Second – The North- Eastern Boundary –

This must be settled by identifying and fixing a boundary that will be stable and conflict free. For this we should first recognize that the border dispute with China along most of the length of the border has claims disputing about 3 to 30 kms width of territory.

“The idea of a demarcated frontier is itself an essentially modern conception, and finds little or no place in the ancient world… demarcation has never taken place in Asian countries except under European pressure” – Lord Curzon .

We should also keep in mind, as

Neville Maxwell writes that –

“In Asia, a sovereignty that shaded off into ‘No Man’s Land’, giving a frontier of separation rather than of contact, was both familiar and more natural”.

Since the McMahon line is marked thickly on an eight miles to an inch scale map, and thus covers about a quarter mile in width, and is also drawn across indeterminate topographical features, it can produce no precise demarcation on the ground. India also followed the policy of general alignment with the McMahon line and its intention as it perceived it, when it actually demarcated it unilaterally, basing it on what it claimed was ‘definitive topography’, on the ground.

Captain Henry McMahon had himself suggested that the boundary should be open to modification “should it be found desirable in the light of more detailed knowledge acquired later”. China, though it never acknowledged our claim to Aksai Chin or the validity of the McMahon line, even as late as April 1960, seemed to be willing to consider its alignment as an accomplished fact and settle the boundary accordingly, as it had done with Burma.

In 1993, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao stated that the McMahon Line was not accurately drawn. The Chinese tried to interpret this as strengthening their claim. However it only highlights a factual position and actually strengthens our demands to settle the border realistically.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10