generals in the military history of China, and the conquest of Kokonor or Ching-hai is fully recorded in Chinese official records such as Pin-Ding-Ching hai-Fong-Liao, Shen-Wu-Si-Ching-ki( ).
Since this conquest the Kokonor regions have been under Chinese administration, at the head of which is the Chinese Amban whose head-quarters are at Siningfu. In the time of Yung Cheng an Imperial Edict was issued ordaining that "not more than two hundred lama monasteries shall be built in Kokonor, and that each monastery shall contain no more than two hundred lamas”.
The Kokonor regions are divided into twenty-nine banners under the leadership of Khoshoit, ( ) Choros, ( ) Khoit, ( ) Turgut, () Khalkha, ( ) and Tsahannomen, ( ). Under Khoshoit there are twenty-one banners; under Choros and Khoit, one banner each; under Turgut, four banners; under Khalkha, one banner; and under Tsahannomen, one banner.
The leader of each banner is either a prince of the second class or a duke, and they are all under the control of the Chinese Amban at Siningfu who in addition to these banners has the following tribes under his administration :-
(1) The Gyakp ( ) tribe and the Kongpo ( ) tribe in the region between U and Khamo ( ).
(2) The Gyaldo ( ) tribe in the region between Chien Tsang ( ) and Hou Tsang ( ).
(3) The Djak ( ) tribe in the south-west of Tsang.
(4) The Koshot ( ) tribe in the region between Hou Tsang and Lhari. ( ).
(5) The Gyppo tribe, ( ) the Gyldin tribe, ( ) in the north of Lhari.
More details about Chinghai or Kokonor can be given on referring to the Chinese official records called Ta-Ching-Hui-Tsin and Ta-Ching-Yi-Tung-Tze ( ).

IVAN CHEN.
January 12th, 1914.

Avian Intrusions over the Red Line

'Civilian' pigeon?

According to The Asian Age, “Pigeons with Chinese tags lead to a stir in Arunachal Pradesh.”
The reporter mentioned that villagers caught some tagged pigeons in Anjaw district of Arunachal Pradesh.
The tags being written in Chinese created anxious moments for the villagers in the Lohit Valley.
The Anjaw district is strategically  located south of the McMahon Line
The Asian Age said: “The villagers who spotted the pigeons reported the issue to the local police and handed over the pigeons trapped by them. While it is not known if the pigeons were fitted with transmitters or spying equipment, security sources told this newspaper it had come to their notice and they are examining the tags. The sources didn’t rule out the possibility of China using these pigeons for surveillance of frontier areas and townships.”
Only after inquiry, we should know.

Chinese Markings
The Chinese markings seem to indicate that the origin of the pigeons was Rima, the first small town in Tibet, north of the McMahon (Kibithu is the last Indian village in the area).
It often happens that pigeons ‘loose’ their way, but it is strange that it has happened to so many on the same day.
Incidentally, at the same time, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh chaired the first-ever review meeting of Sino-Indian border infrastructure in Sikkim. It was attended by the Chief Ministers and representatives of five Himalayan states bordering Tibet.
Arunachal Chief Minister Pema Khandu, who was present, raised serious concern over the migration of people away from border areas due to lack of basic facilities. It is not clear if he was aware of the avian ‘intrusion’ at that time.

An old posting
More than five years ago, I mentioned on this blog the use of pigeons for military purpose.
At that time, a Member of the French Parliament suggested boosting the use of military pigeons for the French Army. In a written question, Jean-Pierre Decool, a MP from the UMP (now Les Republicains) majority (from Northern France) asked for the return of the military pigeon as a weapon.
He forcefully spoke of "the usefulness of the pigeon in the event of armed conflict. In 2011, the Chinese army has decided to 'recruit' some 10,000 pigeons, in addition to the existing 200. Indeed, if during an armed conflict, a generalized failure of communication networks may occur. Consequently, the pigeon will remain one of the only communication tools capable of transporting messages," Decool said in the Parliament.
In his response, the French Minister of Defence stated: "historically, the pigeon presented a certain interest for military communications. Safe and reliable, it has often helped to get rid of the insecurity of the other lines of communication. The French Army has the last pigeon dovecote in Europe on the site of Mont-Valerian, near Paris. In addition, France has identified nearly 20,000 pigeon lovers, who could provide valuable assistance in case of strong 'weakening' of telecommunication networks."
In 2011, the Time Magazine spoke of "China's Most Secret Weapon: The Messenger Pigeon". The article asserted: "These military pigeons will be primarily called upon to conduct special military missions between troops stationed at our land borders or ocean borders," air force military expert Chen Hong told China Central Television after the announcement. According to reports at that time, the birds could be dispersed to communications bases across China's remote and mountainous southwestern region, particularly around the Himalayan foothills. The pigeons, flying at speeds of up to 75 miles (120 km) per hour, will be trained to carry loads of up to 3.5 oz. (100 g).

India should remain vigilant and learn from China the tricks of the Art of War.

In 1910, Chinese had 'walked' as far south as Menilkrai, near Walong
for what the British called a 'promenade'

 

News Passes to open for CBMs with China

Colombo Conference Map (1963)
The 6 passes named in the 1954 Agreement are shown

The Indian media recently reported that some major steps were taken by India and China to prevent border skirmishes.
Apparently concrete steps were agreed after an Indian delegation headed by the Joint Secretary (East Asia) visited Beijing earlier this week.
A few days before,  Lieutenant General Qi Jianguo, the Chinese deputy chief of general staff (Operations) headed a PLA delegation to India, where he met his Indian counterpart, the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO).
New CBMs were agreed during the visit.

Last October already, when the Indian Prime Minister went to Beijing, India and China signed a Border Defence Cooperation Agreement to avoid dangerous face-offs along the LAC between the troops of the two countries. It included mechanisms to maintain peace and tranquility along the 'actual' boundary.
At the DGMO level, new CBMs have now been added.
The Indian DGMO will be connected to his Chinese counterpart through a hotline in order to tackle immediate, 'hot' issues and resolve 'misunderstands' at an early stage, before the situation could escalate into a serious conflict.
Further, it was decided to have four new locations for flag meetings in Ladakh - Track Junction, Panggong Tso (lake), Demchock and Chumur.
In recent month, these places have witnessed several intrusions/incursions by Chinese troops, leading to an increased tension on the 4,000-km long LAC.

During the Joint-Secretary level in Beijing, the number of locations for scheduled annual meetings between senior field officers, called Border Personnel Meetings, was increased from two to four.
Kibithoo in Anjaw district of Arunachal Pradesh and Mana Pass in Uttarakhand are the 2 new locations.
Earlier Nathu-la in Sikkim and Bum-la in Arunachal (Tawang district) were the only meeting points.
During these Border Personnel Meetings, the troops of both countries meet at least four times a year to mark the national days of their respective countries and celebrate other national festivals; on these occasions, Indian and Chinese soldiers play games together (volley-ball, tug-of-war, for example) and socialize. The Chinese troops are said to be very fond of Gold Flakes cigarettes.
All this does not stop India to strengthen its defences in Ladakh.
Since lats year's stand-off in Depsang, India has moved an additional infantry brigade of 3,000 troops into Ladakh to secure the Sub-Sector North, which includes the Depsang plains. India has also, for the first time, moved a regiment of tanks to support the existing deployment.
What is interesting is that are  very few places along the LAC where these Border Personnel Meetings can take place.
A location needs to be deserved by a proper road (from both sides) and the border pass or location should not be 'disputed', which is not the case of Demchok or Shipki-la, where China claims areas which have never been hers (or even part of Tibet) in the past.
Historically, India was fooled by China in 1953-54, when the (in)famous Panchsheel was negotiated.
I am posting here, the Indian version of the facts.
The Chinese version is different.
By designating 6 passes in the Middle Sector, P.N. Kaul (another Nehru's blue-eyed Kashmiri Pandit), thought he was cleverly 'fixing' the border.
It was not so, said the Chinese; it is merely 6 passes through which traders or pilgrims of both countries can transit.
The Indian delegation was surprised by this interpretation, but the Chinese reiterated their position again and again.
Though they were right the 1954 Agreement was not about fixing borders, but designating trade 'routes', they shamelessly fooled the Indians who could have used the occasion to bring the border issue on the negotiating table. It was not done; the Indian diplomacy was too enamoured of the lofty Principles.
Soon after the signature of the 1954 Agreement, Shipki-la, one of the designated pass, was claimed by China. It is still so today.
The case of Demchok too, was not taken seriously by T.N. Kaul, though for centuries, DEmchok had been the first village in Ladakh for the Tibetan traders and pilgrims traveling from Western Tibet (Tashigang village was the last village in Tibet).
Now, China says that Demchok is Chinese.
Once again, a sad tale of poor Indian diplomacy.


Extracts from the Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the Peoples’ Republic of China on the Boundary Question  (1961)

...On none of these occasions did the Tibetan Government object to the alignment as described, and shown on maps, by the Indian Government.
So they all constituted formal acceptances of the Indian alignment.
On 21 August 1950, the Foreign Minister of China handed a note to the Indian Ambassador in which it was stated, among other things that the Chinese Government "is happy to hear the desire of the Government of India to stabilise the Chinese Indian border". This assumed that the boundary was well-known and recognised by both sides, because only such a fixed boundary can be stabilised. The Government of India made this even clearer in their reply, handed to the Foreign Minister of China by the Indian Ambassador on 24 August 1950. For there the Government of India stated clearly "that the recognised boundary between India and Tibet should remain inviolate."
The traditional boundary from Shipki pass to the tri-junction of India, Nepal and Tibet was also confirmed in the Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between India and the Tibet Region of China signed in April 1954 Article IV of the Agreement stated:

"Traders and pilgrims of both countries may travel by the following passes. (1) Shipki La Pass, (2) Mana Pass, (3 Niti Pass, (4) Kungribingri Pass, (5) Darma Pass and (6) Lipu Lekh Pass."

Shipki Pass lies on the Zanskar Range which forms the watershed between the eastern and western tributaries of the Sutlej; and the other five passes lie on the watershed dividing the Sutlej and Ganges basins. In the original Chinese draft presented on 1 March 1954, Article IV read:

"The Chinese Government agrees to open the following mountain passes in the Ari District of the Tibet Region of China for entry by traders and pilgrims of both parties:
(1) Shipki, (2) Mana, (3) Niti, (4) Kungribingri (5) Darma and (6) Lipu Lekh.''

The Indian delegate, Mr. T.N. Kaul, contended that these were Indian passes. At the plenary meeting held on 22 April, 1954, the leader of the Chinese delegation described these discussions and the results which followed:

"With regard to Article IV of the original Chinese Draft Agreement, it was stated that "the Chinese Government agrees to open the following passes".

Mr. Kaul expressed the difference of opinion with regard to this point. Now we have changed it to read that 'Traders and pilgrims of both countries may travel by the following passes.' This was the fifth concession on our part."

This was an acceptance by the leader of the Chinese Delegation that the Chinese Government had agreed to re-draft this article in such a manner as to make clear that they were border passes. The use of these six passes did not involve ownership because they were border passes.
At the 17th meeting at Peking, the Chinese side stated that the negotiations and Agreement of 1954 did not involve at all the question of delimiting the boundary between the two countries. This was a correct statement of the facts. Certainly the Indian side had no intention of seeking fresh definition of a boundary which had already been delimited by historic process, and was a natural, traditional and customary boundary, well-recognized for centuries; by both sides. But this did not mean that the negotiations and Agreement had no bearing on the boundary question. If the Chinese Government were at all serious about their claims to what have always been parts of Indian territory, and shown as parts of India on Indian maps, they would have, during the negotiations, at least made references to these claims, if not discussed them. When at the first meeting of the delegations Premier Chou En-lai said that the relations between China and India were becoming closer every day and that from among the outstanding questions, the two sides could settle questions which were ripe for settlement, the Indian Ambassador immediately pointed out that there were only small questions pending between India and China, and he wished to see nothing big or small remaining outstanding between the two countries.
Premier Chou En-lai replied that two large countries like India and China with a long common frontier were bound to have some questions, but all questions could be settled smoothly. In the context in which Premier Chou En-lai made this last statement it could not be inferred that he had in mind Chinese claims to large areas of Indian territory which had been shown as parts of India in official Indian maps and had been administered for centuries by the Government of India. Throughout the negotiations the Indian delegation took the line that all questions at issue between the two countries were being considered and that once this settlement had been concluded, no question remained.
In his speech of April 29, 1954, after the signing of the Agreement, the leader of the Indian delegation stated:

"We have gone through fully the questions that existed between our two countries in this Tibetan Region", 

thus indicating that according to India no dispute or question was left over.
At the meeting of 8 January 1954, the Vice-Foreign Minister of China, who was the leader of the Chinese delegation, stated:

"I recall that Premier Chou En-lai when he received the Indian Delegation on 31st December 1953, stated that the principles governing the relations between India and China should be to seek a peaceful co-existence under the principles of mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence."

The leader of the Indian Delegation, after securing a repetition of the Five Principles by the leader of the Chinese Delegation, replied:

"These were the principles which our Prime Minister had also advocated. As far as I can see these are common ground."

These Five Principles were incorporated in the Preamble of the Agreement. Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity assumed clear and precise knowledge of the extent of each other's territory. Two states with a common boundary could promise such respect for territorial integrity and mutual non-aggression only if they had a well-recognized boundary. The Government of India had been showing the traditional alignment on their official maps, and stated authoritatively on many occasions that that was their boundary.
The Chinese Government had also been informed that this boundary should remain inviolate. In these circumstances; the Government of China could not have affirmed their respect for the territorial integrity of India if they did not recognize the Indian alignment and had in mind claims to large areas of Indian territory.
It was, therefore, clear that the Agreement of 1954 recognised that the six passes were border passes, that during the negotiations the Chinese made no reservations regarding this point, and that by accepting the Five Principles without any qualifications the Chinese Government had accepted that there was no dispute regarding the traditional and well-recognised Indian boundary alignment. It might be added that as the Chinese Government did not raise this issue when they had a clear opportunity and occasion to do so, under international law they were now estopped from raising such claims.

From the same report, Chinese claims

(2) The Area West of Shipki Pass
In the vicinity of Shipki Pass, the traditional customary line is at the Hupsang Khud which is west of this pass. The pastures between the Hupsang Khud and the pass have always belonged to China's Shipki village and had been places where the villagers of Shipki village had constantly pastured and mowed grass, before being occupied by India in 1957.
In the part relevant to Shipki village in the avowal of 1930 of the various districts of Tsaparang Dzong concerning the boundary, it is stated: "The boundary between the people of Shipki and the frontier people of the Kulu in the west follows the crest of the Kularatsi beyond Shipki from the north up to Tso Kam (dried lake), then along the ridge from the crest of Pashagangri to Dongtogtog; the area between the Hupsang Khud and the Siangchuan River indisputably belongs to the (Tibetan) Government."