Almost all of this area was lost in 1959 or between 1962-63. There were a few tiny intrusions in 80s and 90s BUT there has been no loss of territory in the past 10 years (since 2010) in Arunachal Pradesh including in current standoff:
Either unwittingly or as a result of sheer ignorance about historical realities, India’s ‘desi patrakaars’ have yet again managed to bring to the forefront of national discourse certain glaring and galling judgmental errors of successive Govts of India since the late 1950s that China has since 1987 succeeded in exploiting in pursuance of its own national interests.
The latest in a series of ‘EXCLUSIVE Revelations’ has taken this form:
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chi...adesh-show-satellite-images-exclusive-2354154
Now let us begin identifying the factual flaws in that above-mentioned news-report. Firstly, the news-report claims that a new township has been built by China approximately 4.5km within Indian territory. That this claim is ludicrous is proven by the fact that the news-report relies on GoogleEarth imagery to represent India’s border with China (i.e. the line drawn in red, which shows the McMahon Line and not the Line of Actual Control, or LAC). Secondly, the news-report fails to mention that it was India herself that chose to forego her adherence to the McMahon Line back in 1993 and instead embraced the term LAC along with its sanctity. It may be recalled that the Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace & Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China border Areas was signed between the then Prime Ministers Narasimha Rao of India and Li Peng of China at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People on September 7, 1993. This agreement began by reiterating the five principles of peaceful co-existence, and had stipulated that the two sides should seek solutions to the border disputes through peaceful means: the two sides should not use force or threaten to use force; before the final solution to the border issue, two sides will strictly respect and obey the LAC; the military strength of reach side in the respective area of the LAC should be kept at minimum size, which serves to match the relationship of friendly neighbourhood between the two countries; the two sides should reduce the armed forces to the limit reached between them in the areas along the LAC, etc. In 1993, for the implementation of the afore-mentioned agreement, a special working group composed of diplomats and military experts was established. In 1995, China and India agreed to withdraw from the two confronting outposts at Sumdorong Chu near the LAC and agreed that they would never enter them. This was followed on November 29, 1996 by the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Confidence-Building Measures in the Military Field Along the LAC in the India-China Border Areas.
Thirdly, the news-report fails to mention that the construction of such settlements by China all along the India-China Border Areas as well as along the Bhutan-China Border Areas had commenced as far back as 2016. Beijing had at that time mandated that all existing villages in such areas be transformed into Townships at a cost of 100 million Yuan (US$14.5 million). Since then, several such townships have sprung up in Cona County and Lhunze county in the Shannan prefecture of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), as well as in the Gongzhangpu in Luoza County along the Bhutan-China frontier. Townships already under habitation in Cona County include Le, Lebugou, Jiba, Gongri, and Menba. Cona covers a total area of 34,979 sq km, of which 10,094 sq km runs along the LAC. The lengths of Cona’s borders with India and Bhutan are 213km and 55km, respectively. The 2016 plans called for Cona to relocate 3,222 people of 960 families to the state-built townships on a voluntary basis, with the distances between the relocation destinations being less than 2km in a straight line and 5km on the ground. The relocation project is also for dealing with the problem of a weakening border force, caused by the outflow of residents throughout the past decade.
In Le Township, people between 18 and 65 years old patrol the border areas once or twice a month, covering more than 100km and spending three or four days each time. For them, herding is patrolling and living is guarding the frontier. While the mountains, water and cloud has not changed for decades and their responsibility to safeguard the country’s land remains, their lives are undergoing fundamental changes. Seventy-two villagers from 24 households in Le moved from their old wooden houses to modern Tibetan-style buildings and houses in 2018. It is a stark contrast from the villagers’ dwellings several years ago. The new houses have water, electricity and internet access. The biggest house in the township covers more than 200 sq meeers and the dirt-road has been transformed to an asphalted road. A plaza, tourists’ reception centre (only for local tourists, since foreigners are barred from entry) and commercial zone have also been built.
To date, 134 people from 40 households in three other villages with harsh natural conditions to Menba Township. Also located in Shannan, Yumai village in Lhunze County was China’s least populous administrative village, with only 32 people of nine families there in 2017. Now, there are been 191 people from 56 households settling in this upgraded Township since the relocation project started there in 2017. Including Lhunze and Cona, the four border counties in Shannan prefecture are all actively promoting the relocation project, which involves some 6,000 residents in total. The prefecture is also planning to relocate people from non-border counties to its border ones. The latest such effort is a Township located on the banks of the River Tsari Chu, with 101 homes. At the end of 2019, construction material had reached Zari. In April 2020, work began on clearing the ground and by mid-August, the township was ready for habitation. By 2018, Beijing was claiming that all 12 counties in Shannan prefecture had been lifted out of poverty, and border villages like Le and Simu were prospering with tourism and Tibetan handicrafts industries.
Gongzhangpu in Luoza County was once just a pasture. Since March 2017, 20 people from 10 families have voluntarily moved to the Township. Gongzhangpu is 4,674 metres above sea level. The climate is very harsh and winter is the only season. The residents have to overcome the cold and lack of oxygen to patrol the area. They always patrol around and write ‘China’ with brushes and red paint on some mountain-walls and stones. Some people also use stones to make five stars or sickles and axes of the Communist Party of China’s emblem, and paint all the stones red.
Construction of similar Townships is now underway along the LAC in areas opposite Asaphila, Bishing, Menchuka, Walong and Yangtse.
This can only be answered after tracing the sequence of past events, starting with the explanation of what exactly was the McMahon Line, followed by details about the Indian Army’s plans for militarily defending it and why such plans were never implemented, what prevented the Indian Army from re-entering NEFA (Arunachal Pradesh) after November 1962 right till October 1963, and the details about the Colombo Plan that China began to disregard since the mid-1980s.
Neither China nor India created any demilitarised zone along the LAC and instead both re-established their military outposts in the border areas, albeit at a safe distance from one another. For India, however, the PLA presence in the Upper Subansiri district on the banks of the River Tsari Chu since November 1962 has led to the loss of claimed-territory since India until August 1959 had a presence further up north at Longju. The PLA began building such outposts since 1987 and by the year 2000 had built permanent structures in this area.
From the above, we can thus conclude that:
1) After the Sumdorong Chu standoff/Wangdung incident, India decided to tacitly accept China’s presence south of the McMahon Line and has not contested any such presence.
2) India also decided to display diplomatic fatigue by not holding China accountable for violating its own pledges that were contained in the Colombo Plan, and instead acquiescing to Beijing’s demand that the McMahon Line be done with forever and in its place the abstract perception of the LAC be formally accepted (which was done in 1993 and 1996).
3) By agreeing in 2005 and 2010 that any future boundary settlement arrangement will not involve settled populations/communities on either side of the notional LAC, India presented China with all the legal justifications that the latter had required for building permanent settlements within territory that India still claims to be her own (as per her political map),
but over which India has since 1959 not exercised any territorial or administrative jurisdiction.
4) The Indian Army’s failure to keep the Govt of India on-the-loop regarding the absence of a military presence inside NEFA between late November 1962 and early October 1963 has left a permanent scar within successive Govts of India and it is for this very reason that successive Govts of India have insisted on the ITBP continuing to be under the command of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and acting as a watchdog to verify the Indian Army’s dispositions, movements and deployments all along the LAC.
WANG SUI WANG WANG SUI 萬歲 萬 萬歲
