By Zee Media Bureau | Last Updated: Friday, March 3, 2017 - 16:13
http://zeenews.india.com/india/chin...ndian-officials-say-not-possible_1983024.html
Beijing: A former Chinese diplomat has said that settlement of the India-China boundary dispute is possible if New Delhi accepts Beijing's claim over strategically vital
Tawang region in Arunachal Pradesh.
The suggestion has been dismissed by Indian officials as neither practical nor possible.
Dai Bingguo, who had been China's Special Representative in the more than 15 rounds of boundary talks between 2003 and his retirement in 2013, told Chinese media, "If the Indian side takes care of China's concerns in the eastern sector of their border, the Chinese side will respond accordingly and address India's concerns elsewhere."
Elaborating China's stand, Dai, who conducted border talks with five Indian Special Representatives starting with Brajesh Mishra in 2003, said,
"The disputed territory in the eastern sector of the China-India boundary, including Tawang, is inalienable from China's Tibet in terms of cultural background and administrative jurisdiction."
He said that colonial British government which drew the "McMahon Line" accepted Beijing's claim on Tawang.
Notably, China has rejected "McMahon Line" in India's case but accepted it in settling the boundary dispute with Myanmar.
"Even British colonialists who drew the illegal McMahon Line respected China`s jurisdiction over Tawang and admitted that Tawang was part of China's Tibet," Dai told the China-India Dialogue magazine.
Dai, regarded as a wily negotiator, however, did not specify where China is willing to make a concession along the 3,488-km long Line of Actual Control (LAC).
He also did not specify this in the book he wrote in the Chinese language on the border talks.
Indian officials, however, said Dai's proposal is neither practical nor possible for India to accept considering that Tawang is an integral part of Arunachal Pradesh and has sent representatives to Parliament in every election since 1950.
Though published afresh in Chinese media, Beijing has been making such a demand for the concession for long.
Former National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon, who was India's Special Representative for border talks and held several rounds of talks with Dai until the present NSA Ajit Doval took over in 2014, has mentioned the issue in his recently released book "Choices: Inside the Making of India`s Foreign Policy".
While China demanded concessions in the Western sector before the 1962 war, it changed the line to East after the 1980s.
"Chinese officials began saying in the 1980s that Beijing would compromise only if India made major adjustments first, adding that once India indicated concessions in the East, China would indicate concessions in the West," Menon wrote in the book.
"In 1985, China specified that the concession it was seeking in the East was Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, something that any government of India would find difficult to accept, as this was settled area that had sent representatives to every Indian Parliament since 1950," he wrote.
"The Indian Supreme Court also held in the Berubari case in 1956 that the government could not cede sovereign territory to another government without a constitutional amendment, though it could make adjustments and rectifications in the boundaries of India," Menon wrote in the book, highlighting India's problem in accepting China's demand.
Apparently, China's stand on the border settlement was different earlier lacking consistency.
Menon wrote that former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai during his visit to India in 1960
"suggested that China might recognise the McMahon line boundary in the East in return to India accepting China`s claim in the West" to provide strategic depth for China along the Aksai Chin road between Xinjiang and Tibet, which is now China National Highway 219.
Menon said India for the first time had Chinese troops at the border only after the People's Liberation of Army (PLA) took control of Tibet.
After the occupation of Aksai Chin area in the 1962 war, China's stand reported to have changed.
While China says the border dispute covers Arunachal Pradesh which it claims as Southern Tibet, India asserts that the dispute covered Aksai Chin area.
This is to be underlined that the picturesque Tawang district in Arunachal Pradesh bordering China is a very important place for India from both religious and strategic points of view. The Tawang monastery holds a special place in Tibetan Buddhism and is highly regarded by Buddhists in India as well.
For China, the area of Tawang is central to Tibetan Buddhism given that the sixth Dalai Lama was born there.
(With PTI inputs)
First Published: Friday, March 3, 2017 - 15:07
http://zeenews.india.com/india/chin...t-of-tawang-in-arunachal-pradesh_1982943.html
It was not until February 1951 that "the local government of Tibet (was) forced to stop its actual administration of Tawang", he said, adding: "Even the British colonialists who drew the illegal 'McMahon Line' respected China's jurisdiction over Tawang.”
"There are disputes over the eastern, middle and western sectors of the China-India boundary. The biggest dispute involves the eastern section, which is vital to a fair, reasonable settlement of the boundary question."
"China and India are now standing in front of the gate towards a final settlement," Dai noted. "The gate is a framework solution based on meaningful and mutually accepted adjustments. Now, the Indian side holds the key to the gate."
http://zeenews.india.com/india/dala...-stand-shrugs-off-chinas-warning_1983160.html
New Delhi: With
China reiterating its warning to
India over hosting
Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama in Arunachal Pradesh, New Delhi has asserted that its position on the matter, which is well known everywhere, has not changed in any way.
"The government`s position is well known and has not changed," Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) official spokesperson Gopal Baglay said.
Earlier, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said in a press briefing that the Dalai Lama`s proposed visit to Arunachal Pradesh in April would cause serious damage to India-China ties.
"India is fully aware of the seriousness of Dalai issue and the sensitivity of China India border question. Under such a background if India invites Dalai to visit the mentioned territory, it will cause serious damage to peace and stability of the border region and China-India relations," he said.
The Dalai Lama had fled to India from Tibet in 1959 through Arunachal Pradesh, and has been running the Tibetan government-in-exile from Himachal Pradesh.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...dai-bingguo/article17400393.ece?homepage=true
This can be triggered by an agreement along the eastern sector that includes Tawang: Dai Bingguo
Indian and Chinese negotiators have moved close to the final settlement of their disputed boundary, which can now be triggered by an agreement along the eastern sector that includes Tawang, says a veteran Chinese diplomat.
Dai Bingguo, a former State Councilor and China’s Special Representative for the boundary talks with India that began in 2003, has asserted in an interview with a Beijing-based publication that a final settlement of the boundary question between China and India is within grasp.
"It is safe to say that after more than 30 years of negotiations, China and India are now standing in front of the gate towards a final settlement of their boundary question. The gate is a framework solution based on meaningful and mutually accepted adjustments. Now, the Indian side holds the key to the gate," Mr. Dai told the China-India Dialogue magazine.
The former official stressed that the
“major reason the boundary question persists is that China’s reasonable requests have not been met.” He signaled that China was likely to reciprocate in the western sector, which includes the disputed Aksai Chin, if India demonstrated flexibility along the eastern boundary.
“If the Indian side takes care of China’s concerns in the eastern sector of their border, the Chinese side will respond accordingly and address India’s concerns elsewhere. In this way, both countries can shake off the nagging chains left by colonialists and better work together to promote common development, achieve respective rejuvenation and herald the arrival of the Asian Century,” Mr. Dai observed. He stressed that China has managed to settle boundary questions and develop friendship with 12 neighbouring countries, including Russia and Vietnam.
Referring specifically to Tawang, Mr. Dai underscored that the
"disputed territory in the eastern sector of the China-India boundary, including Tawang, is inalienable from China's Tibet in terms of cultural background and administrative jurisdiction.” He asserted that China "was not a signatory of the Simla Accord of June 3, 1914," which established the McMahon line in the eastern sector. "From the perspective of international law, the Simla Accord, as well as the ‘McMahon Line’ which it created, are not only unfair and illegitimate, but also illegal and invalid,” he observed.
Mr. Dai highlighted that an Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question, which was signed in 2005 has been “fundamental” in advancing the boundary talks. He said that this agreement pinpointed that the two countries should make
“meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments to their respective positions on the boundary question in order to reach a package settlement”. “To this end, the key is to implement ‘meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments’,” he observed.
'Biggest dispute'
The former official pointed out that out of the disputes along the eastern, middle and western sectors of the China-India boundary, the “biggest dispute involves the eastern section."
Mr. Dai praised India for pursuing an “independent foreign policy,” anchored to principle of maintaining its “strategic autonomy.”
“As Indians claim, their country insists on 'strategic autonomy' and is clear about what it considers as acceptable foreign policy. I think this strategy is the result of the common wisdom of generations of forward-thinking Indian politicians and a policy that optimally serves India’s fundamental interests for long-term development.”
Mr. Dai was confident that the era of a multi-polar world had materialised, entailing that interaction among the big powers that included China and India would determine
"whether the international landscape can evolve in a peaceful manner.""
'India not our rival'
The former official insisted that China was not opposed to India’s rise, and did not subscribe to the view that Sino-Indian rivalry was unavoidable.
"China will neither see India as its rival nor contain India’s development. He added: "Responsible Indian politicians should not treat China as a competitor or target of containment. In the eyes of China, even if there are some competitions between China and India, they are supposed to be healthy competitions that will eventually help both countries develop and progress, instead of political and strategic competitions and zero-sum games."
Mr. Dai highlighted that the Chinese are “delighted” that see the evolution of India’s "sound relationship"" with other countries, including the United States, Russia, Japan and Europe.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...-of-broder-row-with-india/article17402941.ece
Sharp response against Dalai’s visit comes after a contrasting call by a former boundary negotiator Dai Bingguo.
The China-India border dispute came into sharp focus on Friday after the Chinese Foreign Ministry warned New Delhi not to allow the Dalai Lama to visit Arunachal Pradesh — the State which is at the heart of the Sino-Indian dispute in the eastern sector.
China’s sharp response against the visit by the Tibetan leader in exile followed a contrasting call by a former Chinese boundary negotiator, who stressed that if the two sides managed to overcome their differences in the eastern sector, the final settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary dispute would be well within grasp.
‘Gravely concerned’
“China is gravely concerned over information that India has granted permission to the Dalai to visit Arunachal Pradesh,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a regular briefing. He warned that an invitation to Dalai Lama to visit Arunachal Pradesh will cause “serious damage” to Sino-Indian ties.
“India is fully aware of the seriousness of the Dalai issue and the sensitivity of China-India border question. Under such a background if India invites the Dalai to visit to the mentioned territory, it will cause serious damage to peace and stability of border region and China-India relations,” he said. “We have expressed concerns to the Indian side, urged India to stick to its political commitments and abide by important consensus the two sides have reached on the boundary question, refrain from actions that might complicate the issue, not provide a platform to the Dalai clique and protect the sound and stable development of the Sino-India relations.”
The spokesman’s remarks have followed the conclusion of the high profile China-India strategic dialogue last month, which was led by Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar, ahead of his visit to the United States.
Mr. Geng’s unambiguous remarks followed the “carrot” offered by Dai Bingguo, a former State Councillor and China’s Special Representative for the boundary talks with India that both countries stood at the “gate” of the final settlement of the boundary provided they could overcome their differences along the eastern boundary alignment.
Western sector if India agrees?
The former official signalled that China was likely to reciprocate in the western sector, which includes the disputed Aksai Chin, if India demonstrated flexibility along the eastern boundary.
“If the Indian side takes care of China’s concerns in the eastern sector of their border, the Chinese side will respond accordingly and address India’s concerns elsewhere,” he observed.
The “eastern sector” dispute is over territory south of the McMahon Line, in Arunachal Pradesh, which includes Tawang. The McMahon Line was the result of the 1914 Simla Convention, between British India and Tibet, and was rejected by China.
‘Tawang inalienable from Tibet’
Referring specifically to Tawang, Mr. Dai underscored that the “disputed territory in the eastern sector of the China-India boundary, including Tawang, is inalienable from China’s Tibet in terms of cultural background and administrative jurisdiction.”
“From the perspective of international law, the Simla Accord, as well as the ‘McMahon Line’ which it created, are not only unfair and illegitimate, but also illegal and invalid,” he observed.
Mr. Dai highlighted that an Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question, which was signed in 2005 has been “fundamental” in advancing the boundary talks. He said that this agreement pinpointed that the two countries should make “meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments to their respective positions on the boundary question in order to reach a package settlement.”
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/599254/concession-tawang-can-resolve-india.html
In his interview, Dai said essential nature of the China-India boundary question is the "need to correct wrongs" made by colonialists and to restore fairness and justice.
"For historical reasons, India now controls the majority of the disputed territory. The boundary question was not created by China or India, so we shouldn’t be inheriting it and letting the ghosts of colonialism continue to haunt our bilateral relations," he said.
Though published afresh in Chinese media, Beijing has been making such a demand for concession for long.
Former National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon who was India's Special Representative for border talks and held several rounds of talks with Dai until the present NSA Ajit Doval took over in 2014, has mentioned the issue in his recently released book "Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy".
While China demanded concessions in the Western sector before the 1962 war, it changed the line to East after 1980s.
"Chinese officials began saying in the 1980s that Beijing would compromise only if India made major adjustments first, adding that once India indicated concessions in the East, China would indicate concessions in the West," Menon wrote in the book.
"In 1985, China specified that the concession it was seeking in the East was Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, something that any government of India would find difficult to accept, as this was settled area that had sent representatives to every Indian Parliament since 1950," he wrote.
"The Indian Supreme Court also held in the Berubari case in 1956 that the government could not cede sovereign territory to another government without a constitutional amendment, though it could made adjustments and rectifications in the boundaries of India," Menon wrote in the book, highlighting India's problem in accepting China's demand.
