Tibet is a way for China to wipe its tears: Vajpayee

India has lost one of her greatest political leader, Atal Vihari Vajpayee.
I am posting is an article written for Swadesh, a Hindi journal published in Lucknow.
On October 26, 1950, just two weeks after the Chinese troops entered Eastern Tibet, Vajpayee wrote these words.
He was one of the very few Indian journalists who condemned the Chinese action; he was then responsible for several publications linked with the RSS.
I am also posting Vajpayee's intervention during is a debate in the Lok Sabha after the first Chinese attacks on the Indian border in 1959.

[Translated from Hindi]
The 'Shanti Path’ [the Path of Peace] of the 6th anniversary of the UN was not even finished when we heard of a new invasion.
The armies of Communist China were ordered to invade Tibet.
Although behind the iron curtain they [China] try to hide all news, the news of the invasion, even before being received officially from Peking, was sent by China News Agency [The Xinhua communiqué was dispatched through Hong Kong, not directly from Beijing] and it is why the world received the first news of the invasion of Tibet, not from Peking, but from London.
Some people did not believe in these news, though a few times in the past there had been rumours of invasion of this kind [in August 1950].
 So much so that the Tibetan representatives [Tsepon Shakabpa] who had arrived in India also said that they did not believe in the truth of these news.
One reason for this disbelief was that the [forthcoming] negotiations between China and Tibet.
The Indian government had arranged for the talks through the Ambassador to India of Communist China. But he declared that not Delhi but Beijing was the proper place for the talks.
The delegation of Tibetan representatives was today leaving to Peking via Calcutta.
On one side, peace talks, on the other side invasion, naturally nobody could believe it, but after the Peking government officially announced the invasion, all doubts were removed.
With the announcement of the invasion the communist government has thrown some light on its causes and its aims. Yet the causes and the language are the same as those of all invaders, that is to say, the aggressor is never attacking for egoist purposes, he attacks to liberate the people of the attacked region.
And they had to take this step to save the people from the evil conspiracy of imperialist forces.
The communist China invades also for this same reason -- to save the people of Tibet from the grip of imperialist forces, the communist armies marched in Tibet.
But the efforts it made till today for getting the membership of UN surely put on them some moral responsibility to respect the principles of UN.
China can reject it saying that it is an internal matter, but Tibet is a free country, even if at the time of imperialist China there were sovereignty in name of China over it.
Communist China which is so opposed to imperialism surely is not bound by this tradition, nor can it be a ground for declaring legal this invasion of the independent state of Tibet.
More than Tibet, Formosa is a part of China, but nobody included America would accept its invasion. If an invasion of Formosa is considered as contrary to the ideals of the UN, then how much more for Tibet?
Will the UN pay attention and help Tibet?
It is possible that the powers, trapped each one in its own interest, will not pay attention to Tibet.
The reason for the invasion of Tibet is not the discovery of uranium or the greed of the imperialist powers for it; it is an attempt to strengthen the moral of the Communist block.
The invasion of South Korea by North Korea and the initial victory over the army of UN had given a boost to the communists of all countries.
But the victory of UN has put cold water on their enthusiasm. The influence of Russia has diminished somewhat. When the question came on the UN armies crossing the 38° latitude, then China warned that if it happens then she will attack the UN armies.
But the UN did not worry and ordered its armies to get full victory.
Russia felt that with the cold war becoming hot they had to suffer defeat.  Seeing the state of North Korea, China did not have the courage to up its army against UN army. In consequence it was not possible for the Chinese armies to advance towards Formosa and Korea…
Invading Tibet is a way for China to wipe its tears.


22 December 1959
Debate in the Lok Sabha
(Intervention of Atal Bihari Vajpayee translated from Hindi)

Mr Speaker, a new situation has arisen with the letter received from the Prime Minister of China.
Our Prime Minister in his letter of November 16 had placed some alternative proposals before China. According to these proposals, China had to vacate the Indian land in Ladakh [Aksai Chin] and at the same time, it was suggested that India would not send her men to that area.
Our Prime Minister had been criticised in this House for this proposal.
We had found it objectionable; we had said that it will encourage the Chinese aggression and it will give her the opportunity of strengthening her old claims and present new claims. The answer from the Prime Minister of China only confirms this.
Our Prime Minister had suggested that China abandons the Indian land, but they answered : why should this proposal apply only to the border of Ladakh, if we go out of the land defined by the maps of India, then the Indians should go out of the land defined by our maps, they should go out of NEFA.
Mr Speaker, we tried to respect China and as a result we are  being insulted.
Instead of understanding the Prime Minister's good will, China has increased her claims, China puts claims on Uttar Pradesh, on Punjab, on Himachal Pradesh, on places which are ours by geography, by history, by tradition, by treaty. She demands a price for withdrawing from Ladakh.
We should abandon our rights to other regions.
If this is the attitude of China, then what is the basis for the hope of making an agreement with China? There should be an agreement, nobody in the country wants a war, but if we trade with China sacrificing the interests of India, if we cannot defend the honour of India, this peace will not be worth getting, it will not be a stable peace.
The Prime Minister of China answered after one month.
I think that they want to prolong this correspondence, so that they can make roads and construct airports on the land they have taken, so that they can strengthen their attack.
Shri Karam Singh [who had been taken prisoner by China in Ladakh] said in his statement that at the place where he was arrested, motorable roads are being made. War preparations are being made on the soil of India. China needs time for that. It is why this long exchange of letters.
They took one month for replying and our Prime Minister hopes that on receiving his letter they will pack up and go to Rangoon. ... I am happy that our Prime Minister refused the suggestion to go to Rangoon.
It was not a proposal to go to Rangoon, it was an invitation for Munich, they want to re-enact Munich. I am happy that our Prime Minister has refused this proposal.
But he said this afternoon in the Rajya Sabha that in the letter of the Prime Minister of China, an eagerness to meet him was expressed and he welcomed it. Is really the Prime Minister of China wanting an agreement or is the desire to meet our Prime Minister propaganda?
He wants to show the world that China wants peace, while China invades India, and India does not want peace because we are not ready to meet him.
There is a great similitude between the proposal by China and the line adopted by the Communist Party of India. In Calcutta they have repeated that the two Prime Ministers should meet and the Prime Minister of China is also saying that we should meet.
Meet for what?
After all, what is the meeting ground between our two countries? what is the basis for talks? And if the two prime ministers meet, why meet in Rangoon? If they meet, why not in Delhi?
I object to this accusation by the Prime Minister of China that in India an atmosphere is being created against the Chinese friendship.
M Speaker, there is no atmosphere against the friendship, there is an atmosphere against invasion.
As long as this attack will last, this atmosphere will persist.
We are a living people, we have self-respect and if there is trespassing on our land our reaction is necessary, nobody can stop this.
But their Prime Minister wants to make propaganda, he wants to be the divine messenger of peace, he wants to place our Prime Minister in a false position.
Now the Communists will start saying that Mr Zhou Enlai wants a meeting, but Panditji [Nehru] does not want it. If Panditji does not want a meeting, he rightly does so.
After all, what is the basis for a meeting? When there is no agreement on the facts, when there is no agreement on the principles, what is the use of meeting?
And suppose  there is a meeting and it is a failure, the result will be even more frightening. It is why the point of view of the Government is correct. Before the two prime ministers can meet, the preliminary things should be decided, we should decide what will be the basis for agreement. But as far as the preliminary  things are concerned, there is no sign in the letter of China that they want an agreement, except that they have evoked Panchsheel, they have sung the refrain of peace.

Shri Jadhav:  And they are ready  to stab us.

Shri Vajpayee: They say that we are a backward country, that we have to develop economically, but they are not ready to leave the land of India they have grabbed. Our Prime Minster has already said that the northern border of India is fixed. It has not been drawn on the map and we can discus about some details, but the entire border cannot be made a subject of discussion. But  the Chinese Prime Minister is trying to make the entire border a subject of discussion. He wants to dictate his terms as maker of our border. It is clear that the Indian government and the people of India cannot accept this situation.
But today it is said: what can we do? the Prime Minister in the Rajya Sabha said: "what can we do? Should we make war?“
Nobody wants you to make war, but I want to know : if tomorrow China advances in Longju [in NEFA], or Ladakh, or further, what will you do?

An Hon'ble Member: Negotiations.

Shri Vajpayee: No compromise can be made with an invasion, and it is why we should prepare for war. We may not start the war from our side, but if the other side is intent on war, it cannot be  avoided. But there are other ways than war.  The trade what we had with Tibet is stopped. China put restrictions on Indian trade with Tibet. Yet we did not put restrictions. We have only deployed a guard  before the Chinese Trade Agency of Kalipong. There are other Chinese trade agencies in India whose activities can be stopped. The restrictions that have been put on the Indian embassy in Peking can be put on the Chinese embassy in New Delhi. The time has come to take this step.

An Hon'ble Member: There is democracy in India.

Shri Vajpayee: Because of the Chinese attack, today we face a danger and the friends of China by repeating this slogan ”There is democracy in India“ try to make us blind to this danger.
If we want, we can also break our diplomatic relations with China; there are other means we can adopt other than waging war, and where there is a will, there is a way.
I believe that, except the [Indian] Communist Party, all the country agrees that the Chinese challenge should be dealt with firmly. It is clear that war will have to be fought, but as long as we don't take steps on time, we cannot prepare an atmosphere to face this challenge.
I have to say something else, and it is that our Foreign Affairs Ministry does not work well.
In the Rajya Sabha our Prime Minister spoke of a place named Samado. It has been printed by mistake. This was part of China but we have put claims on it.
He apologised. This type of mistake should not happen. I feel that the Foreign Ministry should be careful. China takes hold of small things like this and tries to weaken our case. In this hour of danger, the Foreign Ministry should rise to the occasion, it has not done it so far. This is necessary. Thank you.

Who has seen Zhang Dejiang?

Zhang and President Mukherjee

The Indian media is a strange creature. It spends its time and energy on obsessions; every few days, it focuses on a new one while wearing blinkers for everything else. But even when it ignores ‘important’ news, nobody seems too much disturbed, as long as there is a good cricket ingredient and some spicy masala.
Last week, it was the Minister of External Affairs, Sushma Swaraj’s ‘chance’ to make the headlines; the Everest could have change place (and it did, moving a few centimeters inside Tibet), nobody was bothered.
Of course, cricket is the national game and it has to prime over all other national and international issues. With the foreign minister linked with a latest cricketgate, other information had no chance to make it on the TV plateaus or on the first page of the ‘national’ press (these days, page 1 often becomes page 3 or 5, thanks to giant advertisements for e-commerce or attractive investments).
Imagine my surprise as a China watcher, when one morning earlier this week, I found in my mailbox, a communique of the Public Information Bureau (PIB) announcing that an all-powerful member of the Standing Committee Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China had met Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the previous day.
Zhang Dejiang, Chairman of the National People’s Congress (NPC), China’s legislature, had called on Mr. Modi, said the PIB.
Zhang is not an ordinary Chinese, he is third most powerful person in the Middle Kingdom; he is one of the 7 ‘emperors’ ruling a country which everyone fears, (though few will say it openly).
This powerful personage was in Delhi (and later in Mumbai) and nobody seems to have known about it. Was Mr Zhang not as important as LaMoGate? Probably!
Now, remember when Middle Kingdom No 2, Premier Li Keqiang, came to Delhi in May 2013. The press went wild for several weeks before. It is true, some People’s Liberation Army’s jawans had come uninvited and were camping in the desolate Depsang Plains of Ladakh; this was really irritating. But Mr. Li’s visit was so important that the then Indian Foreign Minister ran to Beijing to beg the Premier to come to Delhi.
Then in 2014, ‘Emperor No 1’ came. When Xi Jinping landed at Ahmedabad in September, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was determined to give him and his beautiful wife Peng Liyuan, a genuine taste of ModiLand. The two leaders took a stroll down the picturesque Sabarmati riverfront and sat on a traditional Gujarati swing. This time again, the masala came from the remote Chumur area of South Ladakh where 1,500 PLA men crossed the ‘undefined’ LAC; they were ready to set up camp when India decided to send 2,000 Indian jawans to push them away. They eventually did. Media coverage lasted for weeks.
This time Communist Boss No 3 came and went and who noticed?
Hardly anybody!
On June 15, the Prime Minister's Office merely reported, via the PIB, that Mr Zhang called on him on that day; of course, the Prime Minister “warmly recalled his meeting with the NPC’s Chairman in Beijing on 15 May 2015”.
Zhang’s visit was just termed a ‘parliamentary exchange’, though Mr Modi acknowledged that this was ‘an important pillar of the bilateral relationship’. The Indian Prime Minister stressed the need to broaden the foundation of India-China relations by promoting exchanges between State-level legislatures as well. The fact remains that Zhang’s visit did not get the coverage it should have got in the Indian media.
Even the MEA was silent (though Syed Akbaruddin or his successor, Vikas Swarup are known to be amongst the quickest twitterers in India); this time, not a single tweet; blank. Where was the MEA? Fending for its minister? Not even.
As oftentimes, the PIB communique remained vague and dis not tell us what was really discussed. A new proposal for the LAC in Ladakh? An alternative to the stapled visas for Arunachalis or Kashmiris? The ‘peaceful’ spread of the PLA Navy on the oceans of the planet? The new route for the Kailash yatra, flagged off by the foreign minister herself? We will have to wait at least 50 years to read the declassified files.
Zhang Dejiang just endorsed the Prime Minister’s views that the 21st Century is the Asian Century and the future of the continent will depend on what India and China achieve individually and jointly.
Both leaders emphasized the importance of promoting investment, trade, tourism and people to people ties, and enhancing strategic communication and coordination, they even expressed their appreciation for the new interest in India’s and China’s ancient cultural and ‘spiritual’ ties, citing the joint Yoga Tai-Chi demonstration witnessed by Prime Minister Modi and Premier Li in Beijing.
Why waste such a high-level visit for such banalities?
I asked many journalist friends, but nobody knew anything about the visit.
But being persistent, I finally got to know what had happened while scanning the Chinese press. Mr Zhang’s visit lasted four days. It was a ‘friendly’ visit at the invitation of the Vice President and the Lok Sabha’s Speaker, Sumitra Mahajan. It was the first trip in India of a NPC’s Chairman in 14 years.
Xinhua reported (with nice photos) that Mr. Zhang met with Vice President Ansari the same day that he met the Prime Minister. They called for strengthening cooperation between legislative bodies of China and India.
During his meetings with Chairpersons of the Indian Houses, Mr Zhang said that he wanted to “upgrade the level and improve the quality of the current cooperation between the legislative bodies of the two countries.” He suggested that the two sides should carry out closer exchanges.
Mr Zhang also met President Pranab Mukherjee to whom he conveyed the cordial greeting of President Xi. He told the Indian President that “China and India have thousands of years of friendly exchanges and a history of mutual learning and benefiting from each other's culture” and pointed out that India and China are not only the two biggest developing countries, but also the two most dynamic market economies in the world. He added: “The two countries should join hands to realize goals for peaceful development, cooperative development and inclusive development, to benefit the 2.5 billion people of the two countries."
In other words, the usual stuff, but it is always good when it is reiterated at the highest level.
Pranab Mukherjee told him that India always lays great importance to developing good, friendly, neighborly relations with China.
Later, Mr Zhang went to Mumbai where he met the Governor and the Chief Minister.
Has not India missed a chance to convey that everything is not rosy in the bilateral relations, especially on the border issue?
Why was the MEA nowhere to be seen? Even the South Block twitters had fallen silent? Why did India loose such an opportunity to convey to this powerful Chinese politician, its position on several vexed issues? Why was the Indian public not informed?
As for the media, could it not have dropped the cricket scams for a day and covered the visit, asking the right questions?
The media need not worry, there will be more cricket scams to cover in the future.

When Nehru lied in Parliament

The Aksai Chin road

I mentioned earlier on this blog, on October 6, 1957, a Chinese newspaper Kuang-ming Jih-pao reported: 

The Sinkiang-Tibet – the highest highway in the world – has been completed. During the past few days, a number of trucks running on the highway on a trial basis have arrived in Ko-ta-k’e in Tibet from Yehch’eng in Sinkiang. The Sinkiang-Tibet Highway… is 1179 km long, of which 915 km are more than 4,000 meters above sea level; 130 km of it over 5,000 meters above sea level, with the highest point being 5,500 meters.
Thirty ('liberation' model and Chissu 150) heavy-duty trucks, fully loaded with road builders, maintenance equipment and fuels, running on the highway on a trial basis, headed for Ko-ta-k’e from Yehch’eng. In addition two trucks fully loaded with Hami melons, apples and pomegranates, all native products of Sinkiang, headed in the same direction. These fruits were gifts brought specially by the road builders of Sinkiang for the people of various nationalities.

The Aksai road was opened. It took nearly two more years for the news to become public in India. 
It was only in August 1959 that Nehru dropped the bombshell in Parliament: what the Chinese called the ‘Tibet-Sinkiang highway’ was built through the Indian territory.
The Prime Minster must have known since several years, but he had kept the information secret.
Five months after the road was opened (on February 3, 1958), Subimal Dutt, the Indian Foreign Secretary wrote to Nehru: "there seemed little doubt that the newly constructed 1,200 kilometre road connecting Gartok in Western Tibet with Yeh in Sinkiang passes through Aksai Chin."
Dutt informed the Prime Minister that he agreed with Joint Secretary B.K Acharya's suggestion of sending a reconnoitering party in the coming spring to find out if the road passed through Aksai Chin.
Dutt added: "However, if the Chinese opposed, the party could come back and the matter could be taken diplomatically." [unfortunately for the South Block's babus, the reconnoitering party was captured and several Indian jawans were killed.]
Dutt requested for a meeting to discuss the matter with Nehru, Acharya and K. Gopalachari, the Deputy Director of the Historical Division of the Ministry.
Here is Nehru's answer (On February 4, 1958) recently published in the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru (Series II, Volume 41): 

I shall gladly discuss this matter  with you, JS and Gopalachari.  Meanwhile, my reaction is that we should send a reconnoitering party there in spring with c1ear instructions that they should not come into conflict with the Chinese. I do not think it is desirable to have air reconnaissance. In fact, I do not see what good this can do us. Even a land reconnaissance will not perhaps be very helpful.' However, it may bring some further facts to our notice.

2. I do not see how we can possibly protest about the alignment of the road without being much surer than we are. What we might perhaps do is that in some communication with the Chinese Government in regard to the points of dispute which have to be decided, we should mention the Aksai Chin area.

3. It is suggested that our maps should be sent to the Chinese. Certainly they can be sent through our Embassy. But I think it would be better to do this rather informally.

The Indian territory had been occupied and the Prime Minister wanted to remain informal about it. 
What to say?
The saga continued on October 18, 1958. The Indian Foreign Secretary (Dutt) handed over an 'Informal Note' to the Chinese Ambassador in Delhi. 
Here is the entire note:

The attention of the Government of India has recently been drawn to the fact that a motor road has been constructed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China across the eastern part of the Ladakh region of the Jammu Kashmir States, which is part of India. This road seems to form part of the Chinese road known as Yehchang –Gartok or Sikiang Tibet highway, the completion of which was announced in September, 1957.
The road enters Indian territory just east of Sarigh Jilgnang, runs north-west to Amtogar and striking the western bank of the Amtogar lake runs north-west through Yangpa, Khitai Dawan and Haji Langer which are all in indisputable Indian territory. Near the Amtogar Lake several branch tracks have also been made motorable.

2. The India-China boundary in the Ladakh sector as in others is traditionally well-known and follows well marked geographical features. The territory which road traverses has been part of the Ladakh region of India for centuries and the “old established frontiers' have been accepted by the Chinese in the treaty of 1842 as the International boundary. In an official communication, a Chinese member of the Boundary Commission of 1847-49 accepted the boundary as 'sufficiently and distinctly fixed so that it will be best to adhere to this ancient arrangement and it will prove far more convenient to abstain from any additional measures for fixing them'. Accordingly, Indian survey parties have visited the region since the nineteenth century. Travellers to the area have referred to it as part of Ladakh, and Atlases like the Johnston’s Atlas of India, edition 1894, and maps published by the Survey of India show it unmistakably as part of Ladakh.

3. In view of the position indicated in para.2 above, it is matter of surprise and regrets that the Chinese Government should have constructed a road through indisputably Indian territory without first obtaining the permission of the Government of India and without even informing the Government of India.

4. The Government of India would like to point out that Chinese personnel, including officials and workers engaged in constructing and maintaining the road, as well as Chinese travellers traversing this road have been contravening Article V of the Agreement between the People’s Republic of China and India on trade and Intercourse with Tibet concluded in 1954.
According to this article “for travelling across the border, the High Contracting Parties agree that diplomatic personnel, officials and nationals of the two countries shall hold passports issued by their own respective countries and visaed by the other party” except as provided in the subsequent paragraphs of the Article relating to traders, pilgrims and muleteers. No applications for visas from Chinese personnel working on the road or from Chinese travellers traversing this road have ever been received by the Government of India.

5. As the Chinese Government are aware, the Government of India are anxious to settle these petty frontier disputes so that the friendly relations between the two countries may not suffer. The Government of India would therefore be glad for an early reply from the Tibetan Government.

6. In this connection the Government of India would also like to draw the attention of the Chinese Government to another fact. An Indian party consisting of three Military Officers and four soldiers together with one guide, one porter, six pony–owners and thirty-four ponies, were out on a normal patrol in this area near Shinglung in Indian territory. This patrol had been given strict instructions not to cross the border into Chinese territory. Since the end of August, however, no news of their whereabouts has been received in spite of search by air. Since there are now Chinese personnel in this part of Indian territory the Government of India would be grateful for any information that the Chinese Government may have about the party and for any assistance that they may find it possible to give to the party to return to their headquarters.

It was a matter of 'surprise and regrets' that a road was constructed on Indian territory without India's permission and knowledge!
To make their case worse, the Chinese workers (building the road) did not have proper visas issued by Delhi on their travel documents!
No good!
But magnanimous India was to ready to 'settle these petty frontier disputes so that the friendly relations between the two countries may not suffer'.
Let us not forget that the Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai era was still flourishing!

But there is worse, Prime Minister Nehru lied in the Parliament when the issue came up in April 1959.
A 'Reply to Questions' session was held in the Lok Sabha on April 22, 1959 (Lok Sabha Debates, Second Series, Vol. XXX, cols 12715-12721). 
The topic was  'Maps Published in China and Russia'
The questions were: Will the Prime Minister be pleased to state:
(a) whether Government are aware of the fact that maps recently published in China and Russia show large chunks of our territory as part of their territories; (b) if so, the action taken by Government of India in the matter?Lakshmi Menon, the Deputy Minister of External Affairs answered: "Yes, Sir; Instances of maps, published in China and Russia, depicting certain parts of Indian territory as parts of China, have come to our notice. The attention of these two Governments has already been drawn to the discrepancies."
The debate continued for some time on the maps and then, a Congress MP, D.C. Sharma asked: "May I know if there is any dispute about any border territory or any kind of territory between China and India and, if not, why is it that some parts of India which are obviously in India have been shown as parts of China?"
The Prime Minister answered:

It is rather difficult for me to answer that question. We have discussed one or two minor frontier disputes which comprise tiny tracts of territory, maybe a mile this way or a mile that way, in the high mountains where nobody lives and those are pending. We have discussed them and for the present no settlement has been arrived at.

Later C.D. Pande, the Congress MP from Nainital, UP (now Uttarakhand) brought the subject again: "Apart from the maps, because after all, the question of the maps is academic, may I know whether there are certain portions of land between India and Tibet where they are encroaching on the basis of these maps -- encroaching into our territory,-particularly in Taklakot which is near the border of Almora? At Taklakot they have come six miles this way, according to their map. It is not a question of map alone. They have actually encroached on our territory; six miles in one pass."
Jawaharlal Nehru said:

I should like to give a precise answer to such questions. I would not like to venture to give an imprecise answer. Taklakot [trijunction Nepal-Tibet-India in Pithoragarh district of today's Uttarakhand] and another place – Hoti [Barahoti in Uttarakhand] - have been places under argument  and sometimes, according to our reports we have received, some Chinese have advanced a mile or two, maybe, in high mountains. It is true. We have been enquiring into it. The difficulty is that in the winter months most of these places are almost inaccessible and more inaccessible from our side than from the other side.

Later another MP, Braj Raj Singh queried: "May I know whether Government's attention has been drawn to the news item published in several papers alleging that the Chinese have claimed some 30,000 sq. m. of our territory and they have also disputed the MacMahon line?" This was clearly related to the Aksai Chin and the MP adds 'and also the McMahon line' (Eastern Sector).
Nehru answer: 

No, Sir; I would suggest to Hon. Members not to pay much attention to news items emanating sometimes from Hong Kong and sometimes from other odd places. We have had no such claim directly or indirectly made on us.

The Prime Minister deliberately omitted to mention the Aksai Chin. 
Did he believe that he would settle the issue in a friendly manner with Mao or Zhou Enlai? 
It is difficult to understand his reasoning.
On September 7, 1959, a month after the bombshell, the Ministry of External Affairs published its first White Paper in which the issue of the Aksai Chin is prominently mentioned.