In the two and a half years which have passed since the manuscript for this book was terminated, two major events occurred: firstly the armed clash between India and Pakistan, which was settled with Soviet mediation while China strongly supported the Pakistani position; and secondly, the explosion of nuclear devices by China.1 The situation on the Sino-Indian border had previously remained relatively quiet and the exchange of notes between the two countries dealt mainly with mutual accusations concerning minor intrusions and violation of air space. The Sikkim-border, the only stretch of the boundary which had been clearly described in a treaty, gave rise to some concern in August 1964 when India protested against a Chinese intrusion.1a It was this sector which Peking used for an ultimatum during the fighting: in Kashmir.


Foreign Minister American Political Science Review Bilateral Agreement Minor Intrusion Nuclear Device 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    India reacted by accusing China of a reversal of her stand at the Bandung conference, which had appealed for a suspension of nuclear experiments. White Paper XI, p. 80.Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    a Ibidem, p. 24.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Documents on China’s ultimatum to India, p. 8.Google Scholar
  4. 1.
    Ibidem, p. 37. “Incidents on the Sikkim border continued during November and Decern” ber and may have been intended to stiffen Pakistan’s determination. The Tashkent a-greement of January 10, 1966, provided for withdrawal of armed personnel to positions held on August 5, the date of the despatch of the raiders. The restoration of the status quo was welcomed by India, but its relevance as a precedent for the Sino-Indian border is small as Peking takes the view that its unilateral withdrawal went as far as the “line of actual control.”Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    The Times, February 17, 1966.Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    The Times, March 23, 1965.Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    The Economist, May 22, 1965.Google Scholar
  8. 1.
    The Cairo Conference of Non-aligned Nations, New Delhi, 1964, p. 26.Google Scholar
  9. 2.
    Communiqué at New Delhi, October 25, 1966.Google Scholar
  10. 3.
    Foreign Minister in Lok Sabha, November 10, 1965.Google Scholar
  11. 4.
    Lansdowne to Satow, October 6, 1904. Quoted by Lamb, op. cit., p. 34.Google Scholar
  12. 5.
    Lamb, A., The McMahon Line, p. 42, 45. Lamb also mentions how China paid the instalments for the indemnity due by Tibet, p. 53–54.Google Scholar
  13. 6.
    Memorandum of August 17, 1912 reproduced by Lamb, op. cit., p. 604.Google Scholar
  14. 1.
    Seep. 141.Google Scholar
  15. 2.
    Lamb confirms my view that the concept of suzerainty was foreign to China, op. cit., p. 44, note 18.Google Scholar
  16. 3.
    Political and Secret Subjects File 464, pt. 4. S. of S. to Viceroy, April 21, 1914. On April 27 the Viceroy’s cable stated casually that the word sovereignty had been dropped, P. 1646.Google Scholar
  17. 1.
    Proceedings 4th meeting, February 19, 1914. Ibidem, p. 893.Google Scholar
  18. 2.
    S. of S. to Viceroy, with approval of Grey, July 1, 1914, Reg. No. 2555.Google Scholar
  19. 3.
    From Viceroy, July 4, 1914. P. 2593. Lamb, p. 518–9, is less complete on the final days of the conference. He believed that the idea for a bilateral declaration originated in or was approved by London, while in fact, the home government thought an oral statement to be sufficient. Lamb was unaware of the late arrival of the cable of July 3. The India Office file contains a note that the delay had been unavoidable, but that McMahon’s actions under the circumstances appeared praiseworthy and could be approved.Google Scholar
  20. 1.
    From Jordan, August 2, 1915, India Office file 464, pt. 5, 6, P. 2845.Google Scholar
  21. 2.
    From Viceroy, July 5, 1915, Ibidem, p. 2479. In 1914 Russia had suggested as quid pro quo for British visits to Lhasa the right for a Russian agent to visit Herat. See for a Chinese interpretation of the British soundings p. 17, note 2.Google Scholar
  22. 3.
    Lamb, A., op. cit., p. 534, 563.Google Scholar
  23. 1.
    Verbal statement communicated by A. Rose to Ivan Chen on March, 1914. I. O. File 464, P. 1215.Google Scholar
  24. 2.
    McMahon’s Final Memorandum, P. 536, p. 11 reads: „This secures to us a natural watershed frontier, access to the shortest trade route into Tibet, and control of the monastery of Tawang which has blocked the trade by this route in the past by undue exaction and oppression.“Google Scholar
  25. 3.
    Lamb makes a similar statement, op. cit., p. 526.Google Scholar
  26. 4.
    Substantial reviews appeared in International Affairs, October 1965, R.C.A.J., July/October 1965, both by Guy Wint; The China Quarterly, 1965, 202–207, by Alastair Lamb; American Political Science Review, March 1966, by Robert North; A.J.I.L., April 1966, by Alfred Rubin; Indian Express, June 14, 1966, by A. G. Noorani; Das Historisch-Politische Buch, 1965, Heft 7, by Walther Maas. Relazioni Internazionali, Feb. 1967.Google Scholar
  27. 1.
    See p. 98–99.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. F. Van Eekelen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations