China celebrates its Republic day in Minsar, the Indian village in Tibet

China celebrated the 70th Anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China in the Indian village/town of Minsar in Western Tibet.

An article in China Tibet News mentioned the performance held to welcome upcoming National Day on September 29.
A picture showed a dance composed and performed by teachers and students of the Primary School of Montser Town.
Montser is the Chinese spelling for Minsar.
The article says: "To celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, recently, an artistic performance has been held in Montser Town of Gar [Gratok] County, Ngari Prefecture, southwest China's Tibet Autonomous Region, which not only creates a strong festival atmosphere, but also brings a cultural feast to the masses."

Minsar, an Indian Village in Tibet
Minsar is an Indian principality in Tibet.
The Indian rights to this small town were inherited from the Peace Treaty between Ladakh and Tibet signed in Tingmosgang in 1684. Besides the confirmation of the delimitation of the border between Western Tibet and Ladakh, the Treaty affirmed: “The king of Ladakh reserves to himself the village of Minsar in Ngari-khor-sum [Western Tibet]”. For centuries, Minsar has been a home for Ladakhi and Kashmiri traders and pilgrims visiting the holy mountain.
A report of Thrinley Shingta, the 7th Gyalwang Drukpa, head of the Drukpa school of Tibetan Buddhism, who spent three months in the area in 1748, makes interesting reading: “Administratively, it is established that the immediate village of Minsar and its surrounding areas are ancient Ladakhi territory. After Lhasa invaded West Tibet in 1684, it was agreed and formally inscribed in the Peace Treaty between Tibet and Ladakh, signed in 1684, that the King of Ladakh retained the territory of Minsar and its neighbourhood as a territorial enclave, in order to meet the religious offering expenses of the sacred sites by Lake Manasarovar and Mount Kailash.”
For centuries, the inhabitants of Minsar, although surrounded by Tibetan territories, paid their taxes to the kingdom of Ladakh. During in the 19th century, when Ladakh was incorporated into Maharaja Gulab Singh’s State, Minsar became de facto part of the Jammu & Kashmir State which regularly collected taxes from Minsar.
This lasted till the early 1950s.

Minsar today

What happened then?
In 1953, wanting to sign his Panchsheel Agreement, Jawaharlal Nehru decided to abandon all Indian ‘colonial’ rights, inherited from the British. Though he knew that the small principality was under the Maharaja of the Jammu & Kashmir’s suzerainty and therefore part of the Indian territory, he felt uneasy about this Indian possession, near Mt. Kailash in Tibet. Nehru was aware that Minsar had been providing revenues to maintain the temples around the sacred mountain and the holy Manasarovar lake, however Nehru believed that India should unilaterally renounce her rights as a gesture of goodwill towards Communist China.
He instructed the diplomats negotiating the Panchsheel accord in Beijing: “Regarding the village of Minsar in Western Tibet, which has belonged to the Kashmir State, it is clear that we shall have to give it up, if this question is raised. We need not raise it. If it is raised, we should say that we recognize the strength of the Chinese contention and we are prepared to consider it and recommend it.”
Though Beijing did not have to ask anything, the Indian Prime Minister recognized ‘the strength of the Chinese contention’; Nehru added: “But the matter will have to be referred to the Kashmir Government. The point is that we should not come to a final agreement without gaining the formal assent of the Kashmir Government.” However, Delhi never referred the issue to the Kashmir government.
We should remember that treaties, conventions or agreements signed by any states, do not depend on an individual or a political party; they remain in force whoever is in power. The Chinese occupation of Tibet did not change this fact.
Further, the return of any part Indian Territory needs to be ratified by the Indian Parliament only, through an amendment of the Constitution. Therefore the so-called ‘return’ of Minsar to Tibet (and China) is still today illegal and invalid in law.

John Bray, the noted scholar and President of the International Association of Ladakh Studies wrote: "the Sino-Indian boundary dispute remains unresolved. Since the 1960s, the attention of the two governments has focused on the demarcation of the frontier and, more recently, on the prospects for mutual trade. The status of Minsar is no more than a minor footnote to these concerns, but one that has still to be cleared up."
Nehru’s perception that old treaties or conventions could be discarded or scraped greatly weakened the Indian stand in the 1950s (and later when China invaded India). Nehru’s wrong interpretation made it easy for the Chinese to tell their Indian counterparts “look here, McMahon was an imperialist, therefore the McMahon line is an imperialist fabrication, therefore it is illegal”.

Minsar, today located on the National Highway 219

The disastrous consequences of Nehru’s stand can still be seen some sixty five years later.
But if Beijing continues to raise the ‘illegal’ occupation of the Arunachal by India or interfere in Kashmir affirs, Delhi should definitely bring Minsar and the Shaksgam Valley on the negotiating table.
Further, it would be useful to have an Indian enclave near the Kailash, at a time when Indian pilgrims, in ever-increasing in number, are keen to visit the sacred mountain.

The Indian Village in Tibet

I am posting an interesting report from the Special Officer appointed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to visit Minsar, the Indian enclave in Tibet in Summer 1950. After the report is a historical note on Minsar.

On August 26, 1950, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir (Prime Minister’s Secretariat - External Affairs Department) writes to the Ministry of States in New Delhi to inform it  about the circumstances of the Special Officer’s visit to Tibet.
The communication is entitled: ‘Village Minsar in Western Tibet'.

...the State Government have already deputed a Civil Officer, Mr. N. Rigzen Ghagil Kalon, with an escort of armed police to visit Minsar village. From the last report received from Mr. Kalon it appears that the Tibetan Govt have put restrictions on people entering their territory with arms. His report further indicates that he reached Rudok on 3rd June, 1950 leaving the police escort behind at Chuchhol [Chushul] a border village on the side of the Jammu and Kashmir State.
At Rudok the Civil Officer was informed by the Tibetan Govt officials that he could proceed to Minsar without an armed escort. Subsequent report from the Chief administrative Officer Leh shows that the Civil Officer along with some constables in civilian dress and without arms are on their way to Minsar.

Follows the report from Rigzen Ghagil Kalon, the Special Officer (Minsar) to the Chief Administrative Officer (Leh). It is dated September 13, 1950, a few weeks before the entry of the Chinese in Western Tibet.
The report is entitled: “Note on condition of the inhabitants of Kashmir Village Minsar in Western Tibet”. Note that Demchok is clearly the last border village in Ladakh; it is now 'disputed' by China.

In compliance to your orders I left Leh on 22-6-50 and reached village Minsar on 24-7-50. The route lies via Rudok. It is ten days journey from Demjok [Demchok] to Minsar. Demjok is the last boundary of the Tehsil Ladakh from which begins the Chhangthang Plateau of Lhasa Tibet. The route from Demjok to Minsar passes through Gartok which is the headquarters of Garpons (Administrative Officers of Lhasa Government). The village Minsar is situated to east of Gartok and about 32 miles west of Mount Kailasas [Kailash]. It is a broad valley with vast plains in it.
There are 68 families with 271 souls of which 120 are males and the rest females and are all adherents of Buddhism.
The entire population depends on livestock which is the only source of subsistence and deal in the trade of sheep, wool, and pashmina. The economic condition of the people is neither much satisfactory nor so much frustrated.
On my way I interviewed Garpons at Rudok and exchanged my ideas with them regarding taking my Police Constables to Minsar and installation of a Chowki [guardian] there. They told me that it would create some consternation in Minsar and its suburbs, if the whole quota of six constables along with rifles were permitted to accompany me and so two constables were permitted to accompany me and the rifles were kept concealed under our saddles. I directed the other four constables to stay at Demjok. I also came across with the traders of Kulu [in Himachal Pradesh] and Leh there. They came with an application to me saying that Tibetan Officials were demanding Custom Duty for their livestock and goods which was not supported by any Rule or Regulation in this behalf. I accordingly went to see the Tibetan Officials and discussed the point with them. They were fully convinced by my arguments that the practice was illegal and they agreed to stop it in future.
The various passengers who had met me on way had already intimated to the people of the village Minsar about me and had accordingly arranged a Tumboo (tent of Yak hair) for my lodging. The Numberdar [hereditary title for powerful families of zamindars of a village or town] and few distinguished persons of the place received me heartily. On the following day I had a discourse with the inhabitants of the place and we exchanged our ideas. I found there a few Garhwal tradesmen who did a lot of propaganda in my favour among the people telling them that I belonged to the National Government of Jammu and Kashmir which is a part of India. It proved a great help to me. I asked for the recovery of revenue and the people told me that they had not the least hesitation in paying the amount to the State Govt., but they had a few grievances against our Government which despite their several representations made at Leh, were not heeded to and no action was taken. They expressed that this attitude of our Government had extremely disgusted them and they wanted an immediate redress before payment of revenue. The grievances are as follows:-

1. No help was extended to them at the time of the incursion of the Kazaks. The Kazak raid had wholly ravaged their villages and looted and ruined their monasteries. The figures of personal properties of the people leaving aside the monastic wealth were cash Rs. 25000/-, horses 140, yaks 404, and sheep 4889.
2. The people are subjected to the payment of puggur dues (goods sold by the Tibetan Officials to their subjects at exorbitant price) which is a gross injustice of the Tibetan Government on the people. A few days before my arrival there a Tibetan Official called Urkoo had sent goods such as tea etc worth Rs. 672/- to the village for forced sale for which the villagers had to pay Rs. 1548/- as cost price to Urkoo.
3. An Official from our Government should stay there annually at least for three months in summer who will look after the general situation of the place.
4. The people have to supply free transport to the Tibetan officials. The transport engaged by the Tibetan for other purposes such as carriage of goods etc are paid at normal wages of three pice for 32 miles per pony.

In respect of items 2 and 4 it is requested that the Tibetan Government be contacted to stop this mal-practice forthwith which will go a long way in mitigating the troubles and the people will welcome our Government and do whatever we ask them to do.
I contacted the Urkoo who had sent his goods to Minsar and told him to postpone the sale of goods to people for the present till I submit my report to my Government and the requisite orders whether the sale of goods should be made or not are conveyed to his Government by my Government.
I saw on my way orders of the Tibetan Government affixed on all stages to the effect that no Puggur dues and free transport should be demanded. On my return journey I discussed this point with the high Garpon at Gartok and asked him as to how these mal-practices were in vogue in contravention to the clear and explicit orders in this behalf. Garpon told me in reply that as Minsar virtually formed a part of Government of Lhasa and so the Tibetan Officials were right to enforce their laws in the said territory. He also said that Kashmir Government was only to collect revenue annually from the village as done heretofore and for all other administrative purposes the village constitutes a part of Lhasa Government. I asked him to give it in writing to which he showed reluctance and I could easily infer that he had no such document with him by which he was justifying his action.
From the foregoing observations it transpires that our Government has not so far taken any steps in setting up our administration there. It is submitted that speedy measures may please be taken to alleviate the trouble and miseries of the people of this forgotten place which will assure the loyalty of subjects.
No other political condition worth mention needs to be incorporated in the report.

A historical Note on Minsar
Before the invasion of the Roof of the World by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in 1950, India had a small territory in Tibet. This village is called Minsar.
For centuries, the inhabitants of Minsar, although surrounded by Tibetan territories, paid their taxes to the kingdom of Ladakh. During in the 19th century, when Ladakh was incorporated into Maharaja Gulab Singh’s State, Minsar de facto became a part of the Jammu & Kashmir State.
In October 1947, after Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, Minsar became Indian territory.
This lasted till the mid 1950s.
John Bray, the President of the International Association of Ladakh Studies, who wrote about the Bhutanese and Indian (Minsar) enclaves in Tibet, noted: “Both sets of enclaves share a common origin in that they date back to the period when the Kings of Ladakh controlled the whole of Western Tibet. The link with Bhutan arises because of the Ladakhi royal family’s association with the Drukpa Kagyupa sect.”
This school of Buddhism, different of the Dalai Lama’s Gelukpa has been influential in Ladakh and Bhutan for centuries.
The rights to the small town of Minsar were inherited from the Peace Treaty between Ladakh and Tibet signed in Tingmosgang in 1684. Besides the confirmation of the delimitation of the border between Western Tibet and Ladakh, the Treaty affirmed: “The king of Ladakh reserves to himself the village of Minsar in Ngari-khor-sum [Western Tibet]”. For centuries, Minsar was a home for Ladakhi and Kashmiri traders and pilgrims visiting the holy mountain.
A report of Thrinley Shingta, the 7th Gyalwang Drukpa, head of the Drukpa school of Tibetan Buddhism, who spent three months in the area in 1748, makes interesting reading: “Administratively, it is established that the immediate village of Minsar and its surrounding areas are ancient Ladakhi territory. After Lhasa invaded West Tibet in 1684, it was agreed and formally inscribed in the Peace Treaty between Tibet and Ladakh, signed in 1684, that the King of Ladakh retained the territory of Minsar and its neighbourhood as a territorial enclave, in order to meet the religious offering expenses of the sacred sites by Lake Manasarovar and Mount Kailash.”

Minsar today

The Panchsheel Agreement
In 1953, wanting to sign his Panchsheel Agreement with China, Jawaharlal Nehru decided to abandon all Indian ‘colonial’ rights inherited from the British. Though he knew that the small principality was part of the Indian territory, he felt uneasy about this Indian ‘possession’ near Mt. Kailash in Tibet. Nehru was aware that Minsar had been providing revenue to maintain the temples around the sacred mountain and the holy Manasarovar lake, but believed that India should unilaterally renounce her rights as a gesture of goodwill towards Communist China.
He instructed the diplomats negotiating the Panchsheel accord in Beijing: “Regarding the village of Minsar in Western Tibet, which has belonged to the Kashmir State, it is clear that we shall have to give it up, if this question is raised. We need not raise it. If it is raised, we should say that we recognize the strength of the Chinese contention and we are prepared to consider it and recommend it.”
Eventually Minsar was not discussed in 1954 during the talks for the Tibet (also known as Panchsheel) Agreement and, the Bhutanese enclaves could not be brought up during the India-China talks in 1960, as China refused to deal with Sikkim and Bhutan.
It means that the fate of these enclaves has never been negotiated or settled. It remains so today.
On December 31, 1953, while opening the ‘Tibet talks’ (without the participation of the Dalai Lama’s government), Premier Zhou Enlai affirmed: “all outstanding problems between China and other countries could be solved on basis of mutual respect for territorial integrity, non aggression and non-interference in internal affairs so as to enable peaceful co-existence. I know Prime Minister Nehru Government and people of India also feel the same way. On basis of this principle all outstanding questions between us which are ripe for settlement can be resolved smoothly.”
Minsar issue was never sorted out.

The Legal Position
We should remember that treaties, conventions or agreements signed by any states, do not depend on an individual or a political party; they remain in force whoever is in power. The Chinese occupation of Tibet did not change this fact.
Further, the return of any part Indian Territory needs to be ratified by the Indian Parliament only, through an amendment of the Constitution. Therefore the so-called ‘return’ of Minsar to Tibet (and China) is still today illegal and invalid in law.
John Bray wrote: "the Sino-Indian boundary dispute remains unresolved. Since the 1960s, the attention of the two governments has focused on the demarcation of the frontier and, more recently, on the prospects for mutual trade. The status of Minsar is no more than a minor footnote to these concerns, but one that has still to be cleared up."
Nehru’s perception that old treaties or conventions could be discarded or scraped greatly weakened the Indian stand in the 1950s (and later when China invaded India). Nehru’s wrong interpretation made it easy for the Chinese to tell their Indian counterparts “look here, McMahon was an imperialist, therefore the McMahon line is an imperialist fabrication, therefore it is illegal”.

Little Bhutan in Tibet

Darchen, one of the Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet

My article Little Bhutan in Tibet appeared today in The Statesman.

Here is the link...

China quite amazingly is able to deny even the most undeniable facts.
Geng Shuang , spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was recently asked by an Indian correspondent, about the details of the meeting between President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi on the side of the G 20 Summit in Hamburg. Geng replied: “According to my information, the two said leaders did not hold any bilateral meetings.”
When asked by another correspondent “Are you saying this did not happen?” He answered: “The two leaders of China and India did not hold any meetings on the sidelines of any meeting in Hamburg.”
He thrice repeated his contention.
This was an event which took place only a few days earlier, with a photo tweeted all over the world; one can imagine the scenario when something occurred several decades or centuries earlier; historical events can never be in China’s disfavour.

The Doklam plateau
Moving to the Doklam plateau, the same spokesman quoted a letter written by Nehru on September 26, 1959 in which he would have acknowledges the 1890 Convention between Great Britain and China; the fact that this agreement was never implemented simply because the main stakeholders Tibet, Bhutan and Sikkim were not signatories or even represented, has been forgotten. Here too Geng has selective memory.
The same para (no 17) of Nehru’s quoted letter speaks about the Tibet-Bhutan border, the object of the present stand-off.
The Indian Prime Minister tells the Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai: “It is not clear to us what exactly is the implication of your statement that the boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan do not fall within the scope of the present discussion. In fact, Chinese maps show sizeable areas of Bhutan as part of Tibet.”
This relates in particular to Doklam plateau.
Nehru continues: “Under treaty relationships with Bhutan, the Government of India are the only competent authority to take up with other Governments matters concerning Bhutan's external relations …The rectification of errors in Chinese maps regarding the boundary of Bhutan with Tibet is therefore a matter which has to be discussed along with the boundary of India.”
Not only was the boundary line never rectified, but China has recently tried to change the status quo.
A year later (1960), the prime ministers of India and China agreed to participate in a Conference with ‘Officials’ of the two sides to sort out the boundary issue. China conveniently refused to discuss the Tibet-Sikkim and the Tibet-Bhutan borders.
The Indian Officials nevertheless filed a separate statement about Bhutan; at that time, the main issue was the eastern part of Bhutan, adjacent to Kameng Frontier Division (today’s Tawang district). The Report of the Officials stated: “As far as India and Bhutan are concerned the valid boundary in this sector is known and recognised.”

Darchen and Mt Kailash

The Bhutanese enclaves
But more interestingly, the Report mentions several Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet, it notes: “Chinese officials have illegally dispossessed the designated authorities of the Government of Bhutan in the following eight villages situated in western Tibet over which Bhutan has been exercising administrative jurisdiction for more than 300 years: Khangri, Tarchen, Tsekhor, Diraphu, Dzung Tuphu, Jangehe, Chakip and Kocha.”
Minsar, the Indian enclave in Tibet is better known, but these villages too did not belong to Tibet, they were part of Bhutan’s territory.
The Report continues: “Bhutan has for centuries appointed the officers who governed these villages, collected taxes from them and administered justice. Tibetan authorities consistently recognised that these villages belonged to the Bhutan Government. The villages were not subject to Tibetan officers and laws; nor did they pay any Tibetan taxes. There has thus been a violation of Bhutan's legitimate authority over these villages.”
On August 19 and 20, 1959, at the request of Bhutan, official Notes were sent by Delhi to Beijing, in which the Chinese Government was requested “to restore the rightful authority of the Bhutan Government over their enclaves.”
A scholar, John Bray, who is President of the International Association of Ladakh Studies, wrote a fascinating research paper on the ‘Bhutanese enclaves’ in Tibet. He explained that until the 1950s “both Ladakh and Bhutan governed small enclaves of territory in Western Tibet. Ladakh’s enclave consisted of the village of Minsar, near lake Manasarovar, and its surrounding land, while Bhutan governed the Darchen Labrang and several smaller monasteries and villages near Mount Kailash …and Bhutan continued to raise revenue there for some 300 years.”.”
For centuries, the inhabitants of Minsar, although surrounded by Tibetan territories, paid their taxes to the kingdom of Ladakh. During in the 19th century, when Ladakh was incorporated into Maharaja Gulab Singh’s State, Minsar de facto became a part of the Jammu & Kashmir State.
In October 1947, after Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, Minsar became Indian territory. This lasted till the mid 1950s.
Bray remarked: “Both sets of enclaves share a common origin in that they date back to the period when the Kings of Ladakh controlled the whole of Western Tibet. The link with Bhutan arises because of the Ladakhi royal family’s association with the Drukpa Kagyupa sect.”
This school of Buddhism, different of the Dalai Lama’s Gelukpa has been influential in Ladakh and Bhutan for centuries.

Minsar, the Indian enclave
Regarding Minsar, the Indian principality in Tibet, the rights to this small town were inherited from the Peace Treaty between Ladakh and Tibet signed in Tingmosgang in 1684. Besides the confirmation of the delimitation of the border between Western Tibet and Ladakh, the Treaty affirmed: “The king of Ladakh reserves to himself the village of Minsar in Ngari-khor-sum [Western Tibet]”. For centuries, Minsar has been a home for Ladakhi and Kashmiri traders and pilgrims visiting the holy mountain.
In 1953, wanting to sign his Panchsheel Agreement with China, Jawaharlal Nehru decided to abandon all Indian ‘colonial’ rights inherited from the British. Though he knew that the small principality was part of the Indian territory, he felt uneasy about this Indian ‘possession’ near Mt. Kailash in Tibet. Nehru was aware that Minsar had been providing revenue to maintain the temples around the sacred mountain and the holy Manasarovar lake, but believed that India should unilaterally renounce her rights as a gesture of goodwill towards Communist China.
He instructed the diplomats negotiating the Panchsheel accord in Beijing: “Regarding the village of Minsar in Western Tibet, which has belonged to the Kashmir State, it is clear that we shall have to give it up, if this question is raised. We need not raise it. If it is raised, we should say that we recognize the strength of the Chinese contention and we are prepared to consider it and recommend it.”
Eventually Minsar was not discussed in 1954 during the talks for the Tibet (also known as Panchsheel) Agreement and, the Bhutanese enclaves could not be brought up during the India-China talks in 1960, as China refused to deal with Sikkim and Bhutan.
It means that the fate of these enclaves has never been negotiated or settled. It remains so today.
On December 31, 1953, while opening the ‘Tibet talks’ (without the participation of the Dalai Lama’s government), Premier Zhou Enlai affirmed: “all outstanding problems between China and other countries could be solved on basis of mutual respect for territorial integrity, non aggression and non-interference in internal affairs so as to enable peaceful co-existence. I know Prime Minister Nehru Government and people of India also feel the same way. On basis of this principle all outstanding questions between us which are ripe for settlement can be resolved smoothly.”
Are the forgotten Bhutanese enclaves ‘ripe for settlement’ now?
Mr Geng has probably forgotten about their existence.

‘One country’ which has not been nice

Can India ask for the return of Minsar?

My article ‘One country’ which has not been nice appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...

While blocking India’s NSG membership, China must look back into history when India twice refused a seat at the UNSC for the sake of the Middle Kingdom. Perhaps, India has been too good in its dealings with China

India’s bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) as a full-fledged member was rejected (or ‘postponed’) last week in Seoul. This outcome was expected since ‘one country’ wanted to play by the rules, and India is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), though Delhi has always strictly adhered to non-proliferation norms.
This has generated a lot of ink from analysts who have examined the issue from all angles. Shyam Saran, a former Foreign Secretary, wrote: “Why has China taken a more public and upfront position opposing India’s membership in the NSG?” His answer is that China today is a more confident and assertive power; it is “a demonstration of its newfound great power status rather than a sign of international isolation.”
Meanwhile, the Ministry of External Affairs spokesman who usually speaks in circumvoluted terms (sorry, in ‘diplomatic language’) made it clear: “There was only ‘one country’ which persistently raised procedural hurdles, as a result of which no decision could be arrived at in Seoul.”
It simply means: China is not ready to be nice to India. The minimum Beijing could have done was to show gratitude. Chinese are far better than Indians at remembering history. I am sure diplomats in Beijing still recall that India twice refused a seat in the UN Security Council (UNSC) for the sake of the Middle Kingdom.
Today, while China has a permanent seat in the UNSC with veto power, India has nothing. Why?  Perhaps India has been too ‘good’ in its dealings with China.
One remembers the 1955 Soviet offer to sponsor India’s case for a permanent seat. Sarvepalli Gopal, Nehru’s biographer, wrote: “He [Nehru] rejected the Soviet offer to propose India as the sixth permanent member of the Security Council and insisted that priority be given to China’s admission to the United Nations.”
Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin had told Nehru: “We propose suggesting at a later stage India’s inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council”. Nehru answered: “This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain positions because that may itself create difficulties and India might itself become a subject to controversy.”
In August 1950, the US was also ready to sponsor a seat for India at the UN. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, then posted as Ambassador to the US, wrote to her brother: “One matter that is being cooked up in the State Department should be known to you. This is the unseating of [Nationalist] China as a permanent member in the Security Council and of India being put in its place. …Last week I had interviews with [John Foster] Dulles and [Philip] Jessup... Both brought up this question and Dulles seemed particularly anxious that a move in this direction should be started.”
Nehru told Pandit: “The State Department is trying to unseat China as a permanent member of the Security Council and to put India in its place. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to countenance it. That will be bad from every point of view. It will be a clear affront to China and it will mean some kind of a break between us and China,” the Indian Prime Minister added: “We shall go on pressing for [Communist] China’s admission in the UN and the Security Council.”
All the more shocking as at that particular time, China was preparing to invade Tibet; a position in the UN would have helped India’s prestige and influence …and perhaps saved Tibet.
China has shown little gratitude towards India; perhaps Beijing is unable to appreciate kindness and generosity. India could also one day decide to be not nice with Beijing and ask for the return of territories belonging to India presently occupied by China.
Apart from the Shaksgam Valley, illegally ‘offered’ by Pakistan to China in 1963, the Government should ask for the return of Minsar, an Indian principality in Tibet. The Indian rights to this small town were inherited from the Peace Treaty between Ladakh and Tibet signed in Tingmosgang in 1684.
Besides the confirmation of the delimitation of the border between Tibet and Ladakh, the Treaty affirmed: “The king of Ladakh reserves to himself the village of Minsar in Ngari-khor-sum [western Tibet]”. For centuries, Minsar has been a home for Ladakhi and Kashmiri traders and pilgrims visiting the holy mountain.
The inhabitants of Minsar, although surrounded by Tibetan territories, paid their taxes to the kingdom of Ladakh. During the 19th century, when Ladakh was incorporated into Maharaja Gulab Singh’s State, Minsar became de facto part of the Jammu & Kashmir State which collected taxes from Minsar till the early 1950s. What happened then?
In 1953, wanting to be nice and have his Panchsheel Agreement signed, Nehru decided to abandon all Indian ‘colonial’ rights, inherited from the British. Even though Minsar had nothing to do with the Crown, being the outcome of an old treaty between Ladakh and Tibet, it was offered to China.
Though Nehru knew that the small principality was under the Maharaja of Kashmir’s suzerainty and, therefore, part of the Indian territory, he felt uneasy about this Indian possession, near Mt Kailash in Tibet. Nehru believed that India’s rights should unilaterally (and discretely) be renounced as a gesture of goodwill towards Communist China.
He instructed the diplomats negotiating the Panchsheel accord in Beijing: “Regarding the village of Minsar in western Tibet, which has belonged to the Kashmir State, it is clear that we shall have to give it up, if this question is raised. We need not raise it. If it is raised, we should say that we recognise the strength of the Chinese contention and we are prepared to consider it and recommend it.”
Beijing had not asked for anything. Nehru, however, added: “The point is that we should not come to a final agreement without gaining the formal assent of the Kashmir Government.” Delhi never referred the issue to Srinagar. The return of Minsar was never ratified by the Indian Parliament. Legally, Minsar still belongs to India. John Bray, the President of the International Association of Ladakh Studies wrote: “The status of Minsar is no more than a minor footnote to these concerns, but one that has still to be cleared up.”
Nehru’s perception that old treaties or conventions could be scrapped greatly weakened the Indian stand in the 1950s. Nehru’s wrong interpretation made it easy for the Chinese to tell their Indian counterparts, “Look here, McMahon was an imperialist, therefore, the McMahon line is an imperialist fabrication, therefore, it is illegal”.
If China wants today to be legalistic, India can also start claiming its territories in Tibet. Has Delhi the guts to do so?