Talk:McMahon Line

message: I have a few issues with recent edit by 219.79.122.73. First off, the gist seems to be that not only was China always right, but everyone else knew it. By the end of the article, you're wondering if there is any real dispute. 
*The April 1943 British Foreign Office report questioning the validity of the Simla Convention is an internal memo, but it is presented as if it was an official position. The report just says that defending the convention is "difficult" which I see as a lot of weasal words. But the way the quote is positioned in the text, it sounds like the Foreign Office is siding with China against the British government, which had adopted the McMahon Line officially six years earlier. Eden's August 1943 letter to Soong is most official statement of the British position (Goldstein, p. 401). This describes Tibet as enjoying "de facto independence." As Foreign Minister, Eden certainly outranked whoever wrote the earlier report. Britain's 1943 communications with Washington concerning Tibet can be found here. Highlights: "The [Simla] convention was ratified by Tibet and the Government of India"; "The Government of India have always held that Tibet is a separate country in full enjoyment of local autonomy, entitled to exchange diplomatic representatives with other powers." No suggestion in any of this that the Foreign Office disputes the validity of the Simla Convention.
*To the cut and paste so much stuff from from Maxwell is a copyright violation. Also Maxwell has a lawyerly style of writing that's inappropriate here. (How many times do we need to be told that China rejected Simla?)
*The significance of the 1904 Anglo-Tibetan treaty for this article it that is was concluded between Tibet and Britain without the participation of China. This aspect of the treaty is glossed over. Tibet refused to recognize the earlier Sino-British treaties, hence the Younghusband expedition aimed at getting Tibet's consent. This edit makes it sound like it was the other way around, i.e. that the agreement Younghusband made was a temporary expedient pending China's confirmation.Kauffner 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1stly the source give on point one is withdrawn from the tibetan website "This page is busy meditating, preparing for the Kalachakra initiation and an audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Please try back later." they are neitehr having some fun, server trouble or no longer support that article. we will need to ignore it for now until the source is reaffirmed. point number 3, i wouldn't call invading people a means to reach an agreement; would you? are we to start accepting land ceded to nazi germany by the use of force? i don't think so. the treaty neutrality itself is questionable, even if we take china out of the equation. what do you think? Akinkhoo (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by 219.79.122.73

message: This article is written from an extremely Sino centric point of view and needs to be cleaned up
--> "cleaned up"? In my opinion we can offer the two points of view, saying that are two points of view (from India and from China). The things about which all people agree, we can write them in the first part. Why always "clean up" things?
:: because it leave people with a confusing picture. if we present the stance of both sides, it is much more easier of people to understand the conflict of interest here. Akinkhoo (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Violation commited 

message: Several editors of this page seem to have relied on unreliable sources of modern Chinese history, most notably Jung Chang (see Mao: the Unknown Story for details for problems with her works). While some of these views are commonly espoused, it is a grave WP:NPOV error to present them as facts. For example, Mao starting a war to groom his successor is almost purely speculation, and should be presented as such. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with adding that information; do you have a source we can cite to?  --David Shankbone 22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem of sources 

message: does anyone have a map of exactly here the line is? an indian map has all the borders, how am one suppose to know which part is part is covered by the line? Akinkhoo (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  where the **** is the McMahon Line? 

message: The article seems to echo the Chinese contention. SDas (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Various changes by an IP here, but no additional sources or discussion to justify them. This was added: "However, the Chinese delegate also signed the McMahon line map part of the treaty, hence making it legal from even this point of view " Says who? This was removed: "Simla (along with the McMahon Line) was initially rejected by the British-run Government of India as incompatible with the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention." This convention was renounced in 1921. After Simla, the McMahon Line was forgotten until 1935, when British civil service officer Olaf Caroe convinced the government to publish the Simla Convention and use the McMahon Line on official maps." Some cruft was added to the top of the article: "The Chinese eventually withdrew." (no context) Kauffner (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by 71.233.170.181

message: Practical significance of the McMahon Line——
McMahon Line is neither "official boundary" nor "effective boundary" and even the line of actual control not. It is roughly the same line of actual control, India's unilateral claim of the border.--天下第一菜 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You realize that you need sources before these kind of generalities mean anything? "Line of Actual Control" was originally Zhou Enlai's phrase. Now it is enshrined in treaty. Either way, it was never, "India's unilateral claim".Kauffner (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I fixed the PRC reference. The British renounced the 1907 Anglo-Russian convention in 1921. Kauffner (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Didn't Tawang pay taxes to Lhasa? That's about as much as "Tibetan territory" means. Granted that the local population is a related ethnic group rather than Tibetans per se.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Goldstein says in A History of Modern Tibet on page 307 that "In April 1938 ... Captain G. S. Lightfoot led a modest force to Tawang. He reported that the Tawang area north of the Se La pass was controlled by Tibet and that Tibetan officials collected taxes south of this area into the areas of Dirang Dzong and Kalaktang, whose inhabitants were Tibetan Buddhists of either Bhutanese or Mönpa stock." Earlier, on page 300, Goldstein concludes, "Unquestionably, then, prior to 1914 Tawang was under Tibetan control."—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese point of view 

message: It was signed by Sir Henry McMahon and Lonchen Satra on behalf of the Tibetan Government and was clearly accepted by the Tibetian government as per references.171.76.52.67 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was signed, but there's condition for the agreement and the condition was not met. Please refer to the reliable source (author Tsering Wangdu Shakya is a Tibetan historian) and and understand the reason. Relevantsnippets from the book "Lochen Shatra's acceptance of the new border alignment in 1914 was not without conditions.", " Tibetans would concede to the new border on the condition that the British would secure Chinese acceptance of the Simla Convention, which would have in turn secured for Tibet a clearly defined border with China", "Since the British were not able to obtain such an acceptance, the Tibetans considered the line proposed by MacMahon invalid."  Eipviongll (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

text: As per WP:NPOVthe grounds on which China is opposing is that Tibet was not sovereign to sign the accord nowhere does it state that Tibet invalidated the accord after they had signed it.China rejects the Simla Accord and the McMahon Line, contending that Tibet was not a sovereign state and therefore did not have the power to conclude treaties which Tibet signed and accepted.171.78.145.236 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Tibet  or Lonchen Satra never issued a statement rejecting or invalidate the accord.Further the Dalai lama accepts to say Tibetans or tibet disputed it is wrong.171.78.145.236 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet accepted it 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on McMahon Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2017/stories/20030829001604900.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822215146/http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm to http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822215146/http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm to http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2017/stories/20030829001604900.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on McMahon Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=b5dab68p4rrp8fd8
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912194623/http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Treaties/Tibet/Schedule1914.htm to http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Treaties/Tibet/Schedule1914.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013172913/http://hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2018/stories/20030912002104800.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2018/stories/20030912002104800.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130118142756/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-3/natarajan.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-3/natarajan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on McMahon Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122230449/http://news.21cn.com/junshi/pl/2008/11/18/5490785.shtml to http://news.21cn.com/junshi/pl/2008/11/18/5490785.shtml
*Added  tag to http://www.kampanyarchivum.hu/files/300/8/3/10-3-106.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: There is an RfC about the definition of the McMahon Line here. — MarkH21talk 09:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the comments above, we should use the actual McMahon line as the lead image (I think the complete McMahon line is in two different maps).  The two maps are at the bottom of the page currently. Chaipau (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Addendum: The line of control today is not necessarily the McMahon line.  Chaipau (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice for RfC about the definition of the McMahon Line 

message: Here is the Survey of India map of 1888, which counts as an official map of India. Where is the "Outer Line"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Outer Line" is always the international boundary.  In this case, the red line.  Look for a spot called Odalguri just below the red line.  Google search for "Udalguri".  This was the trading center for goods that came down the Tawang track.  In 1910, the outer and the inner lines were coincidental in the north and it ran along the foothills.  The 1888 map agrees with the 1911 map in the main page as far as the boundary is concerned. Chaipau (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I have asked for a ruling on Neville Mawell's book at WP:RSN: [].  Chaipau (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have lots of speculation and WP:SYNTHESIS going on. I would like to see a source state that the map shown on the Imperial Gazetteer is the Outer Line or Inner Line or whatever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Inner lines" are inside the boundaries.  That is why they are called "inner" lines.  There was an inner line between Assam and Nagaland, for instance, which is not shown in the maps, except for maybe the "Eastern Bengal and Assam with Bhutan" map, where you could make out part of it. Please read Mehra p9-10 carefully.  Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Why should it fit?  The British interest kept shifting and the boundary kept moving.  1873 was when the Inner Line came into being, so it is expected that boundaries were fixed for a while before things began moving again. The most dramatic display of this is the 1907 map and then the McMahon Line.  This isn't much of a puzzle, really. Chaipau (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

text: 1873/74 was also when the new Assam, a Chief Commissioner's Province, came into being.  Earlier newly colonized regions were tagged under the Bengal Presidency.  Chaipau (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Yes, a separate paragraph on Tawang is needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outer Line 

message: you moved back the "sphere of influence" sentence to the first paragraph, without giving a proper edit summary. If you object to my reason for moving it to the second paragraph please say so explicitly.  I stated clearly why it should not be in the lead. Chaipau (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have disagreed. It may be time to use WP:DR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We will do there, but I am still trying to work with you. We cannot improve this article by going to DR with every sentence.  Chaipau (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to work with you as well. But your arguments are quite far from being decisive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean?  I have given you my argument, but I haven't even heard yours—neither here nor in the edit summary.  I would like to remind you of WP:LEADFIX and WP:UNRESPONSIVE.  Chaipau (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your arguments are merely your personal opinions. "There is no need", "Lead paragraph is not the place" etc. They cannot trump the RS. I have also explained to you that the boundary remained unimplemented for several decades. So it was a notional boundary. It is in the nature of this particular boundary (and also the Durand Line in the northwest) and that feature of the line certainly belongs at the very top. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I feel that you do not care to listen either.  I am not making an argument against the references you are using.  What I am arguing for is that the lead paragraph should just lay out the facts and events around the McMahon line.  The "spheres" of influence are comments made by British officers and these are part of the propaganda.  This should be be part of the lead paragraph.  I am afraid you are displaying WP:LISTEN issues as well.  I am not disputing the RS you are providing in this case.  Chaipau (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you are disputing the RS when you call it propaganda whereas the sources do no such thing. Everything said by British officers doesn't become "propaganda". I have no idea what world you are living in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not disputing the citation. The reason it is propaganda is because there are alternative narratives which dispute these "intentions" which state that it was Chinese movement that triggered this "forward" policy.  Such issues we should get into but not in the lead.  The first paragraph should just deal with NPOV facts, contexts, notability and mention of major controversies (not litigate them), as laid down in MOS:LEAD.  Chaipau (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: This entire article needs a rewrite but I am keen to hear what issues Chaipau take with the current version — arguably, the busiest page on my watchlist for last few days. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is a battlefield.  Needs NPOV-ing very badly.  It will be trench warfare here.  Will need a lot of reading.  So not just a rewrite, but cleasing.  Chaipau (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can tone down the war by focusing on just the ground facts for now.   Chaipau (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: An editor called  (long gone) added this sentence:
The citation was given was Maxwell's India's China War, which says only "." There is no mention of who promoted it. Moreover, the context makes clear that the slogan arose during Zhou En-lai's visit to India in 1954, after signing the Sino-Indian Agreement 1954. 
The current text says:
and the citation is gone. I suppose the weakening of Nehru as the originator of the slogan to "Indian government under Nehru" as the originator, is in the right direction. But the alleged involvement of Nehru in the slogan is still unsourced. A book review of Maxwell's book says: 
This implies that Nehru was not a party to the slogan. We need more clarity on this issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: [To reply soon.] TrangaBellam (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai 

message: An editor  added in 2010:
The term "fait accompli" appears in the source on page 100:
The italised text following the citation to Maxwell is clearly the scholar's personal interpretation. I can't see how it can be attributed to Nehru's supposed intention, as if it were a fact. Did Nehru write anything or say anything that he was "hoping for a fait accompli"?
Secondly, Maxwell cannot be taken as the sole authority on the subject. He was a journalist that reported publicly available information, padded it with his own interpretations. Scholars who have done archival research state that K. M. Panikkar, who was India's ambassador to China, was instructed to raise the border issue with Zhou En-lai, but he found Zhou reluctant to discuss it. After Panikkar returned to India, he briefed Nehru and gave him his view that India had to wait until Zhou was ready to discuss, and this view was accepted (at least by Nehru). During the 1954 negotations, Zhou made it a point to underscore that only "matters that were ripe for settlement" would be negotiated, thereby implying that border would not to be discussed, and indeed it wasn't.
Regarding the 1956 discussions, what is claimed in the text is not in the source. Chung says:
Maxwell has explained that Zhou's 1956 observation was in the context of the border with Burma (Myanmar), when,  This is all that we know. The rest is all scholars' interpreations. 
As is clear, this was not an "offer", but rather a statement of policy, and Nehru honsestly believed that China would stick to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fait accompli