The Politics of History and the Indo-Tibetan Border (1987–88)

Abstract

Notes

1. This crisis has been described variously by Sumit Ganguly, “The Sino-Indian Border Talks, 1981–1989: A View from New Delhi,” Asian Survey Vol. 29, No. 12 (1989), pp. 1129–1131; and John Garver, Protracted Contest. Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Twentieth Century (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001), pp. 104–106.

2. The Sino-Indian Boundary Question (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1962). This was followed by a slim volume of further official statements, The Sino-Indian Boundary Question II (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965).

3. Garver, Protracted Contest, p. 94.

4. Garver, Protracted Contest, pp. 167–168 and 172.

5. The series has published most volumes under a slight variant of the title: Bod-kyi rig-gnas lo-rgyus dpyad-gzhi'i rgyu-cha bdams-sgrigs.

6. On the CPPCC and its place within the UFWD, see Lyman P. Van Slyke, Enemies and Friends. The United Front in Chinese Communist History (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1967), pp. 237–238.

7. Ngag-dbang phun-tshogs and Rgyal-po, Rje-’bangs rnams-kyi rigs-rus gsal-ba'i sgron-me (Mon chos-’byung), in Bod-kyi lo-rgyus rig-gnas dpyad-gzhi'i rgyu-cha bdams-sgrigs Vol. 10 [hereafter SRM 10], (Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1988), pp. 87–130. The Chinese translation of the Mon chos-’byung is worth noting as well: Awang pingcuo and Jiaobu , Junmin shixi qiyuan mingdeng (Menyu jiaoshi) (), in Xizang wenshi ziliao xuanji , Vol. 10 [hereafter SRM 10 Chinese] (Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1988), pp, 44–73.

8. Michael Aris, Microfiche Supplement to Bhutan. The Early History of a Himalayan Kingdom (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1979), pp. 1–66.

9. With regard to the composition of the articles in SRM 10 and in other volumes in the same series it must be pointed out that in the June 1988 issue of the Tibetan-exile publication Shes-bya, Bsam-pho Bstan-’dzin don-grub, the co-author of an article in volume 2 of the series, asserted that he and his collaborating author did not actually write the piece that appeared under their names but simply edited it, the text having been written by others.

10. It should be noted though that the neibu designation had no real effect for those seeking to purchase these volumes in Tibet. The implicit restrictions on circulation were mostly observed in the breach.

11. Sbas-chags-shri is marked on other maps as “Pachakshiri,” and located in the northern portion of the West Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh. The PRC Tibetan-language map of the Tibet Autonomous Region shows the town of Sba-chag-shri (i.e., Sbas-chags-shri) marked slightly to the south, but located along the Sba-chag-shri chu, a river flowing from the north. See Bod rang-skyong-ljongs srid-’dzin sa-khul-gyi sa-bkra (n.d., n.p.).

12. As will be seen, Sgar-chags-gzhis-ka was the estate presided over by the Lha-klu family. It took in the area of Sbas-chags-shri, (which fell under Indian control) at least for tax purposes.

13. On Smag-sgo, which is located just south of the Mon-yul border in Arunachal Pradesh, see Michael Aris, “Notes on the History of the Mon-yul Corridor,” in Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Khyi, eds., Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1980), p. 19 (“Rmag-sgo”).

14. On the question of the territory and peoples covered by the term Mon, properly speaking, see Michael Aris, “Mon-yul Corridor,” pp. 9–10.

15. Chab-spel Tshe-brtan phun-tshogs, “Mon-yul ni sngar-nas Krung-go'i mnga’-khongs yin-pa'i lo-rgyus dpang-rtags,” SRM 10, p. 1: mdor-na Bod-kyi lo-gyus yig-tshang phal-mo-che'i nang-du mang-nyung ma-bltos-par Mon-gyi skor ma-gsal-ba ha-lam med.

16. Chab-spel, Mon-yul, p. 2.

17. Concerning the Tangut element in Tibetan and Himalayan lineages, see Elliot Sperling, “Rtsa-mi lo-tsa-ba Sangs rgyas grags-pa and the Tangut Background to Early Mongol-Tibetan Relations,” in Per Kvaerne, ed., Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies (Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994), p. 807.

18. Chab-spel, Mon-yul, p. 3.

19. Chab-spel, Mon-yul, p. 3. This is made clear in the Mon chos-’byung, as will be seen below. Concerning the lineage of the kings of Ladakh and Western Tibet, see Luciano Petech, The Kingdom of Ladakh (Rome: IsMEO, 1977).

20. Alistair Lamb, The McMahon Line (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), pp. 546 and 618–619; these are the “secret” letters exchanged with Delhi.

21. Lha-klu Tshe-dbang rdo-rje, “Di-lir gsang-ba'i yig-rigs brje-len byas-pa dir Bod sa-gnas srid-gzung-gis khas-len byas-rigs med-pa,” SRM 10, p. 15. The Chinese translation (p. 9) states here that the thirteenth Dalai Lama never recognized the McMahon Line. Both versions also have Bell relating that the chaos in early republican China precluded definitive Chinese action on the Simla Convention, which accords quite well with later Chinese rationales for not ascribing any significance to actions by the Tibetan government undertaken independently of Republican China. We might add that the Dalai Lama's biography makes no mention of discussions with Bell at this time, not that this constitutes definitive evidence on the issue. See Thub bstan byams pa tshul khrims bstan ’dzin, Lhar bcas srid zhi'i gtsug rgyan gong sa rgyal ba'i dbang po bka drin mtshungs med sku phreng bcu gsum pa chen po'i rnam par thar pa rgya mtsho lta bu las mdo tsam brjod pa ngo mtshar rin po che'i phreng ba, in Collected Works of Dalai Lama XIII, Vols. 6 and 7 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1982).

22. This would be Zhol-khang Don-grub phun-tshogs. Concerning him, see Luciano Petech, Aristocracy and Government in Tibet, 1728–1959 (Rome: IsMEO, 1973), pp. 142–143.

23. Lha-klu, “Di-lir,” p. 16.

24. Lha-klu, “Di-lir,” pp. 16–22.

25. Bka’-shag is often rendered as “cabinet,” or “council of ministers,” but in many materials coming out of the PRC it is simply used to indicate the Tibetan government directly under the Dalai Lama or his regents.

26. Thub-bstan chos-’phel, Hin-rdu btsan-’dzul dmag-gis Mon-khul-du btsan-’dzul byas-pa'i don-dngos, SRM 10, p. 34. Again, attesting to the use of Tibetan archival materials, the actual date is given according to the Tibetan calendar: the third day of the first month of the Iron-Hare Year.

27. Thub-bstan chos-’phel, “Hin-rdu btsan-’dzul,” p. 38.

28. Thub-bstan chos-’phel, “Hin-rdu btsan-’dzul,” pp. 39–40.

29. Thub-bstan chos-’phel, “Hin-rdu btsan-’dzul,” pp. 40–41.

30. Thub-bstan chos-’phel, “Hin-rdu btsan-’dzul,” p. 43: Nga-rang-la Rta-dbang gnyer-tshang bsko-bzhag skabs-kyang Mon-yul-gyi khral-bsdu khrims-gnon sngar-lam byed dgos-pa'i bkod khyab gnang-ba-las/ Me-ge-ma-hung-sogs-kyi gleng-sgros-tsam gsung-mkhan med-la nga-rang-nas go-thos-kyang yong-ma-myong/.

31. Thub-bstan chos-’phel, “Hin-rdu btsan-’dzul,” p. 43: Krung-Hin rgyal-khab gnyis-po'i mi-dmangs dbar-gyi srol-rgyun-gyi mthun-lam-la bsam-gzhigs dang-’brel zhi-bde mnyam-gnas-kyi rtsa-don lnga'i dgongs-don ltar mdza’-grogs-kyi ’phros-mol byed-pa-brgyud drang-bzhag lugs-mthun-ngang mtha’-mtshams-kyi gnad-don sgo-kun-nas thag-gcod yong-ba'i re-ba yod/.

32. Tudeng Qunpei , “Yindu jundui qinzhan Menyu Dawang diqu qinliji,” , SRM 10 Chinese, p. 23: , , , .

33. Bde-chen thang must be in the vicinity of Sbas-chags-shri, as the Bde-chen-mu chu flows into the Sba-chag-shri-chu on the PRC map of the TAR.

34. Mar-kong Ye-shes dgra-’dul, “Hin-rdu btsan-’dzul dmag-la gdong-gtugs-kyis kha-rdung btang-ba,” SRM 10, p. 51.

35. Blon-chen Bshad-sgra or Lonchen Shatra is well known as the chief Tibetan plenipotentiary at the Simla Conference.

36. Mar-kong, “Hin-rdu btsan-’dzul,” p.59.

37. Smin-gling Zla-mchog, “Nga dang Hin-rdu btsan-’dzul dmag dbar byung-ba'i rtsod-gleng zhig,” SRM 10, p. 63: de-ltar yin-na Rgya-gar hril-po nga-tsho'i sa-bkra’ nang bkod-de bdag-bzung byas-na ’grig-gam. The assumption, given the circumstances of publication, is that the “our” of “our map” refers to China.

38. Shing-sdong, “Sbas-chags-shri ni rang-rgyal-gyi mnga’-khongs bsnyon-med yin,” SRM 10, p. 71. Note, though, that the Chinese version refers not to airplanes but to helicopters: see Xindong, , “Baiqiaxirao defang shi woguo wuke zhengyi de lingtu” , SRM 10 Chinese, pp. 35–36.

39. The Lha-klu family was a well-known aristocratic family (the twelfth Dalai Lama had been born into it). Lha-klu Tshe-dbang rdo-rje served the Tibetan government in a variety of capacities and had served in Khams prior to the Chinese assault in 1950. The family's estate holdings in Mon-yul explains why Lha-klu tshe-dbang rdo-rje figures so often in these accounts. On the Lha-klu family, see Petech, Aristocracy, pp. 43–49.

40. Bde-rab Tshe-rdor, “Nga Sgar-chags gzhis sdod las-thog-skabs Hin-rdu'i btsan-’dzul dmag-gis Sbas-chags-shri btsan-bzung byas-pa'i gnas-tshul dngos,” SRM 10, p. 73.

41. Bde-rab, “Sgar-chags,” p. 76. N.b., the other accounts give 1952 as the year of the arrival of Indian troops in Sbas-chags-shri.

42. This is the family of the seventh Dalai Lama. See Petech, Aristocracy, pp. 32–39.

43. Dpal-’byor “Nga Smag-sgor khral-bsdur bskyod-skabs ’gog-rkyen ’phred-pa'i gnas-tshul dngos,” SRM 10, p. 81.

44. The manager of a lama's residence or bla-brang.

45. Bsod-nams dpal-’byor, “1962-lor Rta-dbang-la bskyod-skabs-kyi mthong-thos,” SRM 10, p. 86.

46. The work is mentioned by Dan Martin in Tibetan Histories (London: Serindia, 1997), p. 234. He lists it as undated, speculating correctly that it might be another version of a text by Byar Ngag-dbang in 1728. This latter text is extant as a manuscript kept in the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives and is the version of the text studied by Michael Aris. I am extremely grateful to Tashi Tsering of the Amnye Machen Institute, Dharamsala, for sharing a copy of the other version with me and discussing the differences between them (as well as their common date) with me.

47. Ngag-dbang phun-tshogs, Mon chos-’byung, p. 96: gong-gi me-pho-’brug-nas da-lta'i Dbus-Gtsang ’khrug-pa'i sa-pho-sprel-lo yan-chod-la lo-grangs brgya-phra-brgyad dang sum-cu-so-gsum song. Note that the Chinese version of the text gives the date as 1668/69: Awang pingcuo, Menyu jiaoshi, p. 50.

48. Ngag-dbang phun-tshogs, Mon chos-’byung, p. 95.

49. Dung-dkar Blo-bzang phron-las, Dung-dkar tshig-mdzod chen-mo (Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House, 2002), p. 2179.

50. E.g., the account in Ngag-dbang phun-tshogs, Mon chos-’byung, p. 98, of his marriage to Bsod-nams dpal-sbyin, who was from the clan of one of Padmasambhava's personal disciples.

51. Ngag-dbang phun-tshogs, Mon chos-’byung, p. 96.

52. Ngag-dbang phun-tshogs, Mon chos-’byung, pp. 117–124.

53. Ngag-dbang phun-tshogs, Mon chos-’byung, p. 102.

54. Ngag-dbang phun-tshogs, Mon chos-’byung, p.103: blon-’bangs dang Rgya-gar-la dbang-bsgyur-nas stobs mnga’-thang ce-bar byung-zhing. It goes without saying that this cannot refer to any sort of domination over Indian territory of any great size.