Epilogue: Peking-Lhasa-New Delhi



Recent outbreaks of violence in Tibet and northern India have once again drawn world attention to these remote, but strategically important, spots on the surface of the globe. Yet, actually these incidents cannot be termed particularly novel or entirely unexpected occurrences. They come as an almost inexorable culmination to a long series of political, diplomatic and military conflicts which have during the last ten years frequently embittered relations between Peking, Lhasa and New Delhi, and which were caused, primarily, by the incompatibility of the three capitals’ aims and desires in an area where their spheres of influence and interest overlapped. In order to understand the current crisis, therefore, one must study the historical antecedents of the present problem, as well as the more nearly contemporary circumstances in which Red China has emerged as the dominant Power on the Tibetan highland and as a rival of India for supremacy over other vast tracts of territory along their mutual frontier.


Indian Government Tibetan Autonomous Region Chinese Authority Preparatory Committee Foreign Office 
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.
    For the events leading to the re-imposition of Chinese de facto and de jure authority over Tibet in 1951 and Peking’s early policies in the region, see Levi, “Tibet under Chinese Communist Rule,” loc. cit., pp. 1-9.Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    “Tibet’s Appeal to the United Nations Against Chinese Aggression,” United Nations Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 9, pp. 675-676, (December 15, 1950).Google Scholar
  3. 1.
    A historical and legal survey of Tibet’s position in international affairs is found in C. H. Alexandrowicz-Alexander, “The Legal Position of Tibet,” loc. cit., pp. 265-274; Tieh-Tseng Li, “The Legal Position of Tibet,” loc. cit., pp. 394-404, and idem, The Historical Status of Tibet. For an analysis of Tibet’s record from a Soviet point of view, see V. P. Leontiev, Inostrannaya ekspansiya v Tibete, 1888-1919gg.Google Scholar
  4. 1.
    Text of Sino-Indian exchange of notes, in Peoples’ China, December 1, 1950, Supplement, p. 9.Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    Text of the 1951 treaty, in People’s China, June 16, 1951, Supplement, pp. 3-5; Pravda, May, 29, 1951Google Scholar
  6. 1.
    George Ginsburgs and M. Mathos, “Tibet’s Administration in the Transition Period, 1951–1954,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 162–177 (1959). A Communist and fellow-traveler estimate of this initial period is in B. P. Gurevich, Osvobozhdenie Tibeta, and Alan Winnington, Tibet: Record of a Journey CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 1.
    For a pro-Tibetan and anti-Chinese description of Peking’s policies in the period before March 1959, see International Commission of Jurists, The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law. Per contra, and cf. V. Kassis, Vosemdesyat dnei v Tibete, pp. 87 et seq. An essentially pro-Communist, yet discriminatingly critical, survey of Chinese efforts in Tibet by a Hungarian journalist may be found in I. Patkó, Tibet; excerpts in English in East Europe, Vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 12-19 (1959).Google Scholar
  8. 2.
    Ginsburgs and Mathos, loc. cit., and idem, “Tibet’s Administration during the Interregnum, 1954–1959,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 249-267 (1959), and the documentation therein. M. L. Niemi, “Recent Trends in Chinese Communist Control of Tibet,” loc. cit., pp. 104-107.Google Scholar
  9. 1.
    Cf. New York Times, January 13, 1957, p. 1. For a Soviet analysis of the administrative reforms in Tibet since the Chinese occupation and the changes in Tibetan social customs since 1951, see, in particular, G. M. Valiakhmetov, Organy vlasti i upravleniya Tibeta, pp. 40-41. The Chinese viewpoint may be found in Phuntsogwanggyei, “Tibet Forges Ahead,” People’s China, Vol. 13, July 1, 1954, pp. 15-17.Google Scholar
  10. 2.
    The text of the agreement is in Jen-min jih-pao, April 13, 1954; Russian translation in Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn, 1954, No. 1.Google Scholar
  11. 1.
    Text in Russian in Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn, 1956, No. 11, pp. 154–155.Google Scholar
  12. 2.
    The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, pp. 17-67; R.F., “Tibet under Communist Occupation,” The World Today, Vol. 13, July 1956, pp. 292 et seq.Google Scholar
  13. 1.
    “Brief Regulations on the Creation of a Preparatory Committee for the Formation of a Tibetan Autonomous Region,” adopted at the 47th meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Congress of People’s Representatives, September 26, 1956, Kuang-ming jih-pao, September 27, 1956; B. P. Curevich, op. cit., pp. 205-209.Google Scholar
  14. 2.
    See Ginsburgs and Mathos, loc. cit., Pacific Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 249-267 (1959); also, Tensions in Communist China: An Analysis of Internal Pressures Generated since 1949, Senate Document No. 66, 1960, pp. 48-59.Google Scholar
  15. 1.
    Hsinhua News Agency, Daily News Release, December 11, 1956, p. 91; New York Times, October 12, 1957, p. 2; SCMP, No. 1527, May 10, 1957, p. 34, and No. 1634, October 18, 1957, p. 35.Google Scholar
  16. 2.
    For first reports of Chinese progress in introducing large-scale social and economic reforms in the wake of the abortive March 1959 uprising, see New York Times, November 14, 1959 p. 1, and February 29, 1960, p. 8; also SCMP, No. 2120, October 21, 1959, p. 5.Google Scholar
  17. 1.
    H. A. Steiner, “India Looks to Her Northern Frontiers,” Far Eastern Survey, November 1959, pp. 167–173.Google Scholar
  18. 1.
    For a suggestive survey of the conflict of legal claims in this area, see A. P. Rubin, “The Sino-Indian Border Disputes,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 96-125 (1960).Google Scholar
  19. 2.
    Three main highways now link Tibet with Sikang, Sinkiang and Szechwan. Within Tibet proper 10,000 kms. of motor roads and highways are said to have been built by the Chinese authorities since 1951.Google Scholar
  20. 1.
    Between 1954 and 1956 there were reports that 500,000 Chinese emigrants had been resettled on the plateau under the auspices of the Central Government, New York Times, November 28, 1956, p. 7, and February 6, 1957, p. 10. The resettlement scheme, which slowed down considerably during 1956–1959, seems to have gained new impetus in the wake of recent armed disturbances in China’s border areas; e.g., “Chinese Migrate to Border Areas,” New York Times, April 5, 1959, p. 9, estimated a proposed influx of an additional 5 million Chinese into the border regions by 1962.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1964

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of IowaUSA
  2. 2.Planning Research CorporationUSA

Personalised recommendations