Aksaichin: Catalyst for Resolution of Sino-Indian Border Dispute.

S Y N O P S I SThe recent presence of America in Afghanistan and Iraq has further enhanced the need for China to have strategic relations with India. It is felt India and China must play their role against unilateralism through political and economic unity. Since 1990, Sino Indian economic relations have made a good progress..For about a decade both countries have been suitably maintaining peace and tranquility on 4100 km long disputed border. The current effort of delineating the line of Actual Control which made the good beginning in Central Sector , by exchange of maps, has been stalled in the western sector. The special representatives of appropriate standing nominated by India and China are expected to provide a new political dimension and expedite the work of experts and officials. However, there has not been satisfactory progress in the resolution of complicated border issue. April 05 ?Agreement on the Parameters and Principles for Settlement of Boundary Question? may lead the way.?The agreement sets out for the first time ever, principles for an overall settlement of the of the India-China boundary question.?(1)HistoryAfter historic Shimla agreement of 1913, which was signed by British and Tibet plenipotentiaries and initialed by Chinese plenipotentiary, McMahon line was delimited between India and Tibet in Arunachal Pradesh (NEFA) and a boundary was also delimited between Outer and Inner Tibet. Chinese had later repudiated the 1913 Agreement. British Indian Govt itself preferred to ignore this international frontier for decades in a bid to obtain Chinese acquiescence to McMahon line. McMahon line was activated only in 1936 when an attempt was made to exercise British influence in areas beyond inner line in ?NEFA.? ?We forgot for a long time that Tawang was ours (after 1913 Shimla Agreement.) to develop? (2) ?Tibet tax collectors appeared in Tawang and at one or two points on the upper Subansiri and Siang and as far as Walong?(3) Unlike in the east, in Aksaichin there is no treaty with Tibet or China . In 1959, Prime Minster had stated in the Parliament ?It is a matter of argument as to what part of it (Aksaichin) belongs to us and what part of it belongs to someone else., the point is there has never been an delimitation there in that area and it has been a challenged area?(4) In March 1899 first definite boundary proposal known as McDonald line ,who was a British Minister in Beijing, was presented by British to China. The defined boundary from Wakham to Lanak la, the entire NE portion of Ladakh, was based on ?better known topographical features?(5) North East Aksaichin through which the road from Xinjiang to Tibet passes was left beyond Kashmir. The Southern Aksaichin , called Lingzhitang plain, was included as part of Kashmir. ?The British note of 14 mar 1899 represents, so far as the available records show, the only formal proposal on a boundary between India and China in the Karakoram, that is to say from Wakham to Lanak la at the head of the Changchenmo Basin which the British ever made to the Chinese during the course of their rule in India.(6). There were ,over the years eleven different variations and three basic alignments which the British had favoured. However, the line offered in 1899 was the best hope of resolving the boundary question.. The Chinese Govt has never replied to the note of Sir Claude McDonald, thus leaving the issue to the posterity. The boundary in NE Ladakh as shown in Indian maps is based on survey conducted by WH Johnson, a civil assistant, in 1859 in which he had shown entire plateau area between Karakoram and Kuenlun in the Maharaja of Kashmir?s province of Ladakh. Johnson later joined the service of Maharaja. There is controversy on adequacy of his survey keeping in view the quick dash he made in Aksaichin terrain and time he had. Johnson survey has been criticised by number of western authors like Alistair Lamb, Neveille Maxwell... ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]