Notes, Memoranda and letters Exchanged and Agreements signed between The Governments of India and China

WHITE PAPER VI

November 1961 – July 1962

Ministry of External Affairs Government of India

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 2 November 1961 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with regard to the repeated violations of China’s territory and territorial air by India, has the honour to state as follows: In recent months, Indian troops have continuously expanded their illegal occupation and patrol range in China’s Demchok area. On July 6, 1961, Indian troops intruded into the Rato area east of Demchok and set up a checkpost there. They openly carried out military exercises with solid shots there and time and again illegally sent their patrols to and around Gore (approximately 32° 38’ N, 79° 34’ E) to the east of Rato. On August 9, three Indian soldiers penetrated deep into the Deboche area (approximately 32° 27’ N, 79° 25’ E), 20 odd kilometres south of Demchok. On July 22, Indian troops went so far as to detain illegally in the Demchok area, which is China’s territory, a Chinese citizen named Dopoje, who was held as long as five days and interrogated nine times before being released. In June 1961, fifty odd Indian military men intruded into China’s Wuje area, stationed themselves around 30° 49’N, 79° 58’ E, and built fortifications and other works there. On July 2, 3, 5 and 15, each day an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over that area and air-dropped supplies to these intrusive Indian troops. The intrusive Indian troops did not withdraw till early September. The Chinese Government points out with regret that, despite its repeated protests to India against the latter’s illegal activities in the two areas mentioned above, Indian troops have still been further expanding their area of occupation, setting up strong points and carrying their area of occupation, setting up strong points and carrying out all kinds of illegal activities in China’s territory. Moreover, the intrusion into and stationing at the Wuje area by Indian troops are in serious violation of the Sino-Indian agreement to refrain from sending armed personnel into the area. The Chinese Government hereby once again lodges a strong protest

with the Indian Government against all these activities on the part of the Indian side. The Chinese Government has been following with great anxiety the Indian troops’ steady pressing forward on China’s borders and cannot but regard such action of the Indian side as an attempt to create new troubles and to carry out its own border guards to avoid by all means any conflict with India in line with China’s consistent stand of maintaining peace and tranquillity along the border, such gross violations of China’s territory and sovereignty by the Indian troops would have led to very serious consequences. The Chinese Government deems it necessary to point out that it would be very erroneous and dangerous should the Indian Government take China’s attitude of restraint and tolerance as an expression of weakness. The Chinese Government hereby demands that the Indian Government speedily change its present practice and order all the intruding Indian troops to put an end immediately to their violations of China’s territory and territorial air and withdraw from Chinese territory and take effective measures to prevent the recurrence of similar incident in the future. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its higher consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 30 November 1961 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and with reference to the note of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the Chinese Embassy in India dated 31st October 1961 has the honour to state as follows: The Indian Government has in its note denied and quibbled about facts of Indian intrusions into Chinese territory and air space as pointed out in the Chinese Government’s note of 12th August, 1961 and at the same time made groundless

charges against Chinese Government concerning alleged intrusions into Indian territory by Chinese forces. Of late the Indian Government has further made use of these groundless charges to whip up another anti-Chinese campaign in India. The Chinese Government expressed its extreme regret at such actions of the Indian Government, which seriously impair the friendship between Chinese and the Indian peoples. All places listed in Chinese Government’s note of 12th August which were invaded by the Indian side lie indisputably within Chinese territory and have all along been under actual jurisdiction of the Chinese Government. In disregard of the jurisdiction in these places the Indian Government has dispatched armed personnel to push into these places and even cross the boundary line claimed by the Indian side itself. This is obviously an attempt to realize its deny the fact that the Indian side has further invaded Chinese territory in Spanggur, Demchok, Salan, Wuje etc., and that Indian Government in its note nevertheless cannot but admit its unlawful activities such as the setting up of check post extending patrolling and dispatch of personnel in the Demchok and the Wuje area. The Chinese government has long since proved with large quantities of authentic documents and facts that both Demchok and Wuje are within Chinese territory. As the Chinese Government has pointed out in its note of 12th August armed Indian provocations within Chinese territory and the extended illegal occupation thereby the Indian side cannot but once again cause tension in the border area. It is especially surprising that the Indian Government in its note of 31st October arbitrarily and unreasonably asserts that the above mentioned places invaded by the Indian side excepting Salan are within boundary line unilaterally claimed by India and that therefore whatever actions the Indian side may take these do not constitute intrusions into Chinese territory. Such logic of the Indian Government is untenable and also most dangerous. The Indian Government must be aware that the Chinese and the Indian Governments do not hold identical views concerning the boundary between the two countries. Taking the case of the Eastern Sector of the Sino-Indian boundary the Chinese Government has always held that this sector of the boundary lies along the Southern foot of the

Himalayas and that the so called “McMahon” is totally illegal. If the Indian Government’s above logic should be followed, the Chinese Government would have very reason to send followed, the Chinese Government would have every reason to send troops to cross the so called “McMahon” and enter the vast area between the crest of the Himalayas and their Southern foot. But the Chinese Government has never done so and all Chinese military and administrative personnel, acting upon orders, have not crossed the so called “McMahon Line”. The Chinese Government has always held that pending final settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question both sides should maintain status quo of the boundary. The Chinese Government has proved by deed that it is true to this stand. The Indian Government however has ceaselessly tried to change unilaterally the status quo of the boundary question and the maintenance of the tranquillity of the border area. The Chinese Government once again asks the Indian Government to stop its unlawful action in the Chinese border area otherwise Indian Government must be held fully responsible for the new tension caused by such unlawful action. For some time Indian Government has continually stepped up its military activities in border areas and established many new check posts. This was not denied even by responsible officials of the Indian Government including Prime Minister Nehru in their public statements. But the Indian Government has now groundlessly charged against Chinese troops with establishing new posts in western sector of the Sino-Indian border, going beyond so called “1956 Chinese claim line in Ladakh”, etc. It should be pointed out that the Sino-Indian traditional boundary in the Western sector has always been most clear and definite. It is the line marked on Chinese maps published in 1956 which was mentioned in Premier Chou En-lai’s letter to Prime Minister Nehru dated 17th December, 1959; it is also the line marked on the maps handed over to the Indian side by the Chinese officials during meeting of Chinese and Indian officials in 1960. The vast territory east of this sector of the boundary, except the Parigas area in the Demchok region, which has been occupied by India in recent years has all along been under the effective administrative jurisdiction of the Chinese Government. Out of

considerations for Sino-Indian friendship and border tranquillity the Chinese Government has ordered its frontier guards to strictly observe this sector of the boundary and has kept Chinese troops from sending patrols within 20 kilometres on the Chinese side of the boundary. Hence the question of Chinese troops were alleged by the Indian Government in its note of having established new posts are within Chinese check posts at Nyagzu and at 35 degrees 19 minutes N, 78 degrees 12 minutes E have long been in existence and no check post has ever been established at Dambuguru. The Indian Government’s fallacious charge that China has established new posts at these three places not only is an open interference with China’s internal affairs but also shows the Indian Government’s irresponsible attitude of trumping up falsehoods. This cannot but greatly pain the Chinese people and Government who have consistently upheld traditional SinoIndian friendship. In its note the Indian Government further lists 11 cases charging the Chinese side with intrusions into Indian territory. These 11 cases can be divided in two categories: 1- 4 of the cases are repetition of old stories. Case (3) alleges that Chinese soldiers were seen near hot springs in Indian territory in the Western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary. Cases (7) and (8) allege that 11 armed Chinese personnel and three Chinese respectively crossed into the territory of Sikkim South of Jelepla. Case (10) alleges that 25 Chinese soldiers went to Taksang Gompa in the area controlled by India in the Eastern sector of the Sino-Indian boundary. Concerning these four cases the Indian Government long ago sent note to the Chinese Government and the Chinese Government already point out in its respective replies that the result of the investigation showed that there was no case of armed Chinese personnel entering the above area referred to by the Indian side. In replying to the allegation (7), the Chinese Government on its own initiative explained that at the said time eight Chinese border inhabitants who were gathering medical herbs in the vicinity of Jelpela according to their usual practice had reached a spot not far to the South of Jelpela but returned

from there soon afterwards. In replying to allegation (10) too the Chinese Government explained that nine local working personnel of the Tibet region of China while out to fell bamboos had lost their way because of the low clouds and thick fog and stepped over the so called “McMahon Line” by mistake but that as soon as they perceived it they had turned back. The above replies fully prove that the attitude of the Chinese Government is one of seeking truth from facts and is open and above board. Category II, the year ago; in some cases no specific dates have been supplied at all. In spite of this the Chinese Government has conducted serious and thorough investigations. The replies are given which are as follows: A- Four of the cases pertain to the Western sector. Case (1) and (2) allege that Chinese military personnel and a Chinese survey party went to the Suriah area. Case (4) alleges that four Chinese soldiers were seen at 34 degrees 17 minutes N, 79 degrees 01 minutes E. Case (5) alleges that Chinese and Chinese troops were seen near 33 degrees 31 minutes N, 78 degrees 48 minutes E. The Chinese Government deem it necessary to point out that all the above places are within Chinese territory and have all along been under the effective administrative jurisdiction of the Chinese Government and so the Indian Government has no right to intervene. Moreover as mentioned above the Chinese Government in order to maintain the tranquillity of the border area has instructed the Chinese frontier guards not to send patrol within 20 kilometres on Chinese side of the boundary. The results of the recent investigations show that the Chinese frontier guards have always observed this instruction faithfully and have not trespassed into Indian territory at all. On the contrary as pointed out by the Chinese Government, in its note of 12th August 1961, it is the Indian frontier guards who have not only occupied long ago Demchok and other places within Chinese territory in the Western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary but have pushed forward and expanded continually the extent of its illegal occupation.

B - Case (6) also pertains to the Western sector. It is alleged that a Chinese patrol was seen near Dauletbeg Oldi. Of all the seven new cases brought up in the note this is the only case which concerns Indian territory. But the time given in the Indian note is extremely vague using only the loose expression of “sometime in the autumn of 1960”. According to the result of investigation the Chinese Government can reply definitely that throughout the autumn of 1960 no Chinese patrol ever went into the area within 20 kilometres on Chinese side of the Western sector of the Sino-Indian traditional boundary to say nothing of course of trespassing into Indian territory. C - Case (9) concerns the China Sikkim border. It is alleged that 12 armed Chinese personnel went 100 yards inside Sikkim territory from Jelepela. As is well known the China Sikkim boundary has long been formally delimited and its location is very clear. The result of investigation once again shows that this boundary has always been respected by the Chinese side and that no armed Chinese personnel trespassed into the territory of Sikkim at the time mentioned in the Indian Note. D - Case (11) says that in the first week of July 1961, a Chinese patrol was seen near Chemokarpola, South of the “McMahon Line” in the eastern sector. The Note fails to give the specific coordinate of the scene of the socalled incident or exact date. In spite of this Chinese Government has conducted an extensive investigation but no Chinese forces are found to have gone beyond the so called “McMahon Line” in early July. It can be seen from the above that the Indian Government in order to make the fabricated charges of “aggression” against Chinese Government has not hesitated to repeat allegations which were refuted by the facts, and make new allegations in which even simple matter of date cannot be clearly stated and only one of the places involved is really within Indian territory. Thus it is very difficult to make people believe that the Indian Government was taking a serious and responsible attitude. The Indian Government in its Note asserts that it was not true that the Chinese side had desisted from sending out patrolling parties and that there was

no factual basis for China’s maintenance of the status quo of the boundary and so on. This can only be regarded as an attempt to create pretexts for unlawful activities by Indian side in the Chinese border areas. The Chinese Government has never spared any effort to maintain status quo of the boundary and the tranquility of the border area in the hope of creating favourable conditions for the settlement through negotiation of the boundary question by the Chinese and Indian sides in accordance with five principles of peaceful co-existence. The Indian Government however has acted in a diametrically opposite way, it has made incessant provocations in border areas in an attempt to realize its territorial claims by force, and turned back to falsely accuse China of committing so-called new aggression. Such practice of the Indian Government whatever needs it maybe designed to meet will only result in the daily aggravating of tension in the Sino-Indian boundary question run counter to the common desire of the Chinese and Indian peoples. The Chinese Government earnestly hope that the Indian Government will change its line, treasure Sino-Indian friendship and the interests of the Chinese and Indian peoples, Adopt a friendly and co-operative attitude, agree to settle reasonably boundary question and improve relations between two countries. The Ministry is availing itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurance of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 9 December 1961 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in New Delhi, and with reference to the note dated 2nd November, 1961, handed over to the Indian Charge d’Affaires in Peking by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, regarding alleged intrusions into Chinese territory by Indian armed personnel, have the honour to state as follows:

The allegations contained in the present Chinese note are a repetition of the charges made earlier in their note of August 12, 1961, to which an answer has been given in this Ministry’s note of October 31, 1961. It is all the more surprising that the Chinese Government should return to the same charges. The specific allegations of intrusion mentioned in the present Chinese note are dealt with below: Allegation I.—It has been alleged that on July 6, 1961, Indian troops intruded into the Rato area and set up a post there. They carried out military exercise with ‘solid shots’ and time and again sent patrols to Gore. Comments. —The Demchok area and the other locations mentioned in the Chinese note are within India’s international border in this sector and have been traditionally under Indian administration. For the Chinese Government to raise questions about Indian posts and patrols in India territory is an entirely unjustified interference in the sovereign affairs of the Government of India. However, India forces in this sector have not carried out any military exercise with or without “solid shots”. Allegation II. —On August 9, three Indian soldiers went into the Deboche area. Comments. —No Indian soldier, as alleged in the Chinese note, ever went into the Deboche area. Allegation III. —On July 22, Indian troops detained a Chinese citizen named Dopoje in the Demchok area and interrogated him. Comments. —The Government of India has no information regarding the alleged detention of a Chinese citizen named Dopoje in the Demchok area of India’s Ladakh. More particulars of this Chinese citizen should be furnished to facilitate enquiries. Allegation IV. —In June 1961, 50 odd military men intruded into Wuje and built fortifications there. On July 2, 3, 5 and 15, Indian aircraft intruded into the air space in the area and dropped supplies to Indian troops. Comments. —Chinese Government’s attention is drawn to the comments under Allegation IV of the Ministry’s note of October 31, 1961, wherein it

has been clearly stated that no armed post exists in Baraboti which the Chinese call Wuje. Indian posts in adjoining areas do not fall within the purview of the agreement on the demilitarisation of Barahoti so long as Barahoti is in dispute. The Government of India has rigidly adhered to the understanding between the two Governments in respect of Barahoti only. It is a matter of regret that the Chinese Government should question the propriety of certain defensive measures taken by the Indian Government on its own territory. That the Chinese Government should also lodge a protest on this account is not only a mockery of truth but unwarranted interference in India’s internal affairs. In face of growing Chinese aggression on Indian territory since 1957-58, and expansion of unlawful Chinese occupation over parts of Ladakh, it ill-behaves the Chinese Government to ask the Government of India to desist from taking measures to safeguard its territorial integrity. As to the profession that the Chinese Government has exercised restraint on its troops along the border, this has to be seen in the background of its record of aggression in recent years. The Sino-Indian border was always a border of peace and friendship until the Chinese Government embarked on a course of aggression. To restore peace and tranquillity on this border as well as to create fresh confidence in the Chinese Government’s professions, Chinese forces should first of all withdraw from Indian territory into Chinese territory. It would serve no useful purpose for the Chinese Government to go on pressing faked charges about Indian intrusions into Chinese territory in order to justify its own aggression on India. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 26 February 1962

The Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China of November 30, 1961, has the honour to state as follows:The Government of India regret that the Government of the People’s Republic of China ignore the clear and detailed information provided in the note of the Government of India of October 31, 1961, and continue to make baseless charges about Indian intrusions into Chinese territory and air space. In their note of October 31, 1961, the Government of India established conclusively that at no time had Indian forces or aircraft gone beyond what is, and has been for centuries, Indian territory. The territory west of Spanggur, the Demchok area, Nilang and Barahot (which the Chinese call Wuje) have always been parts of India and been administered by Indian authorities. To substantiate this position, a large amount of relevant evidence was produced by the Indian side at the talks which were held recently between the Indian and Chinese officials. It is, therefore, legitimate for the Government of India to establish check-posts and dispatch personnel required for the administration of these areas. It is, in fact, the Government of China who have during recent years been guilty of systematic and continuous aggression into Indian territory, and it is they who have sought to justify unlawful occupation by unwarranted territorial claims. These actions have been followed by a sustained campaign of falsehoods and propaganda against India. It seems preposterous to the Government of India that the Government of China should argue that because the Government of India continue to exercise lawful jurisdiction over the territories that traditionally belong to them, the Government of China would be justified in crossing the so-called “McMahon Line” in order to assert their unfounded claims to the territory south of it. This territory, as the territory in the Western and Middle Sectors, has always been a part of India and been subject to Indian jurisdiction and administration. The “McMahon Line” Agreement of 1914 merely formalized what was the traditional boundary, wellknown and recognized by the authorities on both sides. The Government of India

take strong exception to the Chinese attempt to reply to Government of India’s protest against Chinese aggression in the Western Sector by threatening aggression elsewhere. If the threat materialises and Chinese forces attempt to cross the “McMahon Line”, the Government of India would regard it as a further instance of aggression and take such action as may be necessary to meet this further aggression. The Government of India fail to understand the constant reference made by the Government of China to the need for a final settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. The boundary between the two countries has long been settled. It has the sanction of centuries of tradition and custom as well as the confirmation, for almost its entire length, of valid treaties and agreements. It is the Government in China who have in recent years sought to change unilaterally by means of force the long-existing status quo. This has violated what had throughout history been a frontier of peace and jeopardized relations between the two countries. Peace on the border and friendly relations between the two countries can never be restored until the Government of China withdraw from the Indian territory which they have unlawfully occupied. The Government of India welcome the fact that the Government of China now recognize that the traditional boundary between the two countries in the Western Sector has always been most clear and definite. This has throughout been the position of the Government of India. The traditional boundary in this area is that which has been shown on official Indian maps and in support of which a vast amount of evidence was brought forward during the talks of the officials. In China, however, this well-known traditional boundary has been in recent years ignored and a bewildering variety of alignments have been shown on their maps. There was even, as has been shown in the Report of the Officials and in the note of the Government of India of October 31, 1961, a discrepancy between the map published in China in 1956, which according to His Excellency Premier Chou En-lai showed the alignment correctly, and the map provided by the Chinese side at the talks between the officials. This has been repeatedly pointed out to the Government of China; and it is a matter of surprise that they continue to assert,

without regard to the facts, that the alignments on these two maps are identical. The map of 1960 showed an alignment which ran due east from the Karakoram Pass whereas that in the map of 1956 ran south-east from that point. In the Pangong region, the map of 1960 cut across the western half of the Pangong Lake, while the map of 1956 left the entire western half in India. In the Spanggur area, the map of 1960 showed an alignment west of the lake but the map of 1956 showed the major part of the lake in India. Regarding the three new check-posts established by the Chinese in Indian territory to which attention was drawn in the note of the continue to claim that they are within Chinese territory. This is, of course, a complete travesty of the facts. The post at the point East 78° 12’, North 35° 19’ is well within Indian territory and about 120 miles to the west of the traditional boundary alignment. The check-post at Nyagzu is one mile west of the traditional boundary alignment and that at Dambuguru is about two miles within Indian territory. The Government of China have made no effort to deny the existence of the check-posts at the first two points but merely assert that they have long been in existence. Aggression cannot be justified by time; but in fact, as the Government of India have stated, they have been set up recently and constitute fresh incursions into Indian territory. The Government of India cannot accept the assertion of the Government of China that they have no check-post at Dambuguru. It is beyond doubt that such a post has been recently established. The three posts have also been linked to bases in the rear by roads constructed across Indian territory. The Government of India drew attention to these also in their note of October 31, 1961; and the Government of China have not denied it. The Government of India cited, in their note of October 31, 1961, eleven instances of recent Chinese intrusions into Indian territory. The Government of China have given no satisfactory explanations for any of these. They have denied that Chinese soldiers were seen east of Hot Springs on October 13, 1960 and south of Jelep La on April 20, 1961. Mere denials cannot set aside first-hand evidence of these incursions into Indian territory. As regards the crossing by a

Chinese patrol party of the northern border of Sikkim on September 2, 1960 and the intrusion by a Chinese patrol party four miles into Indian territory south of the so-called “MacMahon Line” on June 3, 1960, the Government of China assert that these were accidental trespasses by local inhabitants. But in both cases there is evidence to show that the violations were by large parties of Chinese soldiers carrying arms. The Government of India note that the Government of China do not deny that their military personnel were present in Indian territory, in April and June 1960 at Suriah, in October 1960 near Hot Springs and n May 1961 near Chushul. All these areas form traditional Indian territory which have for centuries been under Indian jurisdiction and administration. The acceptance by the Government of China of the presence of their military personnel in these areas is, therefore, tantamount to acknowledgment of unlawful incursions on their part. These incursions belie the statement of the Government of China that their patrols have been instructed not to proceed within twenty kilometres of the alignment claimed by the Chinese Government. The check-posts which have been recently established are also much less than twenty kilometres away even from the alignment claimed by the Government of China in 1960. The Government of China deny that one of their patrols intruded into Indian territory near Dauletbeg Oldi in the autumn of 1960. But this patrol left behind sufficient traces and evidence to establish beyond doubt that it had intruded into what even the Government of China accept to be Indian territory. The intrusion of Chinese armed personnel across the Jelep La on September 12, 1961, was noticed by Indian border guards, and their evidence cannot be refuted by a mere denial. As stated by the Government of India in their note of October 31, 1961, a Chinese patrol entered the Kameng Frontier Division of India in July 1961 and came to a point west of Chemokarpola. The co-ordinates of the point are East 91° 51’ North 27° 45’. The patrol left behind considerable evidence of its intrusion. It is clear, therefore, that the Government of China are not only still in unlawful occupation of a large area of Indian territory but continue to violate the

traditional boundary alignment between the two countries and to make repeated incursions into India. It is only when the Government of China withdraw from Indian territory and begin to respect the validity of the international boundary, which has been recognized in law and by history, that the relations between India and China can improve. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 1 March 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and with reference to the note of December 4 and the two notes of December 9, 1961, from the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government to the Chinese Embassy in India, has the honour to state as follows:1- The Indian Government, in its notes, tried to deny the facts stated in the Chinese Government’s note of October 7 and its two notes of November 2, 1961, concerning further Indian encroachments and intrusions into China’s territory and air space. Not only this, the Indian notes, while levelling wanton slanders and attacks at the Chinese Government, asserted that the illegal Indian activities of encroaching and intruding into China’s territory and air space were Indian measures to safeguard its territorial integrity. This shows that Indian encroachments and intrusions into Chinese territory and air space are by no means accidental, but deliberate attempts to realize by force the territorial claims put forward by the Indian Government cannot but seriously point out that this line of action of the Indian Government is most dangerous and may lead to grave consequences.

2 -In the interest of friendship between China and India, the Chinese Government has always worked for the peaceful settlement of the SinoIndian boundary question. Although the boundary line pointed out by China is the genuine traditional customary line and that claimed by India is without historical or legal basis, the Chinese Government has all along insisted on a settlement of the boundary question through friendly negotiations. The Chinese Government held that, pending a settlement of the boundary question, the two sides should jointly maintain the status quo of the boundary and refrain from changing it by the use of force or by any other unilateral action. IN order to ease the situation along the border, the Chinese Government further proposed that the armed personnel of each side withdraw twenty kilometres from the entire boundary and that they stop patrolling there. After these proposals were rejected by the Indian side, China has on its own stopped patrolling within twenty kilometres on its side of the boundary. T he Chinese Government has done this because it is deeply convinced that maintenance of the status quo of the boundary and refrain from changing it by the use of force or by any other unilateral action. In order to ease the situation along the border, personnel of each side withdraw twenty kilometres from the entire boundary and that they stop patrolling there. After these proposals were rejected by the Indian side, China has on its own stopped patrolling within twenty kilometres on its side of the boundary. The Chinese Government has done this because it is deeply convinced that maintenance of the status quo of the boundary is the only way to avoid military clashes and an indispensable pre-requisite to seeking a peaceful settlement o the boundary question. 3- The Indian Government has taken a diametrically opposite stand. It has refused to hold negotiations. While persisting in its illegal occupation of the Chinese territory south of the so-called McMahon Line in the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, it has repeatedly demanded that China withdraw from vast tracts of Chinese territory in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary. It not only groundlessly claimed these territories

from the Chinese Government, but has actually been undermining the status quo of the boundary and nibbling at Chinese territory by unilateral action. Since 1954, the Indian Government, basing itself on the boundary line it unilaterally claims has occupied, one after another, not a few pieces of Chinese territory in the middle sector of the Sino-Indian boundary. In the past year and more, it has shifted its emphasis in occupying China’s territory to the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, where Indian troops have steadily pushed forward, continually set up new check-posts and extended their scope of patrol of China’s territory. Indian aircraft have intruded into Chinese air space again and again to carry out willful reconnaissance and harassment. As a result, the situation along the SinoIndian border, far from easing, has become increasingly tense since the talks between the Prime Ministers of the two countries in April, 1960. 4 -In spite of all this, the Chinese Government still hopes that these matters can be settled reasonably through diplomatic channels. Contrary to expectation, the Indian Government arbitrarily described its actions, which are liable to give rise to serious incidents, as measures to safeguard its own territory. Prime Minister Nehru himself also said, when speaking in Lok Sabha on December 5, 1961, that such actions were taken “in defence”. This actually amounts to saying that the Chinese Government must unconditionally accept the territorial claims advanced by the Indian Government, and that even when the Indian side is imposing these territorial claims on China by force, China has no right to raise objection. As the Indian Government is aware, although the Chinese Government does not recognize the so-called McMahon Line unilaterally claimed by the Indian side in the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, yet in order to maintain the status quo of the boundary pending a settlement of the boundary question it has strictly restrained all its military and administrative personnel from crossing this line. If, like the Indian Government, the Chinese Government had also taken unilateral actions to violate the status quo of the boundary, what would the relations between

the two countries have been like? The Chinese Government has not done so and considers that it should not do so. Proceeding from the overall consideration for Sino-Indian friendship, the Chinese Government has all along exercised the greatest self-restraint. The Chinese Government hopes that the Indian Government too will take account of the fact that the present unilateral actions of the Indian Government on the Sino-Indian border, if carried on, will never lead to a settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. 3 -The Sino-Indian boundary question can be settled only through peaceful negotiations and not through any other means. The Chinese Government perseveres in this stand. It was precisely in accordance with this consistent stand of the Chinese Government that Premier Chou En-lai held talks with Prime Minister Nehru in April 1960. Although the talks failed to produce the desired results, Premier Chou En-lai still hoped that negotiations would continue between the two sides. As far as the Chinese side is concerned, the door for negotiations is always open. The Chinese Government has noted that in his speech at Poona on February 11, 1962, Prime Minister Nehru also indicated that India wanted to settle the Sino-Indian border dispute through peaceful means and not to create an everlasting enmity with China. The Chinese Government hopes that this indicated desire will be translated into action. The Chinese and the Indian Peoples are friendly to each other. China and India are two neighbouring great powers in Asia. No force will ever emerge that can alter the geographical proximity of China and India. However long it may be deferred, the boundary question between China and India will have to be settled peacefully some day. In the interest of the Chinese and Indian people and of Asia and world peace, an early settlement is better than a late one. It is hoped that these views will be given serious consideration by the Indian Government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy is China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 13 March 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the note of the Government of China of 26 February 1962, has the honour to state as follows:The note of the Government of India of 4 December 1961, and their two notes of 9 December 1961, have shown conclusively that the charges of Indian intrusion into Chinese territory and air space, made by the Government of China, are without warrant. At no time have Indian personnel or aircraft crossed the traditional and well-recognised boundary of India. Clear instructions have been issued to all Indian personnel to avoid trespass into Chinese territory and air space, and these instructions have been scrupulously observed. On the other hand, Chinese troops remain in occupation of a large portion of Indian territory and continue to trespass at a number of places along the border. The Government of India have, in their earlier notes, cited many instances of the intrusion of Chinese armed parties into Indian territory. These facts belie the contention of the Government of China that their patrols have not approached within 20 kilometres of the line of control. The notes of the Government of India of 31 October 1961 and 26 February 1962 established indisputably that Chinese patrols have not only advanced into Indian territory well beyond the line of control claimed but the military posts, which have been recently established, are also well beyond the line of control claimed by the Government of China. It is the legitimate right, and indeed the duty, of the Government of India to take all necessary measures to safeguard the territorial integrity of India. The Government of India regret that the Government of China have, in contravention of international law, and, in total disregard of the principle of respect for territorial integrity, taken steps which have violated the tranquillity and peace in the Indian border areas and compelled the Government of India to adopt protective measures to stop further inroads into Indian territory. The Government

of China have, in recent years, upset by force the long existing status quo in the Sino-Indian boundary region, and sought to justify their forcible occupation of Indian territory by putting forward claims which were shown by the evidence produced by the Indian side at the recent meetings of the officials to be baseless. Since 1957, Chinese forces have begun a process of intrusion and occupation in the Aksai Chin area of Ladakh. In September 1958, they captured an Indian patrol, led by Capt. Iyengar, at Jahi Langar. This was the first attempt on the part of the Chinese to interfere with the lawful exercise of Indian jurisdiction in the area. It was with surprise and regret that the Government of India learnt of the road which the Chinese were then clearing through Aksai Chin and they protested about it. In disregard of this protest, Chinese forces, by the end of 1959, spread further west and south of Aksai Chin and cleared roads form Lanak-la to Kongkala and along the bed of the Qara Qash river; which area was being regularly patrolled by the Indian border police. It was in these circumstances that an Indian police party on regular patrol duty was ambushed by the Chinese at Kongkala in October 1959 and suffered heavy casualties. Between 1960 and 1961 Chinese forces advanced further into Indian territory as was brought to the notice of the Government of China by the Note of the Government of India dated the 31 October 1961. The Government of India have drawn attention repeatedly to the well-known fact that the traditional boundary of India as shown on official Indian maps, has been confirmed by tradition, recognized by custom and defined by treaty. Even the Government of China recognized this and did not, till 1959, question the validity of this boundary or object to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Government of India right up to the customary border. Facts do not sustain the statement of the Government of China that the latter have always worked for the peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. The true position is that this boundary had long been settled and there was no Sino-Indian boundary question till the Government of China saw fit to disturb the peace in the border areas in very recent times.

The Government of India are aware, of course, that the boundary between the two countries, which lies along high watersheds, has not been, in many places, demarcated on the ground. But this was never, during all these centuries, a matter of concern because the boundary lies along well-known natural features and was recognised by both sides. It is true that the Government of India have been willing to consider minor mutual adjustments in a few areas of the border in the interests of friendship between the two peoples and peace in Asia. However, the Government of India cannot accept that the entire boundary between India and China has not been delimited and should be the subject of negotiations. That would be to set aside centuries of history and the sanction of a large number of treaties and agreements. The Government of India are in entire agreement with the Government of China that the two sides should maintain the status quo of the boundary and refrain from changing it by use of force or any other unilateral action. The status quo had been maintained by the peoples and Governments on either side of the boundary from ancient times. The Government of China have, however, in recent years, disturbed the status quo by forcibly occupying an area which has always been the territory of India. The Government of India hope that the Government of China, in accordance with the principle which they have themselves stated so clearly will withdraw from this territory and restore the status quo. Such a restoration of the status quo through the withdrawal of Chinese forces from Indian territory, into which they have intruded since 1957, is an essential step for the creation of a favourable climate for any negotiations between the two Governments regarding the boundary. The Government of India are surprised that the Government of China, in face of all the evidence and their own recognition in the past, continue to assert that the territory south of the “McMahon Line” does not belong to India. This area is, and has always been, inhabited by peoples of India and administered by Indian authorities. The Governments of Tibet and of China have at all times in the past recognized that the boundary runs along the main watershed in the region. This traditional boundary had secured the added confirmation of the treaty in 1914.

The Government of India fail to understand the basis for the accusation of the Government of China that India is guilty of unlawful activity in the Eastern Sector. This accusation is made without any basis merely to cover up the aggression committed by the Chinese authorities in the Western Sector. In the Middle Sector also, the areas right up to the watershed boundary have been traditionally parts of India and administered by Indian authorities. The Government of India reject the baseless charge that it is only since 1954 that some of these areas have been occupied by the Government of India. The Government of India have, in their note of 26 February 1962, already dealt with the argument of the Government of China that because the Government of India objected to the Chinese occupation of Indian territory in the Western Sector, the Government of China could, but for their self-restraint, similarly object and occupy Indian territory in the Eastern Sector. It is strange that the Government of China should justify a wrong done by them in one area by taking credit for not committing a similar wrong in another area. As the Chinese Government are well aware, the Government of India are dedicated to the use of peaceful methods for the settlement of international problems. They have adhered to this policy despite grave happenings in recent years in the border areas affecting Indian territory and lives. In fact, they have patiently refrained from any resort to force to bring about the vacation of Indian territory forcibly occupied by Chinese forces in recent times. The Chinese Government have rightly drawn attention to the Prime Minister’s speech expressing India’s earnest desire to achieve a peaceful settlement of the border problem with China for which the necessary foundation has to be laid, in the first instance, by the peaceful withdrawal of Chinese forces from territories which have traditionally been a part of India. Such action by China would re-establish faith in international law and respect for the traditional boundary between the two countries, and go a long way in restoring the traditional friendship between the peoples of India and China, and so assist in the maintenance of peace in Asia and the world.

The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 20 March 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state as follows:In its notes of August 12 and November 2, 1961 the Chinese Government lodged protests with the Indian Government against Indian troops’ illegal activities of setting up new posts, extending their scope of patrol in the Demchok area of Tibet, China, between April and July, 1961. However, Indian activities of advancing further into Chinese territory and expanding the scope of its illegal occupation have continued to increase. In July 1961 Indian troops occupied a place near Jara Pass (approximately 32° 48’ N, 79° 32’ E); in December they occupied Chang Pass (approximately 33° 01’ N, 79° 22’ E); and they illegally set up posts at these two places on Chinese territory. In October 1961, Indian troops also illegally, set up provisional post at Charding La (approximately 32° 32’ N, 79° 24’ E) within China. It is obviously the attempt of the Indian side through these illegal activities to annex about 1,900 square kilometres of Chinese territory in the Shangatsangpu River area. Furthermore, on February 12, 1962 seven Indian military men even came beyond the boundary line unilaterally claimed by India and crossed the watershed between Chang Pass and Jara Pass to penetrate into Duobaozao within Chinese territory; and they declared to Chinese herdsmen that the boundary line was about another 800 metres east of Chang Pass. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a serious protest against these activities of Indian troops of continuously expanding its occupation of Chinese territory and

further violating the status quo of the boundary, and asks the Indian Government to order the intruding Indian troops to withdraw from Chinese territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 22 March 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and with reference to the notes of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government dated February 26 and March 13, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: In its note dated November 30, 1961, the Chinese Government, basing itself on facts established through close investigation and repeated verifications, pointed out that the charge made by the Indian Government about alleged Chinese intrusions into Indian territory and violation of the status quo of the boundary was totally inconsistent with the facts. In its note of February 26, 1962, the Chinese Government further stressed the importance of maintenance of the status quo of the boundary by both China and India and reiterated its sincere desire for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question through negotiations. The Indian Government in its note of February 26, 1962, however, still repeated its entirely groundless charge that the Chinese Government had committed aggression against India. It was especially unexpected that the Indian Government in its note of March 13, 1962, took a negative attitude towards the Chinese Government’s friendly indication for a peaceful settlement of the boundary question through negotiations. The Indian Government stated in its note that “restoration of the status quo through the withdrawal of Chinese forces

from Indian territory into which they have intruded since 1957, is an essential step for the creation of a favourable climate for any negotiations between the two Governments regarding the boundary.” But what is called here “Indian territory, into which they have intruded since 1957” is Chinese territory which has long been under Chinese jurisdiction. In the same note the Indian Government to take all measures in regard to the above-mentioned area in the western sector. The Indian Government even asserted in its note of February 26 that “peace on the border and friendly relations between the two countries can never be restored” until the Chinese Government withdraws from the said area in the western sector. The Chinese Government cannot but feel disappointment and regret at this attitude of the Indian Government of refusing to negotiate and refusing to maintain the status quo of the boundary. In both its notes, the Indian Government asserted that there was no boundary question between China and India, that the boundary question between them had long been settled, and that the problem had now arisen merely because the Chinese Government had in recent years “violated what had throughout history been a frontier of peace.” These assertions are wholly untenable. True, the Chinese and Indian peoples have always been friendly to each other since ancient times. Yet no fair-minded historian can ignore the fact that, having gained complete control over India more than a century ago, British imperialism, taking advantage of the unfortunate situation in which the Indian people were powerless and using India as its base, expanded into China’s Tibet and Sinkiang regions. This is exactly the root cause of the Sino-Indian boundary dispute. Therefore, how can it be said that no Sino-Indian boundary dispute has existed historically? The so-called international boundary question has been settled, such as the secret notes exchanged in 1914 between the British and Tibetan representatives on the so-called McMahon Line, have in fact proved the very opposite, that is, the Sino-Indian boundary has never been formally delimited and, as a result of the aggressive policy pursued by British imperialism, a boundary dispute does exist between China and India. Even the then Government of old China clearly expressed its non-recognition of the so-called McMahon Line.

What could that be, if not a attitude, how can one expect the government of new China to exists only in the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, while concerning the middle and western sectors even illegal secret boundary treaties are non-existent, how then can one expect the Chinese Government to accept the assertion that “the boundary between the two countries has long been settled”? The Sino-Indian boundary question is a question left over by history. China and India, being both newly independent countries, could not be held responsible for the rise of these questions. Proceeding from this basic fact the Chinese Government has always held that the two sides should take into account both the past historical background and the present actual situation and peacefully settle the Sino-Indian boundary question in accordance with the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and through friendly negotiations, and that, pending the settlement of the question through negotiations, both China and India should maintain the status quo of the boundary so as to create the necessary atmosphere for its peaceful settlement. In the past several years, the Chinese Government has consistently adhered to this stand. The Chinese Government does not recognize the McMahon Line, yet it has all along respected the status quo of the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian boundary and has not gone beyond this line. No deliberate distortion can alter this fact, area in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, it has always been under the effective jurisdiction of the Chinese Government. To say nothing of the remote past, after the founding of the People’s Republic of China it was by the traditional route running through this area that Chinese troops in 1950 entered the Ari District of Tibet from Sinkiang. From 1954 to 1957, China surveyed and constructed the 1200 kilometre-long Sinkiang-Tibet Highway which traverses this area. Before the summer of 1958 the Indian Government had never questioned or objected to the exercise of sovereignty in this area by the Chinese Government. The Indian Government stated in its note that it was n 1957 that the Chinese Government began to enter the Aksai Chin area. This statement is a distortion of the fact and does not merit any refutation. In the past twelve years and more, Chinese military and administrative personnel in the western sector have always worked for the

maintenance of the status quo of the boundary and have never gone a single step beyond their own territory. The same is true with the middle sector of the SinoIndian boundary. Whether in the eastern, western or middle sectors of the SinoIndian boundary, it is India, not China, which in fact has gone beyond its own territory and entered the territory of the other side, and a record of this can be found in the previous notes of protest from the Chinese Government and other documents. In order to ease the border situation and avoid clashes, the Chinese Government further decided, on its own, not to send patrols within 20 kilometres on its side of the boundary. The fact that this decision has always been earnestly carried through can by no means be distorted. The Indian Government on the one had rejected the proposal put forward by China for the armed personnel of each side to withdraw 20 kilometres from the boundary, and on the other hand in its notes blamed China for failing to abolish its existing frontier-posts. This attitude can in no way be deemed fair. As the Chinese Government repeatedly pointed out, it is the Indian side that has undermined the status quo of the Sino-Indian boundary by unilateral action. To justify its untenable position, the Indian Government in its note further charged that in recent years Chinese maps had ignored India’s so-called “well-known traditional boundary” in the western sector. Here it should be pointed out that, in the Chinese and Indian officials’ meeting, the Chinese officials proved with a great deal of factual material that the traditional customary line pointed out by China is well founded and that the alignment in Chinese maps published over the past several decades has in the main been consistent, whereas the boundary line shown on current Indian maps is without historical or factual basis. Up to 1954 official Indian maps had generally confirmed that the boundary in the western sector was undetermined and had marked no boundary line at all. How comes that this boundary line which has appeared in official Indian maps only since 1954 suddenly becomes a “well-known traditional boundary line”? In disregard of the above-mentioned facts, the Indian Government continually charged China with aggression against India and repeated intrusions into Indian

air space by Chinese aircraft. The Chinese Government categorically rejects these utterly groundless charges. The Chinese side has always strictly observed the status quo of the boundary and Chinese aircraft has never made any flight over areas along the Sino-Indian border. Therefore, this line of action of the Indian Government is indeed incomprehensible. How could China possibly commit aggression against India? China suffered greatly from imperialist aggression for over a century, and to date China’s Taiwan is still under armed U.S. occupation and China’s security is continuously threatened by U.S. imperialism. How is it thinkable that China in turn should commit aggression against Indian territory? The socialist system chosen by the Chinese people determines that China does not need war, that it would never permit itself to, nor should it ever, nor will it ever seize a single inch of a neighbouring country’s territory. What China needs from the new-born Asian countries, which have achieved independence from under imperialist oppression, is friendship. China is ready to live in amity with these countries, settle with them the question left over by history and together with them enter the new era of peace and prosperity in Asia. China has never regarded India as its enemy, nor will it ever do so. China has never seized a single inch of Indian territory, nor will it ever do so. The Chinese Government has noted the wish expressed by the Indian Government in its note of March 13 for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question, however, it cannot but point out that what the Indian Government termed peaceful settlement is for China to withdraw from its own territory, which is in fact tantamount to the summary rejection of peaceful settlement. The Indian Government also talked about negotiations in its notes, but it insisted that pending any negotiations China must withdraw from its own territory, which is in fact tantamount to the summary rejection of negotiations. In its notes, the Indian Government also agreed that the status quo of the boundary should be maintained, but what is termed maintenance of the status quo is still for China to withdraw from its own territory, which is in fact tantamount to the summary rejection of the maintenance of the status quo. Anyone who is sensible

and reasonable can see that such a rigid and were not intended to. What is more disquieting is that such a rigid and threatening attitude will certainly lead to no solution, even if it were not intended to. What is more disquieting is that such an attitude will aggravate the unrest along the border and even augment the danger of clashes. The consequence of such an attitude will obviously only be advantageous to the imperialist and reactionary forces hostile to Sino-Indian friendship and absolutely cannot bring any good to the Chinese and Indian peoples. There is no conflict of fundamental interests between China and India. The Chinese Government still believes that the Sino-Indian boundary question, though encountering difficulties at the present time, must be, and entirely can be, settled in a friendly way through peaceful negotiations. Although Premier Chou En-lai’s talks with Prime Minister Nehru in the capital of India in April 1960 failed to produce the desired results, the Chinese Government still hopes that negotiations will continue between the two sides. It is clear that to refuse to maintain the status quo and reject negotiations is to reject a peaceful settlement. Such an important question as the Sino-Indian boundary question should not be treated so lightly. As far as the Chinese side is concerned, the door for negotiations is always open. The Chinese Government once again expresses the hope that these sincere opinions will be given positive consideration by the Indian Government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 15 April 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to draw the attention of the

Embassy to yet another instance of Chinese violation of India’s territorial integrity resulting from the setting up of a new Chinese Military post at MR 7834 E 3501 N, 6 miles west of Sumdo. This Chinese post has obviously been developed recently and constitutes, needless to say, a flagrant breach of the repeated assurances extended by the Chinese Government regarding maintenance of the status quo in the area. The Government of India, in their note dated 31st October 1961, have already drawn the attention of the Government of the People’s Republic of China to three new Chinese Military checkposts established on Indian territory between 1960 and 1961 and to the numerous other instances of intrusion by Chinese Military patrols and survey parties into Indian territory. The Government of China, however, have continued to make the untenable claim that these posts so set up are within Chinese territory although such an assertion cannot be sustained for a moment when examined on the basis of available facts. It is a matter of deep concern to the Government of India that the Government of the People’s Republic of China should continue in this manner to persist in their systematic and deliberate encroachments into Indian territory without proper regard to the grave consequences that these may entail. While lodging a strong protest against the establishment of this latest Chinese post on Indian territory at MR 7834 E 3501 N the Government of India express the hope that the Chinese Government will take immediate action to withdraw from this new position that they have occupied. The Ministry of External Affairs avails themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 18 April 1962

The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to state that another instance of Chinese intrusion into Indian territory in the Eastern Sector of the border took place in the second week of January 1962. Two Chinese officials of Migyitun accompanied by an interpreter and two platoon commanders crossed the SinoIndian border near Longju and visited the village of Roi, which is about half a mile South of Longju. The Government of India have taken serious notice of this unlawful intrusion into Indian territory which is contrary to the repeated assertions of the Government of China that their personnel have never violated the Sino-Indian border in the Eastern Sector. The Government of India regret that despite these solemn assertions Chinese personnel have again intruded into Indian territory and caused fear and tension among the local inhabitants. In lodging a firm protest with the Government of China in regard to this illegal activity on the part of Chinese personnel in the Tibet region, the Government of India hope that appropriate steps will be taken by the Government of China to ensure that similar intrusions into Indian territory do not occur in future. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 21 April 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state as follows: Around 12 : 00 hours on April 11, 1962, about 25 Indian military men crossed the Sino-Indian boundary in the western sector and intruded into the Sinkiang Uighur

Autonomous Region of China. They penetrated as far as about 10 kilometres into Chinese territory, reaching a place south of Height 5,5000 metres (approximately 35° 22’ N, 78° 07’ E, and carried out prolonged reconnaissance. About 13 : 00 and 15 : 00 hours respectively on April 13, two other groups of Indian military personnel intruded into the same area in China and sneaked to a point at 35° 20’ N, 78° 03’ E for reconnaissance. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a serious protest with the Indian Government against such grave activities of further violation of Chinese territory by the Indian side. In the past one year and more, Indian military personnel have repeatedly violated the status quo of the boundary between China’s Tibet Region and India, seizing pieces of Chinese territory and making intrusions. Regarding this the Chinese Government has lodged many solemn protests with the Indian Government and pointed out that the grave danger couched n those activities. The Indian side, however, not only disregarded the protests of the Chinese Government but has furthermore expanded its illegal activities to the Chinese frontier areas along the Sinkiang-India border. With full knowledge of the existence of a Chinese post at January 1962, sent an aircraft over there, carrying out reconnaissance at a low altitude and making provocative air-droppings. And now, the Indian side has gone even further and openly made armed reconnaissance on the ground near that post. T his cannot but seriously endanger the peace and tranquillity along the border and greatly increase the danger of clashes. It must also be pointed out that over a long period of time the Indian side has continually set military dispositions. IN recent months, news reports have been disseminated from New Delhi to the effect that Indian troops are preparing to make armed provocations against China when the thaw comes to the border areas. The Chinese Government once more seriously urges the Indian Government to stop immediately such activities which may lead to grave consequences. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 26 April 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state as follows: Around 12 : 30 hours on April 16, 1962, three Indian Military men trespassed into a place at 33 ° 36’ N, 78° 46’ E, west of the Spanggur lake in the Ari District in Tibet, China, and did not leave there until they had conducted reconnaissance for about 40 minutes. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a protest with the Indian Government against this fresh illegal action undertaken by the Indian side in that area, which could entail serious consequences, and urges the Indian Government to take prompt measures to prevent similar activities of intrusions. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 27 April 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the note from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the Chinese Embassy in India dated April 15, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: The Indian Government in its note charged the Chinese Government with setting up a new post at 35° 01’ N, 79° 34’ E, six miles west of Sumdo in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, and thus violating the status quo of the boundary. The Chinese Government categorically rejects this charge.

The entire area east of the traditional customary Sino-Indian boundary line in the western sector, including the aforesaid place, is part of China’s territory and has been and is under the effective control of China. Exercise of China’s jurisdiction in the entire area is completely within China’s sovereignty and also in full conformity with the principle of maintaining the status quo of the boundary. The place where China has allegedly set up a new post according to the note of the Indian Government is deep within Chinese territory, being over thirty kilometres from the boundary line. Whether China does or does not adopt any measure there is entirely China’s internal affair with which the Indian Government has no right at all to meddle. Moreover, so far as the fact is concerned, the Indian charge is totally untrue, because China has never set up any post, let alone a new one, at the aforesaid place at 35° 01’ N, 78° 34’ E. Therefore, it is entirely unjustifiable for the Indian Government to charge China with something China has not done on its own territory and describe it as a violation of India’s territorial integrity and describe it as a violation of India’s territorial integrity and of the status quo of the boundary. The Chinese Government categorically rejects the protest of the Indian Government. The Chinese Government has always advocated and practised maintenance of the status quo of the boundary. This is a fact which the Indian side can in no way distort. It is in fact the Indian side itself that has repeatedly violated the status quo of the boundary, and especially in the western sector where the Indian side itself that has repeatedly violated the status quo of the boundary and made further intrusions and encroachments into side recently has again and again violated the status quo of the boundary and made further intrusions and encroachments into China’s territory and airspace, as recorded in the great number of notes of protest from the Chinese Government. The Indian Government now once again makes a fabricated charge against China and repeats the accusation previously put forward in its note of October 31, 1961 but long refuted by the Chinese Government. This can only be deemed an attempt of the Indian side to cover up its continual intrusions into China’s border areas and to create a pretext for carrying out more such unlawful activities. The Chinese

Government expresses its resolute opposition to this line of action of the Indian side. The Ministry avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 30 April 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India and has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note of the Government of China of 22nd March 1962. 2- The Government of India have, in their earlier notes of 26th February and 13th March 1962, reiterated the basic facts of the Sino-Indian border problem which clearly establish that Government of China’s contentions, based on a subjective approach, are completely untenable. It is indisputable that, by stages since 1957, the Government of China have occupied unlawfully a large area of territory which has always been a part of India. Until this process of intrusion and occupation began, the Sino-Indian frontier had been peaceful. 3 -In 1954, the two Governments negotiated an Agreement which contained a solemn assurance that each would respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the other. At that time, the clear and precise alignment of India’s northern boundary was well-known to the Government of China, and there was no doubt or misgiving of any kind. 4- In signing the Agreement, the Government of India had unreservedly accepted the bona fides of the Government of China in regard to that solemn covenant. There was no dispute, but warm regard and friendship between the two countries.

When, therefore, the fact of Chinese intrusion into Aksai Chin territory of India came to the knowledge of the Government of India, they protested to the Government of China in the expectation that the intrusion had been committed in ignorance rather than on purpose and that, once this error was known, the intruding forces would be withdrawn. At that time, the Government of India had, because of Chinese assurances on incorrect maps and the friendly and cordial relations between the two countries, no reason to suspect that the Government of China were contemplating making extensive claims to Indian territory. It was only in 1959 that the Government of China suddenly faced the Government of India with a claim over nearly 50,000 square miles of Indian territory. To say, therefore, that a Sino-Indian boundary dispute existed earlier than 1959 is contrary to facts, and, indeed, contrary to the relations which had developed between the two countries on the basis of mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and firm acceptance of the territorial limits of the two countries. 5- In the course of the correspondence between the two Governments, and in the talks between their officials in 1960, an overwhelming amount of evidence of tradition, custom, administration and jurisdiction was produced to establish that the boundary between the two countries, which had been accepted without question by both sides prior to 1959, was the boundary alignment shown on official Indian maps. There was no need, therefore, for negotiations to unsettle this firm boundary, sanctioned by history, law and treaty. 6- The Government of India agree with the Government of China on the need to maintain the status quo of the well-recognised traditional boundary. In recent years, however, the Government of China have violated the status quo, made numerous incursions at various points along the boundary, and unlawfully occupied large areas of Indian territory. These developments have disturbed the peace in the border areas and disrupted friendly relations between the two countries. The Government of India have, therefore, sought the cooperation of the Government of China, in the best interests of the two countries, for a reversal

of these aggressive measures which have caused tension and for withdrawal of Chinese forces unlawfully posted in Indian territory. 7- It is a matter of regret to the Government of India that the Government of China continue to disregard the Report of the officials of the two sides which examined the factual evidence regarding the Sino-Indian boundary problem. In fact, the Government of China not having seriously considered the Report of the officials are still reiterating, without any evidence, that the Indian territory in Ladakh which is now under their occupation has for long been under Chinese jurisdiction. This is an entirely subjective view, unwarranted by facts. 8- The territory in Ladakh, now under Chinese occupation had always been under the administrative control of Indian authorities; and evidence establishing the continuous and comprehensive exercise of Indian administration of this area for over a hundred years has been provided by the Government of India. The Government of China, on the other had, were unable to establish on the basis either of historical evidence or of administrative record that these areas had at any time been under the effective jurisdiction of the Government of China or that they had ever been there prior to the recent unlawful occupation. This is also confirmed by the claim made by the Government of China themselves that they had sent their forces to show that the Chinese forces did not enter into this area in 1950, and that the Government of China are now obviously ante-dating their aggression. It is a well established principle of international law, that such trespass and unlawful incursions cannot create title to the territory of another country. 9- The Government of India regret that the Government of China should have deliberately confused the situation regarding the boundary by referring to British Imperialism in the context of the Indo-Chinese border. The records of British rule in India, which are now accessible and open to examination, show that the British only extended their authority over those territories which were historically

and traditionally parts of India. These records also show that the British far from expanding into Tibet or Sinkiang region, actually helped the Chinese to consolidate their authority in these regions. As the Government of China are aware, the Government of India who are opposed to Imperialistic or aggressive policies, in any form, undertook negotiations in 1953-54 to terminate extraterritorial rights and privileges inherited from the British in Tibet and to establish close and friendly relations with China. The results of these negotiations were reflected in the Agreement of 1954. 10- It is surprising that the Government of China have again questioned the validity of the treaties and agreements which have provided added sanction to the traditional boundary between the two countries. In the Western and Middle Sectors, there are treaties and agreements between the Governments of India and China which confirm the traditional boundary. In the Eastern Sector, the Simla Convention and the “McMahon Line” Agreement merely formalised which had for centuries been the traditional boundary between India and Tibet. It is clear from the records of the Simla Conference that the then Government of China had full knowledge of the formalisation of the India-Tibet boundary and of the “McMahon Line” and had Chinese plenipotentiary on the document, and by the subsequent correspondence between the Governments concerned. If ratification of the Simla Convention was subsequently delayed, it was not because of any opposition to the formalisation of the boundary between Tibet and India as shown in the “McMahon Line” but because the then Government of China did not agree to the line of demarcation between Inner Tibet and Outer Tibet, it being understood that the former would be under Chinese influence. 11- It is clear that so far as past history is concerned, there is nothing to show that there was ever a Sino-Indian boundary question. The only legacy left by history in this respect is an unbroken tradition of friendship between the two countries based on mutual respect for a firm, delimited boundary. Even after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, almost for ten years, the two

countries were aware of no Sino-Indian boundary problem. The present situation is a new creation, and the result solely of certain policies pursued by the Government of China since about 1957. They cannot, therefore, evade responsibility for it by attributing it to history. 12- The Government of India fail to understand on what grounds the Government of China allege that it is India, and not China, who has entered the territory of the other side. The extent of Indian jurisdiction has never exceeded the traditional boundaries of India; and no new claims to territory have ever been put forward by the Government of India. As the Government of China are aware, in view of the situation created by recent Chinese activities on the border, the Government of India had necessarily to take additional measures for the protection of their territory and stop further in roads by the Chinese. In view of the fact that the Government of China have gradually occupied a large area of Indian territory and of the numerous instances of violation by them of the boundary between the two countries, it is absurd for the Government of China to claim that they have all along maintained the status quo and their patrols have not been sent within 20 kilometres of their side of the boundary. 13- As for the alignment shown on Chinese maps, the Indian side established that even official Chinese maps had, for long, shown the traditional boundary between the two countries correctly. It was only from the late thirties of the 20th century that these maps began to vary the traditional boundary alignment and to show large parts to vary the traditional boundary alignment and to show large parts of Indian territory within China. That the Chinese Government had no fixed ideas as to what territory was theirs or where they thought their boundary line lay, was clear from the many variations and inconsistencies in these maps. As has already been pointed out by the Government of India, there is even a contradiction between the alignment shown on the map of 1956 which Premier Chou En-lai had stated to be correct, and the alignment on the map given to the Indian side at the talks of the officials in 1960. On the other hand, there has never been any doubt

about the limits of Indian territory or about the traditional boundary which lay along well-known natural features. The official Indian maps have always shown the alignment correctly. If certain Indian maps did not show the alignment, this did not mean that there was no traditional and customary boundary alignment, or that India had no international boundaries. These maps only showed either the internal divisions or physical relief. This is a generally accepted cartographic practice and prevails even in China. There are a number of Chinese maps which do not show all the regions of China within China’s international frontiers. For some years the Survey of India showed the northern boundary of India by an undemarcated symbol because the boundary of India by an undemarcated symbol because the boundary though delimited had not actually been demarcated on the ground. 14- The Government of India are glad to see an affirmation in the Chinese note that “the Socialistic system chosen by the Chinese people determines that China does not need war” and also that “what China needs from the new-born Asian countries, which have achieved independence from under imperialist oppression, is friendship.” If Chinese policy were based strictly on these objectives which are in harmony with the spirit of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, there would be a proper foundation for her relations with her neighbours and no cause for a Sino-Indian boundary problem. As the Government of India have repeatedly shown there was no Sino-Indian boundary problem of any consequence until 1959 when the Chinese government for the first time unfolded extravagant and totally untenable claims to Indian territory. T he Government of China have in recent years shown scant respect for the status quo of the boundary between the two countries and have resorted to measures since 1959 to push their forces across the accepted boundary line to occupy Indian territory. It is most regrettable that these activities which involved loss of Indian lives and territories took place after the Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954 which bound the two countries to respect each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

15- This is, therefore, no quarrel of India’s seeking. The boundary problem is China’s quarrel with India. Throughout history, the Indian people have shown sincere affection and warm regard for the Chinese people. Even before attaining independence, the people of India extended warm support and help to the Chinese people in their struggle for national independence. After independence, India’s foreign policy was based on establishing close and friendly relations with China. From 1950 to 1954 the Government of India went a considerable way to accommodate the Government of China in the Tibet region and on this account willingly gave up all those rights and interests which India had inherited in Tibet. Elsewhere, too, the Government of India made strenuous efforts to establish the Government of China in their rightful place in international organisations. Since 1949, the Government of India have made unremitting efforts not only to bring about close understanding and cooperation between India and China but also to create through this understanding stable and peaceful conditions over a wider region of Asia in order that the newly independent States of Asia could develop rapidly in an atmosphere free from cold-war influences and reconstruct their long neglected economy. There was so much to be done, and little time to fritter away in quarrels. The Government of India regret that their hopes and aspirations in this regard have been frustrated though lack of cooperation from the Government of China who have pursued polices in total disregard of the fundamental interests of the region and have created situations of conflict and tension among the nations of Asia. 16- There is in India a long tradition of peace and non-violence. The people of India by custom and tradition adhere to peace and do not look for quarrels. It is in this tradition that the Government of India have consistently used their influence in international affairs to bring about cessation of hostilities wherever these took place and create conditions which are for stable peace and cooperative relations among nations. The people of India need peace to enable them to forge ahead with the tremendous task of economic regeneration which the country has undertaken since its independence. They have consequently no urge for any

adventurist policy in international affairs; nor do they ever wish to encroach on the territories of others. 17- It is a travesty of facts to suggest, as the Government of China have done, that the Government of India has adopted a negative attitude on the question of Sino-Indian boundary. Despite Chinese aggressive activities, the Government of India have shown considerable restraint and taken, during the last two years, various measures to promote peaceful settlement by negotiations. There have been numerous exchanges and high-level meetings between the two Governments on the subject. A committee of experts have also gone into the evidence of the case of the two sides. Conclusive evidence has been produced to establish the Government of India’s intention that there is no boundary problem except the one created by recent encroachments on Indian territory. The Chinese incursions into Indian territory, however, still continue. While the Government of India are always willing to negotiate with the Government of China, they cannot obviously compromise with any aggression on Indian territory. Nor can they negotiate as long as their territories remain under Chinese occupation. It is for the Government of China to correct the errors of the recent years and, by withdrawing from Indian territory, create the essential conditions for peaceful negotiations so that the boundary question is settled and peaceful and cooperative relations are reestablished between India and China. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 30 April 1962

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with respect to the grave situation in which Indian troops have intruded into China’s Sinkiang region, established new military posts, carried out continual provocative activities and menaced the security of a Chinese frontier post, has the honour to state as follows: The Chinese side has discovered that Indian troops have intruded into China’s Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region and established two new military posts. One is at place approximately 35° 16’ N, 78° 08’ E, southwest of the Chinese post at 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E, and is about eleven kilometers within China’s territory. The other is at a place approximately 35° 22’ N, 78° 05’ E, north west of the aforesaid Chinese post, and is about four kilometres within China’s territory. Indian troops have moreover constructed fortifications at these two new posts and carried out provocative activities around them. The Chinese side is in possession of indisputable facts showing that the two aggressive posts of the Indian side were set up recently. Furthermore, after making the three intrusions on April 11 and 13, 1962 into the area near the aforesaid Chinese post and carrying out provocative activities there, against which the Chinese Government already lodged a protest in its note of April 21, 1962 with the Indian Government, Indian troops again made as many as fifteen successive intrusions into the same area from April 15 to 27. The cases of Indian troop intrusions are as follows: 1- On April 15, 1962, two Indian military men intruded at about 11:00 hours into a place at approximately 35° 22’ N, 78° 04’ E, northwest of the aforesaid Chinese post, and did not leave until 19:00 hours. 2 - On April 17, 1962, over forty fully armed Indian troops crossed the boundary at about 12:00 hours, and approached Height 5,000 metres (approximately 35° 22’ N, 78° 07’ E) northwest of the Chinese post. More than twenty of the sneaked farther to the top of the Height, penetrating about six kilometres within China’s territory. These Indian troops made prolonged reconnaissance on the Chinese post.

3- At about 15:30 hours on April 17, 1962, three Indian military men intruded into a place at approximately 35° 16’ N, 78° 11’ E, south of the Chinese post, to make reconnaissance. 4 -At about 11:00 hours on April 18, 1962, two Indian military men intruded into a place at approximately 35° 22’ N, 78° 04’ E, northwest of the Chinese post. 5- At about 16:30 hours on April 19, 1962, eight mounted Indian military men intruded into the same place at approximately 35° 22’ N, 78° 04’ E, northwest of the Chinese post. 6- At about 11:00 hours on April 21, 1962, one Indian military man intruded into a place at approximately 35° 23’ N, 78° 06’ E, northwest of the Chinese post for prying. 7- At about 19:00 hours on April 22, 1962, six Indian military men intruded into a place at approximately 35° 15’ N, 78° 12’ E, south of the Chinese post, and made reconnaissance for about half an hour. 8- At about 14:40 hours on April 23, 1962, three mounted Indian military men intruded into a place at approximately 35° 21’ N, 78° 04’ E, west by north of the Chinese post and did not leave until about 15:40 hours. 9- On April 24, 1962, three Indian military men taking a round approached at about 7:30 hours to a place at approximately 35° 15’ N, 78° 14’ E, southeast of the Chinese post, and carried out reconnaissance for as long as three hours. 10- At about 11:10 hours on April 25, 1962, three Indian military men leading three horses intruded into a place at approximately 35° 23’ N, 78° 04’ E, west by north of the Chinese post. 11- At about 17:40 hours on April 25, 1962, eight Indian military men (four of whom were mounted (intruded into a place at approximately 35° 21’ N, 78° 04’ E, west by north of the Chinese post. 12- At 10:45 hours on April 26, 1962, three Indian military men intruded into a place at approximately 35° 22’ N, 78° 03’ E, northwest of the Chinese post.

13 - At about 12:50 hours on April 26, 1962, 120 odd Indian military men in three groups (one group was mounted) intruded into a place at approximately 35° 21’ N, 78° 04’ E, west by north of the Chinese post. The mounted group came at about 15:10 hours to a place at approximately 35° 18’ N, 78° 05’ E, southwest of the Chinese post, and further moved to the south of the Chinese post. 14- At 10:35 hours on April 27, 1962, twenty one mounted Indian military men intruded into a place at approximately 35° 22’ N, 78° 07’ E, northwest of the Chinese post, to make reconnaissance. 15- On April 27, 1962, five Indian military men intruded at about 15:30 hours into a place at approximately 35° 21’ N, 78° 05’ E, northwest of the Chinese post. Within the seventeen days from April 11 to 27, Indian military personnel made eighteen successive intrusions into China’s Sinkiang, pressing towards the Chinese post at 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E from three directions. What is more serious, both to the southwest and northwest of the Chinese post, Indian troops have established aggressive posts with fortifications, which are obviously meant for prolonged entrenchment. This shows that Indian troops are pressing on the Chinese post and carrying out provocation, and even would not scruple to create another incident of bloodshed. The Chinese Government against these new, planned and systematic Indian provocations which seriously encroach on China’s territory and threaten the security of the Chinese post, and demands that the Indian Government immediately withdraw the Indian military posts and intruding Indian troops from Chinese territory. Should the Indian Government refuse to withdraw its aggressive posts and continue to carry out provocation against the Chinese post, the Chinese frontier guards will be compelled to defend themselves. The Indian side will be held wholly responsible for all the consequences arising therefrom. In the past two years and more since the Indian side rejected the Chinese proposals for the withdrawal of the armed personnel of each side by twenty kilometres from the boundary and for the cessation of patrols, the Chinese

Government has one-sidedly stopped sending patrols within twenty kilometres on its side of the boundary. The Chinese Government has done this for the purpose of avoiding misunderstanding and clashes on the border. However, the facts in the past two years and more, unfortunately show that this step of the Chinese side has not reaped the expected results; on the contrary, the Indian side, taking advantage of the cessation of patrols by Chinese frontier guards, has been pressing forward steadily into China, encroaching on Chinese territory and threatening the security of the Chinese post. In these circumstances, the Chinese Government, exercising its sacred right to defend China’s territory and guards to resume border patrols in the sector from Karakoram Pass to Kongka Pass, where recently the Indian side has made repeated intrusions and harassment. The Chinese Government still believes that cessation of border patrols by both China and India will help maintain the status quo of the boundary and will create a favourable atmosphere for the peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. If India withdraws from Chinese territory the military posts it has set up and no longer makes intrusions into China, the Chinese Government will renew its efforts for the realisation of the above proposition. However, if India continues to invade and occupy China’s territory and expand the area of its intrusion and harassment on China’s border, the Chinese Government will be compelled to consider the further step of resuming border patrols along the entire Sino-Indian boundary. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 11 May 1962

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and with reference to another recent case of intrusion and provocation by Indian troops in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, has the honour to state as follows: Recently, Indian troops, about twenty in number, again intruded into Chinese territory in the area south of the Spanggur Lake in western Tibet, China. ON May 2, 1962, they pressed forward to a place (approximately 33° 28’ 30” N, 78° 50’ 30” E) only about four kilometres from the Chinese outpost at Jechiung, and there they set up a military post and constructed fortifications in preparation for prolonged entrenchment. Moreover, on May 5, 1962, two of the above-mentioned Indian military men continued to sneak deeper into Chinese territory for about 600 metres and from there fired three shots at the Chinese outpost (two shots were fired at 12:11 hours and the third at 12:23 hours). If the Chinese frontier guards had not put themselves on the alert in time and firmly maintained an attitude of cool-headedness and self-restraint, the aforesaid unwarranted provocating firing by the Indian troops would have led to very serious consequences. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a serious protest with the Indian Government against the above-mentioned intrusion and provocative activities of the Indian troops and demands that India immediately withdraw its aggressive post and put an end to all its intrusions and provocations. As the Chinese Government pointed out in its note of April 30, 1962, India’s encroachment on the border of Sinkiang and its provocations against a Chinese post there has already created a very grave situation on the border between the two countries. And now the Indian Government, in disregard of the warning of the Chinese Government, has further-more stepped up its encroaching and provocative activities in western Tibet, threatening the security of another Chinese outpost. This shows that the Indian Government has set its mind on aggravating tension in the entire western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary and does not scruple to create incidents of bloodshed. The Chinese Government hereby reiterates, if India does not withdraw its aggressive posts and intruding troops from Chinese

territory and continues to carry out provocative activities, the Chinese frontier guards will have to defend themselves, and the Indian side will be held wholly responsible for all the consequences arising therefrom. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 14 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the note handed over by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Indian Embassy in Peking on 30th April 1962. 2- It is obvious that the allegations made in the Chinese note are misconceived and are based on an erroneous notion of the territorial boundary of the Sinkiang and Tibet regions of China. The Government of India have repeatedly tried to correct this erroneous notion but their patient and repeated efforts in this regard seem to have had no effect on the Chinese Government. 3- It is an indisputable fact that, by stages, since 1957, the Government of China have occupied unlawfully a large area of Ladakh which has always been part of India. It is in this process of enlarging their occupation of Indian territory that the Chinese post on the Chip Chap river was established at 3° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E in 1961. The Government of India had, in their note dated 31st October, 1961, drawn the attention of the Government of China to the fact of the establishment of this new post and had urged the Government of China to withdraw the post from Indian territory. This protest, like many others before and after it, has gone

unheeded, and meantime, a further gradual change has been brought about in territorial status quo in this region of the Sino-Indian border. 4- It is strange that in spite of this deep advance into Indian territory, the establishment of military strong points and the construction of roads through Indian territory linking these military strong points with rear bases, the Government of China continue to affirm “that they have stopped sending patrols within 20 kms. on their side of the boundary”. This claim, as the Government of India’s earlier notes have shown, its patently false and, in the context of further inroads into Indian territory pointed out in the various notes of the Government of India, absolutely meaningless. 5- The Chinese note alleges that the Government of India have set up two posts at 35° 16’ N, 78° 8’ E and at 35° 22’ N, 78° 5’ E. No post at these points has been established by the Government of India although the Government of India have had posts at approximately 78° 06’ E, 35° 17’ N and at 78° 02’ E, 35° 21’ N. These latter posts which are well inside Indian territory have been in existence for some time. 6- The Chinese note cites 18 cases of alleged intrusions from April 11 to 27. This entire area into which Indian troops are alleged to have intruded is part of Indian territory and the Government of India are responsible for the protection of this territory. In compliance with this defence responsibility, the Government of India have certain posts in the area and men at these posts have been going out occasionally for essential purposes. These posts have been established there to defend Indian territory from further inroads. They are not there to attack anybody or for any aggressive activity as alleged in the Chinese note. 7- The Government of China are doubtless aware of the aggressive patrolling which Chinese troops in the Chip Chap river area have been carrying out. A few recent examples of such patrolling are cited below:-

a- On 16th April 1962, 11 Chinese soldiers reached a point at approximately 78° 14’ E, 35° 15’ N. b- On 21st April 1962, 20 Chinese soldiers with 7 horses reached a point 2,000 yards to the north of the Indian post at 78° 11’ E, 35° 16’ N for reconnaissance. c- On 22nd April 1962, approximately 70 to 80 Chinese soldiers debussed from three 3-tons lorries immediately to the north of the Indian post at 78° 11’ E, 35° 16’ N. These men moved forward and occupied a hill feature at 78° 12’ E, 35° 15’ N, approximately 3,000 yards southeast of the Indian post. d- On 6th May 1962, at 0930 hours, approximately 20 Chinese soldiers came within 150 yards of the Indian post at 78° 07’ E, 35° 28’ N. They were supported by a party of another 100 Chinese soldiers, who were approximately 1,000 yards away. When the 20 Chinese soldiers moved up closer tot he Indian post, the Indian post commander walked up to within 100 yards of the Chinese party and asked them to withdraw. The examples cited above show which of the two sides is pursuing an aggressive course in the area. The fact is that not only have Chinese soldiers been carrying on aggressive patrolling deep inside Indian territory and systematically violating India’s territorial integrity and security but the Government of China have themselves been constantly threatening to extend these activities along the entire Sino-Indian boundary. Such threats and aggressive activities are not indicative of peaceful intentions. In the context of the position stated in paras 3, 4 and 7 above, the Government of India must point out that the order which has now been issued by the Chinese Government to their frontier guards to resume patrolling in the sector from Karakoram pass to Kongkala and the further threat that Chinese troops in certain contingencies will resume patrolling along the entire border can only mean that far from maintaining “tranquillity on the border” the Chinese Government propose to adopt further aggressive measures and precipitate clashes. The Government of

India hope that the Chinese authorities will consider the grave consequences of what they have threatened to do and act with circumspection. The Prime Minister of India stated in Parliament on 2nd May 1962, “India does not want, and dislikes very much, a war with China. But that is not within India’s control”. The Government of India hope that the Government of China are earnest about maintaining peace. If so, the two Governments should take necessary steps to prevent armed clashes on the border, ease the tension now existing in the northern sector of Ladakh and lay a proper foundation for peaceful negotiations or the boundary question between the two Governments. In this connection, the Government of India would urge the Chinese Government to give serious consideration to the offer made in the Indian Prime Minister’s letter dated 16th November 1959 to Premier Chou En-Lai, which inter alia proposed India should withdraw their personnel to the west of the line shown in the 1956 Chinese map and the Government of China should withdraw their personnel to the east of the international boundary shown to unarmed and administrative personnel which should be withdrawn and the entire area between the boundaries claimed by the two sides left unoccupied. The adoption of this suggestion will lead to the relaxation of tension in this border region and create problem by negotiations and discussions. The Government of India are prepared, in the interest of a peaceful settlement, to permit, pending negotiations and settlement of the boundary question, the continued use of the Aksai Chin road for Chinese civilian traffic. In renewing the Prime Minister of India’s offer of 16th November 1959 and also providing for the continued use of the Aksai Chin road, pending negotiations and settlement, the Government of India are solely motivated by their earnest desire to settle the boundary question by peaceful methods. The Government of India hope that the Chinese Government will give serious consideration to this proposal and avoid threatening and aggressive postures which solve no problem but only create a climate of conflict. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 15 May 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the note of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government dated April 18, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: In its note, the Indian Government alleged that Chinese personnel entered Ruyu Village (referred to as Roi in its note) about half a mile south of Longju in the second week of January 1962, and, on this basis, charged that Chinese personnel had crossed what the Indian side unilaterally termed the Sino-Indian boundary and intruded into Indian territory. The Chinese Government categorically rejects the above-mentioned charge and protest of the Indian Government. It must be pointed out that the place referred to in the Indian note is actually in Chinese territory, and in fact is even situated within Chinese territory lying north of the so-called McMahon Line, i.e., the Sino-Indian boundary in the eastern sector unilaterally claimed by the Indian side. Therefore, whether Chinese personnel had been there or not, the question of their having “crossed the SinoIndian border” does not arise at all. The Chinese Government does not understand what right the Indian Government, which is in illegal occupation of large tracts of Chinese territory south of the so-called McMahon Line, has to interfere unwarrantedly even in affairs within China’s sovereignty north of this Line. It must also be pointed out that neither is there any truth in the instance stated by the Indian Government. The fact is: no official of the Chinese side visited the place mentioned in the Indian note on any day in the second week of January. The Chinese Government cannot ignore the fact that it was at a time when India was stepping up its encroachment on Chinese territory and violation of the status quo of the boundary that the Indian Government suddenly made this fabrication and charge. Moreover, the Indian side is now intensifying its military activities directed against China near the McMahon Line in the area unlawfully occupied by

India close to Longju. It may still be recalled that in August 1959 it was precisely in this area that a military clash occurred as a result of unlawful intrusion and armed provocation by Indian troops. There is reason for the Chinese Government to believe that the aim of the Indian Government in raising the above-mentioned groundless charge is to seek pretexts for India’s further violations of the status quo of the boundary and precipitation of new armed clashes in this area. The Chinese Government cannot but regard this with gravity and is closely following the development of events. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 19 May 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state as follows: At non-time on April 28, 1962, ten fully armed Indian military personnel intruded into Chinese territory at Longju and disseminated the information that they would come for a prolonged stay; and they did not leave till they had carried out military reconnaissance there. Having made repeated verifications, the Chinese Government hereby lodges a serious protest with the Indian Government against the above mentioned act of provocation by the Indian troops which constitutes a grave violation of Chinese territory. Just as predicted by the Chinese Government, the slanderous charge made by the Indian Government on April 18, 1962 to the effect that Chinese personnel had gone south of Longju was indeed a foretoken of India’s further encroachment on Chinese territory in that area. The Chinese Government already pointed out in its note of May 15, 1962 that the Indian side had recently been intensifying its

military activities directed against China in the area unlawfully occupied by India close to Longju. The aforesaid new action of Indian troops was obviously taken to pave the way for their renewed occupation of Longju and precipitation of new armed clashes; and at the same time it clearly indicates that India intends to disrupt the status quo of the boundary and create tension not only in the western sector, but also in the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian boundary. The Chinese Government demands that the Indian Government desist immediately from its intrusion into Longju; otherwise the Chinese Government will not stand idly by seeing its territory once again unlawfully invaded and occupied, and the Indian Government must bear the responsibility for all the grave consequences arising there from. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 21 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affair’s note dated 20th March 1962. 2 -The Chinese Government have commenced their note under reference by repeating certain unfounded allegations made by them in their earlier notes dated 12th August and 2nd November 1961. That these allegations were absolutely groundless has been fully established in the Government of India’s notes dated 31st October 1961 and 9th December 1961.

3- A reference to the Government of India’s earlier notes would show that the Demchok area has historically formed a part of India, and Indian border guards have long been stationed there to protect the area. The Government of China have been aware of these facts. However, extracts from the earlier notes of 31st October 1961 and 9th December 1961 are given below for ready reference: “Both Demchok and the other locations mentioned in the Chinese note are well within India’s international border in this sector. The Chinese note refers to the setting up of a check post at Oga. The Ministry do not see why the Government of China should have any concern with measures India adopts inside here territory for the defence of Indian territories. As regards patrolling upto Kargo and Charding la. While Kargo is well within Indian territory, charding la is on the border and has been under Indian control for several years. The Chinese Government will appreciate that it is illogical to expect the Government of India to leave their territories unprotected to facilitate Chinese incursions, and indeed unlawful occupation by the Chinese has already occurred in wide areas of India’s Ladakh.” “The Demchok area and the other locations mentioned in the Chinese note are within India’s international border n this sector and have been traditionally under Indian administration. For the Chinese Government to raise questions about Indian posts and patrols in Indian territory is an entirely unjustified interference in the sovereign affairs of the Government of India.” 4 -It is obvious from the foregoing that the Government of China are reiterating old unfounded allegations which have been exposed as totally baseless and making false and unjustified claims to Indian territory. The Ministry regret that the Government of China should resort to this highly objectionable practice condemned by all civilized countries of first advancing groundless claims to the territory of a neighbouring country and then following these up by false charges of encroachment on their territory.

5- The Government of India, after thorough investigation, have found that the latest allegation about 7 Indian military men having gone beyond the boundary line and crossed the water-shed between Chang pass and Jara pass to penetrate into Dubeezao within Chinese territory on 12th February 1962 is as groundless as the other allegations made in the Chinese note. It has been confirmed from the local command of Indian forces in the area that at no time had Indian troops penetrated into Chinese territory as alleged in the Chinese note. Indian border guards always scrupulously observe the instructions issued to them not to trespass into Chinese territory and unlike Chinese forces, they have a clear knowledge o the limits of Indian territory. 6- In rejecting these utterly baseless allegations, the Government of India must reiterate that it is the Government of China who in recent years have sought unilaterally to change the long existing status quo of the Sino-Indian border. It is they who have, since 1957, repeatedly set up posts and trespassed into Indian territory; and it is they who are in unlawful occupation of over 12,000 sq. miles of Indian territory in Ladakh. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 21 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the note handed over by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Indian Embassy in Peking on May 11, 1962. The note, under reference, contains certain totally unjustified and baseless allegations. These are:-

1. that on 2nd May 20 Indian troops intruded into a place at 33° 28.30’ N, 78° 50-30’ E about 4 kms. from a new Chinese military post set up at Jechitung; 2. that intruding Indian troops have set up a military outpost in the area; and 3. that on 5th May 2 Indian soldiers advanced 600 metres deeper into the area and fired three rounds at a Chinese post. The Government of India firmly repudiate these allegations. Indian troops did not enter the area on 2nd and 5th May as alleged in the Chinese note. Nor have they established any fresh post. On the contrary, Chinese troops moved down south from their post at Spanggur and established a new post at 78° 52-30’ E 33° 30’ N approximately 8/10 miles south-east of Spanggur on Indian territory. This has been fortuitously admitted in the Chinese note. Furthermore, as the Government of China are aware, Chinese troops are digging in at this new post and are constructing fortifications. As to the allegation on 5th May, this again is untrue. A similar allegation about firing by Indian troops made in the Chinese note of August 12, 1961, was categorically repudiated in the Government of India’s reply dated October 31, 1961 (vide under Allegation I). In the face of the aggressive activities being systematically pursued by Chinese forces on Indian territory, it is incongruous for the Government of China to bring up charges against India of “aggravating tension” and “creating incidents of bloodshed”. There can be no doubt in any quarter that the Government of China are resorting to these allegations as they had done in the past in order to cover up their fresh sets of aggression on Indian territory. As the Government of China are aware, the international boundary in this sector of the border cuts across the eastern part of Spanggur lake and follows the northern and eastern water-shed of the Indus. The setting up of the new Chinese military post at 78° 52.30’ E 33° 30’ N about 6/10 miles south-east of Spangur constitutes a further serious violation of Indian territory and an act of grave provocation. The Government of India lodge an emphatic protect with the Government of China for thus continuing their aggressive activities and establishing fresh posts

on Indian territory and accusing the Government of India of sending troops to intrude into what is indisputably Indian territory. If the Government of China are at all interested in maintaining the status quo and the peace on the border, they would be well-advised to restrain their forces and desist from constantly pushing forward and setting up new military posts on Indian territory. If any breach of the peace results from the unabated pursuit of aggressive ends by China, the responsibility rests solely with the Government of the People’s Republic of China. Allegations against the Government of India, totally devoid of any substance whatever, only add to the mischief of aggression, which China, conducts continually. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 26 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Note No. 345 dated 26th April 1962 from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The note has alleged that at about 12:30 hours on April 16, 1962, three Indian soldiers had trespassed into a place at 33° 36’ N 78° 46’ E, west of the Spanggur Lake and stayed at that place for about 40 minutes. The Government of India have checked and found that the allegation in question is entirely unfounded. On April 16, 1962, at 12-30 hours, no Indian soldier had gone to the place at 33° 36’ N 78° 46’ E. However, the alleged act of trespass cited in the Chinese note is in respect of territory which lawfully forms a part of India. It is an established fact that the international boundary in this sector of the border cuts across the eastern part of Spanggur Lake and follows the northern and eastern water-shed of the Indus.

As the Government of China are aware, trespass in this area has been committed by Chinese troops. The Chinese note under reference only provides further evidence of the fact of such trespass. As pointed out in the Government of India’s note dated 21st May 1962, Chinese troops have moved down south from their post at Spanggur and established a new post at 78° 52’-30’ E and 33° 36’ N approximately 8/10 miles south east of Spanggur on Indian territory. It is the Chinese forces who have, despite repeated assurances regarding maintenance of the status quo given by the Chinese Government, trespassed in this sector of Indian territory. The Government of India, therefore, reject the Government of China’s protest and urge them to order the prompt withdrawal of their troops who have trespassed into Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs take this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 28 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to Note dated 19th May, 1962, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. It is apparent from the note that the Government of China are again wanting to create disturbance in the Eastern Sector of the border, which has been peaceful since 26th August 1959 when Chinese troops crossed the international border and dislodged the Indian post from Longju by force. Since then, except for occasional intrusions by Chinese personnel, the international border in the Eastern Sector has been quiet although the Government of China in their recent notes dated 30th November 1961 and 30th April 1962 have held out the threat of extensive military

action in the Eastern Sector in the event of the Government of India adopting measures for the defence of their territories in the Western Sector of the border. In their note dated 18th April 1962, the Government of India have drawn the attention of the Government of China to the intrusion by Chinese officials and army personnel into the village of Roy (Ruyul), half a mile south of Longju on the 2nd week of January 1962. In the face of threats held out by the Government of China and the aggressive activities pursued by their personnel on the border, it is absurd for the Government of China to make false allegations of planning aggression in the Eastern Sector against the Government of India. As to Longju, the past facts would bear reiteration. Longju which is south of the McMahon Line has always been a part of Indian territory. It is about two miles south of the international border and at about the same distance south of the Tibetan village of Migyitun. Longju has always been under the administrative jurisdiction of India and the Government of India maintained a border checkpost there. As the Chinese Government are aware, in July 1959, the Officer-in-charge of the Indian Checkpost at Longju fell seriously ill. The Government of India informed the Government of China on 24th July 1959 in a note verbal that they proposed to paradrop a doctor at the post. While communicating this information to the Government of China, the Government of India gave the Grid Reference of the post. This was done as Longju was near the border, and lest the pilot of the aircraft by “error of judgment’ intruded into Chinese Government. Yet, on the 25th August 1959, a strong Chinese detachment crossed into Indian territory south of Migyitun and fired without notice on an Indian picket. They arrested the entire picket. Thereafter, on the 26th August 1959, Chinese forces encircled the post at Longju and 26th August 1959, Chinese forces encircled the post at Longju and opened heavy fire on it. The Indian personnel at Longju had, in the circumstances, to abandon the post. The Government of India lodged a strong protest with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 28th August 1959. In their note dated 10th September 1959, the Government of India had offered to discuss with the Chinese Government the exact alignment of the McMahon Line at

Khinzemane, Longju and Tamaden areas on condition that the status quo was maintained at all these places. As far as Longju was concerned, the Government of India had expressed their willingness not to send their personnel back to the area provided the Chinese also withdrew their forces from Longju. This meant that neither side would have their personnel at Longju pending discussions. Thereafter, the Prime Minister of India had reiterated this proposal, and although there was news that the Chinese personnel at Longju had withdrawn sometime in 1961, the Government of India made no attempt to re-enter Longju. The specific allegation made in the Chinese note that 10 armed Indian soldiers had intruded into Longju on 28th April 1962 is completely false. There are Indian checkposts in the area adjoining Longju but, in accordance with the directive given by the Prime Minister, Indian forces have not re-entered Longju since 26th August 1959. The Chinese note under reference suggests that Chinese troops have again trespassed into Longju and their forward patrols are engaged in reconnaissance around Longju. The Government of India register an emphatic protest against these aggressive activities on the part of Chinese troops in Indian territory. It should be clear to the Government of India will not allow any foreign aggression in Longju. If the Chinese Government have any doubt about the precise alignment of the border in this area, the Government of India would be glad to discuss the matter with them and clearly their doubt. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 28 May 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to India’s

establishment of a new military strong point in Chinese territory in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary and further intrusions and provocations there, has the honour to state as follows: 1- India not only gave no heed to China’s protests and refused to evacuate its new aggressive strong points in the Chip Chap River Valley area in Sinkiang, China, but has recently set up another military strong point at Hongshantou (approximately 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E) in that area, and built fortifications there. In addition, Indian troops have repeatedly intruded into the areas west, northwest and southwest of the Chinese post for harassment. It has been established through repeated intruded into the areas west, northwest and southwest of the Chinese post for harassment. It has been established through repeated check-ups that in the period from April 28 to May 17, 1962 alone, 18 such cases involving 131 person-times occurred. What is more, the intruding Indian troops and aircraft have kept on conducting reconnaissance and making provocations against the said Chinese post. For instance, at about 18:30 hours on May 1, 1962, 11 Indian military men intruded into the area around height 5,500 metres in proximity to the Chinese post and conducted reconnaissance for as long as over 40 minutes; at 9:15 hours on May 10, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the Chinese post, flying audaciously at such a low altitude as no more than 400 metres from the ground, and circled there for reconnaissance for as long as 30 minutes or so. 2 -In the Ari district in Tibet, China, Indian troops have continued to make intrusions and made another provocative firing. Here are the outstanding cases: 1. At about 14:00 hours on May 7, 1962, five Indian military men, three of whom were mounted, intruded into the area around 34° 16’ N, 79° 01’ E, that is, the place where Indian troops had provoked the Kongka Pass incident of bloodshed in October, 1959, and carried outarmed reconnaissance there. On the same day, another group of Indian military men numbering about 20 intruded into the area at 34° 18’ N, 79° 01’ E for illegal activities there.

2. At about 17:30 hours on May 9, 1962, Indian troops again fired three shots at the Chinese post at Jechiung from the Indian military strong point only about 4 kilometres away, which was set up recently in Chinese territory at a place south of the Spanggur Lake. This is another serious armed provocation by Indian troops since their firing at the same Chinese post on May 5. 3. On May 3, 1962, four mounted Indian soldiers intruded deep into Chinese territory and even went beyond the boundary line claimed by the Indian side itself for about four kilometres and arrived at Goro (approximately 32° 38’ N, 79 34’ E) in Tibet and conducted reconnaissance for quite some time. The Indian Government, having remained indifferent to the repeated protests of the Chinese Government, has not only refused to withdraw its aggressive strong points newly set up on Chinese territory and put an end to its intrusions and provocations, but even set up new aggressive strong points on Chinese territory, expanded the scope of its encroachments and continued its intrusions and provocations. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest with the Indian Government against these actions, and demands that the Indian Government, in the interest of peace, evacuate immediately its military strong points set up recently in Chinese territory and put an end to all its unlawful intrusions into China. Otherwise, the Indian side must bear the responsibility for the consequences of such intrusions. The Military of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 2 June 1962

1- The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to acknowledge that the Chinese Government has received the Indian Government’s note of May 14, 1962 in reply to the Chinese Government’s note of April 30, 1962. 2- The Indian Government in its note not only refuses to withdraw its military strong points and intruding troops, but fraudulently contents that it is responsible for the protection of the areas it has intruded. This further shows that India is determined to encroach on Chinese territory and, to this end, does not scruple to provoke bloody conflicts. The Chinese Government cannot but express its utmost regret at this. 3- The Indian note again repeats the fallacy that large tracts of territory in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, which always belong to China, are part of Indian territory. The Chinese Government in its previous related notes has refuted in detail this completely groundless platitude. A lie is after all a lie and a truth a truth. A lie can never be turned into truth no matter how often the Indian Government repeats it. As a matter of fact, India admits in its reply note that it has set up strong points at approximately 35° 17’ N, 78° 02’ E and carried out activities around them, thus testifying to nothing but India’s encroachment on Chinese territory. In order to cover up its own intrusions, the Indian Government slanderously counter-charges that the Chinese post at 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E, which was set up by China years ago, is a newly established one and describes the normal patrols by Chinese frontier guards as aggressive patrolling intended for encircling Indian soldiers. This is entirely a distortion of the fact and a reversal of right and wrong; it is like the trick of a thief calling “stop their”, which serves all the more to reveal the offence he intends to cover up. 4- The Indian Government in its reply note reiterates its proposal made in 1959 that, in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary the Indian Government should withdraw its personnel to the west of the line shown on Chinese maps and

the Chinese Government should withdraw its personnel to the east of the line claimed by India as shown on Indian official maps. The note further states that the Indian Government is prepared, in the interest of a peaceful settlement, to permit, pending negotiations and settlement of the boundary question, the continued use of the Aksai Chin road for Chinese civilian traffic. Why should China need to ask India’s permission for using its own road on its own territory? What an absurdity! As for the Indian Government’s old proposal made n 1959, Premier Chou En-lai already pointed out in his letter to Prime Minister Nehru dated December 17, 1959 that it is unfair and that, though “equitable” it may appear, it in fact would require China to make a one-sided withdrawal. The Indian Government knows this only too well. Prime Minister Nehru said in Parliament on May 14, 1962 that this proposal “applies entirely to the Ladakh area and not the eastern area at all, because we are not going to withdraw in the east. In the Ladakh area, it meant a very small withdrawal for us—a few villages—and it meant a large withdrawal for them”. That is to say, this “very fair” proposal bragged of by India means from large tracts of Chinese territory, measuring more than 33,000 square kilometres, which have always belonged to China in exchange for the Indian side’s withdrawal from a few points, which always the Indian side continues to occupy, exactly as before, Chinese territories in the eastern and middle sectors of the Sino-Indian boundary. This is of course unacceptable to the Chinese Government, unacceptable now is before. 5- There is reason to believe that the Indian Government is not serious in making the above-mentioned proposal. If it truly wishes the Chinese Government to give earnest consideration to its proposal, it should be prepared to apply the principle embodied in the proposal equally to the eastern section of the border, that is to say, to require both the Chinese and Indian sides to withdraw all their personnel from the area between the so-called McMahon Line and the section of the SinoIndian boundary as shown on Chinese maps. However, judging from Prime Minister Nehru’s May 14 speech in the Indian Parliament, the Indian Government has renewed this proposal on the pre-condition of not doing that. How can one

assume that the missive terms? Is China a defeated country? It is clear that the Indian Government, in making the proposal, did not expect earnest consideration from the Chinese Government. It is evident that, in doing so, it only attempted to divert people’s attention. 6- But people’s attention can in no way be diverted. The most urgent problem in the current Sino-Indian border situation is that the Indian side persists in changing by force the status quo of the Sino-Indian boundary and setting up military strong points on Chinese territory and is carrying on provocations, so that a border clash may touch off at any moment. As China pointed out in its note of May 28, since China lodged its protest on April 30, Indian troops have set up another new military strong point inside Sinkiang, China, and have continued their intrusions and provocations in Sinkiang and the Ari district. Facts speak louder than words. They show that was the Indian Government now seeks is to provoke bloody conflicts, occupy China’s territory and change the status quo of the boundary regardless of consequences, and not at all to settle the Sino-Indian boundary question peacefully through negotiations. 7- The Chinese Government consistently stands for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question through negotiations. Even now when the SinoIndian border situation has become so tense owing to Indian aggression and provocation, the door for negotiations is still open so far as the Chinese side is concerned. However, China will never submit before any threat of force. What is imperative now is for the Indian Government to stop its military provocations and withdraw Indian military strong points and troops from Chinese territory. The Chinese Government renews its protest and demand made on April 30 and May 28. This is a serious test as to whether the Indian Government has the sincerity to settle peacefully the Sino-Indian boundary question and improve Sino-Indian relations.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 4 June 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following: It has been verified through careful investigation by the Chinese Government that the activities of intrusion and provocation of Indian troops on China’s border have recently been extended to another area in Sinkiang, China, that is, the area near the source of the Karakash River. Indian troops have set up another new military strong point at approximately 34° 58’ 30” N, 78° 22’ 30” E in that area, which is as deep as about 15 kilometres within Chinese territory and built an air-dropping ground and forts there. Large groups of Indian infantry and cavalry men frequently came out from that strong point and made harassment all around. At the same time, Indian aircraft repeatedly intruded into China’s air space and dropped large quantities of military supplies to that strong point. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest with the Indian Government against the Indian troops’ pressing forward step by step and continuously expanding its encroachment on Chinese territory. The facts cited above more clearly show that the Indian side is deliberately encroaching on China along the entire western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary in an attempt to realize by force its claims to Chinese territory. The Chinese Government, while following with vigilance this serious situation, once again demands that the Indian Government immediately withdraw all its aggressive strong points recently set up in Chinese territory and put an end to all its

intrusions and provocations, and urges the Indian Government to give earnest consideration to the serious consequences to which these activities may lead. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 6 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy o the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Note dated the 21st April 1962 from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Note makes two entirely unwarranted allegations” (1) That on 11th April 1962 at about 1200 hours, about 25 Indian soldiers penetrated 10 Kms. into Chinese territory, reached a point approximately 35° 20’ North, 78° 07’ East for reconnaissance”. Indian troops are in certain areas of Ladakh to defend Indian territory. If these Indian troops move about inside Indian territory, it should not be a matter of any concern to the Government of China. However, since the Government of China made certain specific allegations, these were carefully investigated and it was found that no Indian soldier had been at either of the places at the time cited in the Chinese Note. Therefore, it is clear that the Government of China preferred these charges and assumed the right to protest about so-called intrusions by Indian troops without any basis at all. Under the circumstances, the Government of India reject these protests which not only have no basis in fact but constitute unjustifiable interference in the internal affairs of India. It has been noticed that the Government of China are increasingly taking recourse to such baseless allegations against the Government of India at a time when Chinese forces are themselves making fresh encroachments into Indian territory.

Such Chinese military activity has been noticed particularly in the vicinity of the Chinese Military Base illegally set up at 78° 12’ East 35° 10’ North, and at point 78° 13’ East 35° 15’ North. Carefully verified reports from other sectors of Ladakh also show that Chinese troops are daily intruding into Indian territory, pushing forward on trucks and jeeps, blasting the mountainside with heavy explosives, constructing new military bases and extending military bases already set up. It is on record that since 1969-61 Chinese intruders have set up no less than five new military bases on Indian territory at Nyagzu, Dambuguru, at point 78° 12’ E, 35° 19’ N on the Chip Chap river, at a point six miles west of Sumdo, and at 78° 52.30’ E, 33° 30’ N about 8/10 miles south-east of Spanggur. Against this record of territorial aggression by Chinese forces, there is not even single case to show that Indian troops intruded into Chinese territory or set up a post there. It seems clear that the Government of China are spreading rumours about the socalled “news reports disseminated from New Delhi” to prove that “Indian troops are preparing to make armed provocations against China when the thaw comes to the border areas” to cover up their aggressive activities. The Government of India have no wish to embroil themselves in hostilities with any country, far less to invade Chinese territory. They are, however, bound to do all they can to preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of India. The Government of India lodge and emphatic protest with the Government of China for the fresh encroachments into Indian territory by Chinese intruders and urge the Government of China to put an end to such dangerous and illegitimate activities. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 6 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Note dated the 27th April 1962 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. The Government of China’s Note under reference provocatively asserts that the location of the new Chinese post and other areas of Ladakh have always been under the effective control of China. This assertion is against the evidence of history. Neither the present not any other regime in China had ever exercised any authority in this region of India. Nor did the rulers of China ever lay any claim to it. It is entirely without warrant to suggest, as the Chinese Note has done, that they have always exercised “effective control” over it. As the Government of China are well aware, the traditional international boundary in this sector of the border runs from the Karakoram Pass along the watershed between the Shyok (belonging to the Indus system) and the Yarkand, and runs through the Qara Tagh Pass (Lon. 78° 20’ East and Lat. 35° 43’ North) to cross the eastern bend of the Qara Qash river (north of Haji Langer) and to ascend the main Kuen Lun mountains. Thereafter the boundary runs through the Yangi Pass (Long. 79° 25’ East and Lat. 35° 55’ North) along the crest of the mountains separating the Yurungkash basin from those of the lakes in Aksai Chin. It leaves the main crest of the Kuen Lun mountains at a point approximately Long. 80° 21’ East and descends in a southwestern direction, separating the basins of the Amtogor and Sarigh Jilganang lakes in India from those of Leighten and Tsoggar lakes in Tibet, down to Lanak Pass (Long. 79° 34’ East and Lat. 34° 24’ North). Nor is the Chinese denial of the existence of the new post supported by the facts on the ground. The fact is that Chinese intruders in Ladakh set up a new post recently at 35° 1’ North, 78° 34’ East six miles west of Sumdo, as stated in the Government of India’s Note dated 15th April 1962. That post still exists and continues to testify to a new violation of the status quo on the border.

In the light of facts cited above, the Government of India reject the contentions in the Government of China’s reply under reference which evades the charge fully supported by facts made in the Government of India’s note dated 15th April 1962. It is a source of deep and continuous concern to the Government of India that the Government of China should persist in this manner in their systematic and deliberate unlawful encroachments into Indian territory without any regard to the grave consequences that these may entail. The Government of India would again urge the Government of China to view the problem with the seriousness it deserves and to take urgent steps to withdraw their new military post at 35° 01’ North 78° 34’ East as well as all the other military posts which they have illegally set up on Indian territory since 1957. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 6 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the note dated 15th May 1962 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. The Government of India do not accept the unwarranted assertion made in the Chinese note that the village of Roi, which is half a mile south of Longju, is situated in Chinese territory, north of the McMahon lone. Longju itself is about 2 miles south of the international border and the village of Roi is further south of Longju. There can be no question but that Roi is well inside Indian territory. About Longju the facts are well-known and these have been restated in the Government of India’s note dated 28th May 1962 to the Government of China. A strong Chinese force had crossed the internal border on 25th August 1959 and

dislodged the Indian post at Longju by force on the 26th August 1959. Such are the facts which form part of the record of Sino-Indian relations since 1959. It is not only false but definitely mischievous to describe the invasion of Indian territory south of McMahon line by a strong Chinese force in August 1959 as a case of “unlawful intrusion and armed provocation by Indian troops”. Such distortion of facts adds to the mischief of aggression, and militates against the fundamental principles on which international relations are based. The Chinese note has denied the specific charge made in the Government of India’s note of 18th April 1962. The facts about the intrusion into the village of Roi by a Chinese party in the 2nd week of January 1962 were carefully verified before a protest was lodged with the Government of China. The names of the Chinese officers who intruded into the Indian village of Roi are known to the Government of India. These intruders had sought to exert pressure on the inhabitants of Roi to make them go over to Tibet. In the face of this evidence it is useless to deny that Chinese intruders had unlawfully entered the village of Roi and interfered with the internal jurisdiction of the Government of India. The Government of India’s charge is straight and simple. It is based on the direct evidence of village people who are unaccustomed to prevarication. The Government of China cannot evade responsibility for this act of intrusion into Indian territory by taking recourse to propagandist allegations against the Government of India. The Government of India reject the Chinese note of May 15, 1962, and urge upon the Government of China to desist from further intrusions into Indian territory and to respect India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest considerations. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 16 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to state that it has been noticed that Chinese intruders into Indian territory in Ladakh have cleared a new road through Indian territory running South East from E 78° 35’ 0.33’ to the West of E 79° 8’ N 34° 33’. A considerable amount of Chinese activity has also been reported from the vicinity of the Chinese post unlawfully set up at E 78° 55’ N 34° 25’. All this is fresh evidence of the systematic and planned violation of Indian territory by Chinese intruders despite repeated assurances from the Chinese Government that their forces are maintaining the ‘status quo’ on the Sino-Indian border. The Government of India lodge a firm protest against this fresh instance of violation of Indian territory by Chinese forces unlawfully posted on Indian territory and urge upon the Chinese Government to desist from such activities which are not conducive to good relations between the two countries. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of the highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 18 June 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following: On May 29 ’62 the Roma family of Lung Village, Lungtzu County, Tibet, China, ten persons in all (4 men, 4 women and 2 children), were returning from the Taksing

area. When they reached Natienmula (at one o’clock in the afternoon of the same day), which is north of the so-called McMahon Line and east of Lung Village (approximately 28° 22’ N, 93° 09’ E), 6 Indian soldiers audaciously crossed the “McMahon Line” in their pursuit, and unwarrantedly fired 6 shots at them. Roma (male), Yekhu (female) and her five year old son Manfa and four-year-old daughter Yehmeng, both carried on Yekhu’s back, were hit and fell down. The other six persons fortunately made a narrow escape. The whereabouts and the life or death of Roma and the three others are unknown up to now. The Roma family were originally peaceful inhabitants of Lung Village. IN May 1959, they were forced by the Tibetan rebels to go to the Taksing area south of the “McMahon Line”. Now, out of their own free will, they were returning to Lung Village. This is their legitimate right that cannot be deprived of. It is astounding that Indian troops should have tried to obstruct them from returning to their original abode and did not scruple to cross the so-called McMahon Line, and pursue and shoot at innocent Tibetan inhabitants, including even women and children. The Chinese Government strongly protests against the intrusion into Chinese territory by Indian troops and their atrocity of shooting at peaceful Chinese inhabitants, compensate the family of the victims and adopt effective measures to ensure against the recurrence of similar incidents. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 22 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Government note dated the 28th May 1962.

The Government of India have not established any strong points in any part of Chinese territory. It is the Chinese who have unlawfully established various posts in Indian territory and violated India’s territorial integrity. If the Government of India have, in the light of these Chinese intrusions taken measures to prevent further intrusions by the Chinese, this is what any sovereign government would and must do in the exercise of its responsibility for maintaining the integrity of its territory. It is preposterous, therefore, for the Government of China to allege that not only Indian territories which have been illegally occupied by the Chinese forces in Ladakh are part of Chinese territory but some Indian areas beyond these are also Chinese territory. There seems to be no limit to Chinese expansionist aims. The specific instances of alleged intrusions cited in the Chinese note are dealt with seriatim below: Allegation (1): India has recently set up another military strong point at approximately 35° 18’ N 78° 05’ 30” E. 8 Kms. west by south of Chinese post at 35° 19’ N 78° 12’ E on the Chip Chap river. Comments: This is a repetition of an allegation made earlier in the Chinese note of 30th April 1962. It was then alleged that India had set up a new military post at 35° 16’ N 78° 08’ E. The Government of India in their note of 14th May 1962 had pointed out that there was no post as alleged at 35° 16’ N 78° 08’ E, but that they have had a post at approximately 35° 17’ N 78° 06’ E. It was made clear then that this Indian post which was well inside Indian territory had been in existence for some time. Nevertheless the allegation, already refuted, has reappeared in the Chinese note under reference with a new Chinese name given to the location and with a small change in the map reference of the post. This allegation of intrusion into Chinese territory is entirely baseless. Allegation (2): Between 28th April and 17th May Indian troops repeatedly intruded into this area. There were 18 cases of such intrusions.

Comments: The Chinese note of 30th April 1962 carried more or less the same allegation, viz., that in 17 days Indian troops had intruded 18 times into the area. This time the number of intrusions remains the same although the period during which they took place has been extended by 3 days. In refuting the earlier allegation, Government of India had observed in their note of 14th May 1962 that “the entire area into which Indian troops are alleged to have intruded is part of Indian territory and the Government of India are responsible for the protection of this territory. In compliance with this defence responsibility, the Government of India have certain posts in the area and men at these posts go out occasionally for essential purposes. These posts have been established there to defend Indian territory from further inroads. They are not there to attack anybody or for any aggressive activity as alleged in the Chinese note”. This allegation of intrusion into Chinese territory is not only baseless but is merely a repetition of an earlier allegation which had been dealt with fully. Introduction of phrases like “131 persons—times’ does not alter the fact that it is a baseless repetition. The two specific instances of intrusion cited in the Chinese note to illustrate the general allegation, viz., (1) that on 1st May 1962 11 Indian soldiers had gone to the area near Height 5500 metres and (2) that on 10th May 1962 at 9:15 hours Indian aircraft flew over the Chinese post unlawfully set up in Indian territory at 35° 19’ N 78° 12’ E, are both unfounded. The truth behind these Chinese allegations is that 1. Chinese troops are illegally posted in this area where they have no right to be; 2. they have built a strong military base with fortifications in the area which is Indian territory; 3. they are extending this fortified area and 4. strong patrols from this Chinese military base are threatening the adjoining areas and the Indian posts located there. Allegation (3):

On 7th May 1962 at about 14:00 hours, five Indian soldiers intruded into the area at 34° 16’ N 79° 01’ E. On the same day another 20 men intruded into the area at 34° 18’ N 79° 01’ E. Comments: Although both the locations are inside Indian territory there is no truth in the Chinese allegation that Indian soldiers had been there on the 7th May 1962. On the contrary on the 7th May 1962, 20 Chinese soldiers had intruded into this very area at 15:20 hours. What is more, there is evidence to show that Chinese troops are daily intruding into this area and are carrying out various illegal activities. Allegation (4): On 9th May 1962 at 17:30 hours Indian soldiers again fired 3 shots at the Chinese post at Jechiung. Comments: A similar allegation was made in the Chinese note dated 11th May 1962 which said that on 5th May 1962 Indian soldiers had reached the same location and fired 3 shots at the Chinese outpost. That allegation as pointed out in the Government of India’s note dated 21st May 1962 was untrue. An earlier allegation about firing by Indian troops made in the Chinese note of 12th August 1961 had also proved unfounded. The present allegation about firing at the Chinese post on 9th May 1962 has been checked, and it has been found to be untrue. The fact is that Chinese intruders have set up a new military base at ‘Jechiung’ in Indian territory and are covering this up by resorting to baseless allegations against Indian troops. Allegation (5): On 3rd May 1962, 4 mounted Indian soldiers intruded into Gore at 32° 38’ N 79° 34’ E for carrying out reconnaissance. Comments: The Government of India firmly repudiate this entirely baseless allegation. Indian soldiers did not visit Gore on 3rd May 1962 or on any other day. Unlike Chinese intruders, Indian soldiers are strictly forbidden to cross the international frontier.

The Government of India are fully satisfied that there has been no case where Indian soldiers trespassed into Chinese territory across the international border. The Government of India are constrained to observe that these and other baseless allegations are being repeated by the Chinese Government as part of their planned propaganda against India to further Chinese expansionist aims and to lay fresh claims to Indian territory and to divert attention from the unlawful activities which are being ceaselessly pursued by Chinese forces in Indian territory. The Government of India, therefore, cannot but reject the Government of China’s protest note based on these false allegations. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 28 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to their note dated 6th June 1962 in reply to the Chinese Government’s note dated 21st April 1962, wherein it was pointed out that intensified Chinese military activity had been reported particularly in the vicinity of the Chinese military posts illegally set up on Indian territory at 78° 12’ E, 35° 19’ N and at 78° 13’ E, 35° 15’ N. It has of late been confirmed that the Chinese intruders have set up a new military post at 78° 15’ E 35° 15.30’ N, six miles south south-east of the Chinese post illegally set up at 78° 12’ E 35° 19’ N. This new Chinese post not only constitutes a further violation of India’s territorial integrity but is approximately 9/10 miles west even of the 1956 Chinese claim line which India did not accept and about which Premier Chou En-lai in his letter dated 17th December 1959 to the Indian Prime Minister said that “it correctly shows the traditional boundary between the two countries in this sector.”

The Government of India lodge an emphatic protest with the Government of China against this further aggression on Indian territory and the setting up of another military post further inside Indian territory. This constitutes a fresh act of provocation and a threat to peace as this new post has been set up in dangerous proximity to an existing Indian post south of the Chip Chap River. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 28 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Note dated the 4th June 1962 about the alleged establishment of a new Indian post at 34° 58’ 30” N 78° 22’ 30” E. The precise location of the alleged Indian post given in the Chinese note shows that it is not only in Indian territory but is also at least five miles west of the nearest point even of the boundary claimed by China, i.e., the Chinese claim line of 1956 which had not been accepted by India. It is pertinent to mention in this connection that Premier Chou En-lai, in his letter dated 17th December 1959, to the Prime Minister of India had said that “it (the 1956 map) correctly shows the traditional boundary between the two countries”. It is a fact that the Government of India have had for some time posts in the region concerned but such administrative and other posts are for the legitimate protection of Indian territory and the Government of China have no right to raise any question about them. The Government of India emphatically repudiate the fight assumed by the Chinese Government to protest and interfere in the sovereign rights of the Government of India over what is clearly Indian territory. As the record will show, since 1957, it is the Government of China who have step by step moved deeper into Indian territory and set up a number of strong military posts. The Government of China owe it to themselves, in the interests of peace

and good neighbourly relations to withdraw from Indian territory and restore the status quo as it prevailed before these recent Chinese aggressive moves. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 30 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs not dated 18th June 1962. The Government of India ordered a full enquiry into the allegations made in the Chinese note, and the enquiry has led to the following findings: On 28th May, an Indian tribal Chandang Tameng, resident of the village of Lengbeng, two miles east of Taksing, came to Taksing and stole a rifle from the border police lines at Taksing. Later that evening, information was received that he and 10 other tribesmen had escaped from the village of Lengbeng. These 11 escaping Indian tribesmen were intercepted by Indian border guards near Asafila (N 28° 21’ E 93° 14’) in Indian territory. As the tribesman fired at the border guards, the latter fired back in self-defence. The tribes had actually used the stolen rifle to fire at the border guards. As a result of this exchange of fire, a tribal named Loma was tribals had actually used the stolen rifle to fire at the border guards, recovered the stolen rifle as well as a muzzle loader from the scene of action. A woman member of the tribal party, named Yaku, later returned to Taksing with her two minor children. The rest of the tribal party are still missing. The Government of China, based on hearsay, have made two unfounded allegations, viz., (1) that the tribals in question were returning to their original

home in Lung village in Tibet and that they were obstructed from doing so, and (2) that Indian troops crossed the McMahon Line and pursued and shot at them. The facts show that the tribals in question were running away after stealing of rifle, and that they even used the stolen rifle to fire at the Indian border guards. What is more, the entire incident including the exchange of fire, took place on Indian territory. As to the allegation that Indian troops have used force to prevent Tibetan refugees in India from returning to their homes in Tibet and have committed atrocities on them, it is well known that Tibetan refugees in India have been treated with the generosity and compassion due to people who are rendered homeless. While the Government of India have helped to rehabilitate Tibetan refugees to the limit of their capacity, they have never stood in the way of any Tibetan refugee who wished to return to Tibet. Any Tibetan refugee who wishes to return to Tibet is free to do so. It is obvious from the facts stated above that the Government of China are not only harbouring fugitives from India but are using an ancient which took place in Indian territory to make false and propagandist allegations against the Government of India. In the light of the facts stated above, the Government of India firmly reject the Chinese protest note of 18th June 1962. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 6 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs note dated 2nd June 1962.

The Government of India’s note dated 14th May 1962 gave the correct location of certain Indian checkposts in North Ladakh, and pointed out that the posts in question had been there for some time purely for the protection of Indian territory from further Chinese inroads and not for any aggressive purpose. The Chinese Government have, however, derided the purpose and questioned the legitimacy of measures taken by the Government of India in exercise of their right of self-defence, and have even mischievously accused India of intruding into Chinese territory and provoking “bloody conflicts”: The record shows that such “bloody conflicts” as have taken place invariably occurred when Chinese troops, trespassing into Indian territory, ambushed Indian border guards and fired at them. The Indian checkposts, to which the Chinese Government have taken exception are at a distance of over 120 miles inside India from the nearest point on the international border in the east. The Chinese posts in the vicinity, on the other hand, are not only over 100 miles inside Indian territory but even beyond the alignment shown in the 1956 Chinese map about which Premier Chou En-lai said that “it correctly shows the traditional boundary in this sector of Ladakh” (vide Ministry of External Affairs note dated 28th June 1962). As to provocation, there are reports of numerous daily intrusions by Chinese troops deep inside Indian territory. They are incessantly attempting to push forward, spying new ground, clearing roads and setting up new advance posts. While the Chinese army pursues its illegal and provocative activities on Indian territory, the Government of China have made it a practice to send offensive notes as part of their campaign to denigrate India and convey threats. In their latest note, the Government of China have again adopted a menacing attitude and used intemperate language because Indian troops have not been withdrawn from posts south and west of the posts unlawfully set up by Chinese intruders in North Ladakh. Neither threats nor use of offensive language in violation of the usual standards of diplomatic intercourse can alter the basic factual position of progressive Chinese violations of Indian territory particularly since 1957.

The Chinese Government have all along maintained that their forces on the border are preserving the status quo and have stopped forward patrolling. Factually, however, it is clear that they have continued to set up new military posts further inside Indian territory and have built new roads across Indian territory linking these new posts with rear bases (vide Ministry of External Affairs’ Notes dated 6th June and 28th June 1962). A number of instances have already been cited in the Government of India’s note 14th May 1962 when Chinese troops in superior strength maneuvered to encircle small groups of Indian defenders in North Ladakh. These hostile maneuvers have been innocently described in the Chinese note as “normal patrolling”. The record shows that in breach of the solemn covenant entered into by the two countries to respect each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, the Government of China have since 1957 started a process of intrusion and occupation of Indian territory. In 1969-61 while the two sides were engaged in talks and there was a gentleman’s agreement that for the duration of the talks neither sides would push forward and alter the status quo on the border, Chinese troops made further inroads inside Indian territory and set up posts at Nyagzu, Dambuguru and at 78° 12’ E, 35° 19’ N on the Chip Chap river. A full account of these incursions with dates have already been given in the previous notes of the Government of India. The Government of India have time and again made it clear that Indian and Chinese maps confirmed the traditional boundary alignment in this sector right up to recent times. When recent maps published in the People’s Republic of China began to show certain inaccuracies in the boundary alignment in this sector, the attention of the Government of China was drawn to these inaccuracies and they readily gave the assurance that the erroneous maps in question would be corrected in due course. Now these incorrect maps have become blue prints of Chinese aggressive designs. The territory unlawfully occupied by Chinese intruders in Ladakh is not Chinese territory. It has always been, and still is Indian territory. It is absurd for the Government of China to argue that any part of Ladakh had at any time formed

part of Chinese territory or that large tracts of Ladakh ‘always belonged to China’. This is a deliberate mis-statement of facts, which ignores treaty, tradition, facts of geography and actual jurisdiction. There has never been any doubt that the area unlawfully occupied by Chinese forces in Ladakh is part of Indian territory. Trespass and unlawful intrusion do not confer title to territory. To claim, as the Government of China have done, that the area in Ladakh has always belonged to them is to use their own language “palpable distortion of the fact and reversal of right and wrong”. To ease the tension now existing in Northern Ladakh and in conformity with their peaceful aims, the Government of India had renewed their proposal that the two sides should withdraw as an interim measure from the disputed area in Ladakh (i.e. the area between the international boundary shown in official Indian maps and that shown in the 1956 Chinese map). The offer was well-intentioned and it was made in the interests of peace and honourable negotiations between the two countries. It offered the Government of China the use of the road in Aksai Chin for civilian traffic pending a settlement. There can be no question but that the offer was solely prompted by an earnest desire to promote a settlement by peaceful negotiations in consonance with the dignity, self-respect and vital interests of the two countries. That the proposal involved withdrawal of the Chinese forces from larger areas is solely due to the fact that it is the Chinese and not the Indians who have altered the status quo in the area by progressive large scale violations of Indian territory particularly since 1957. Surely the Chinese authorities are aware of this factual position and of the need to restore the status quo to promote the right climate for settlement by peaceful negotiations. The Government of India regret the tone and the contents of the Chinese note which further complicates the problem which the Chinese have themselves created in Ladakh. The Government of India hope that the Chinese authorities will, in the larger interests of peace, reconsider the matter and make a constructive response to the Indian proposal.

The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 8 July 1962 On July 6, about twenty Indian troops intruded into Sinkiang, China, reaching a point at approximately 34 degrees 37 minute 30 second north, 78 degrees 35 minute 30 second east, as deep as about six kilometres inside the Chinese territory in the Galwan valley area and attempting to establish there a new base for aggression. This intrusion of Indian troops is a serious one; by seizing that place, they obviously intended to cut off the only rear route for the Chinese post locate at the lower reaches of the Galwan river and to launch an attack on that Chinese post. Furthermore, the above-mentioned Indian troops, relying on their superiority in numerical strength, made provocations against a small Chinese patrol on the northern bank of the Galwan river; they crossed the Galwan river from the southern bank at 13:00 hours and pressed forward right upto a place only about one hundred metres from the Chinese patrol exercised self-restraint throughout, repeatedly advised the Indian troops against a clash and withdrew a certain distance on their own. Nevertheless, the Indian troops have not stopped their pressing forward on the Chinese patrol and a dangerous situation there is not yet over. The Chinese Government hereby lodges the strongest protest with the Indian Government against the above-mentioned serious intrusion and provocation made by Indian troops. The Chinese Government states once again that while always trying to avoid clashes with the intruding Indian troops the Chinese side will never yield before an ever deeper armed advance by India, nor will China give up its right to selfdefence when unwarrantedly attacked. The Chinese Government hopes that the

Indian Government will fully realize the danger involved in the aforesaid intrusion and provocation by Indian troops and withdraw at once their intruding troops from the Chinese territory. It is hardly necessary to point out that if the Indian troops should persist in their intrusion and provocation, India will be held responsible for all consequences arising therefrom. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 10 July 1962. Of late, Indian troops have continued to intrude into China’s Sinkiang and have further set up four new military strong-points on the Chinese territory. Of these, one is located at approximately 35 degrees 14 minutes north, 78 degrees 9 minutes east, another at approximately 35 degrees 10 minutes north, 78 degrees 12 minutes east, the third at approximately 35 degrees 16 minutes north, 78 degrees 11 minutes east, and the fourth at approximately 35 degrees 25 minutes north, 78 degrees 5 minutes east. The first two strong-points are both as deep as about twelve kilometres, the third as deep as sixteen kilometres and the fourth nearly one kilometre inside the Chinese territory. The aggressive strong-points set up by Indian troops form a threatening encirclement of the Chinese posts. Meanwhile, the Indian side has kept sending more troops to these aggressive strong-points, constructing roads and building fortifications near the strongpoints, constructing roads and building fortifications near the strong-points. Moreover, Indian troops have from time to time sallied out in different directions to harass and provoke Chinese frontier guards. Recently, Indian troops have also established a new military strong-point at approximately 33 degrees 31 minutes and 30 seconds north, 78 degrees 47 minutes east, on the Sino-Indian boundary line west of the Spanggur Lake in China’s Tibet. This and the other strong-point established on the Chinese territory by the Indian side which was referred to in the Chinese Government’s Note of

May 11, 1962, form a pincer threat on the Chinese post in the Spanggur Lake area. Moreover, Indian troops after firing provocative shots at the Chinese post on May 5 and 9, 1962 (see Chinese Government’s Notes of May 11 and 28, 1962) disregarded repeated protests of the Chinese Government and at about 11:40 hours on May 22 for the third time, fired on the said Chinese post from the same direction. It can be seen from these new serious cases that the Indian Government’s denial made in its reply Notes of 21 and 26, 1962, regarding the facts of the Indian troops’ intrusion into this area brought up by the Chinese Government is totally worthless and unworthy of refutation. To the south west of the Kongka Pass, Indian troops have recently built a block house and trenches at approximately 34 degrees 18 minutes north, 78 degrees 59 minutes east on the Sino-Indian boundary close to the Chinese post in the locality and have crossed the boundary to make harassment. Indian aircraft have continually acted in co-ordination with and support of Indian invasion on the ground, frequently intruding into Chinese air space and air dropping supplies to India’s aggressive strong-points established within the Chinese territory. The above-mentioned facts once again show that the Indian Government far from intending to stop its encroachment and harassment on the Chinese territory is expanding and aggravating them. The Indian Government talks glibly about the desire to ‘maintain the status quo’, reach a peaceful settlement’ and so on. But a comparison of its words and deeds shows obviously that it is merely creating a smoke screen for an armed invasion. In its reply Note of June 6, 1962, the Indian Government described a series of Indian intrusions into the Chinese territory as made ‘for the defence of the Indian territory’. In the same Note and that of May 21, it further falsely accused China of ‘daily intruding into Indian territory’ and so forth. These assertions are great mockery intruding into and carrying on armed provocation against China while the Chinese side has always been in the defensive position on its own territory. In his speech in Indian Parliament on June 20, 1962, Prime Minister Nehru unwittingly let out the truth. He stated that to say that China had made ‘a fresh

intrusion’ was ‘hardly correct’ and that is was due to the Indian movements ‘sometimes going behind Chinese positions’ and ‘largely due to the movements’. Is it not clear enough who has incessantly been undermining the status quo and intruding into the other party’s territory and who is creating tension on the SinoIndian border? The Chinese Government strongly protests against the aforesaid fresh activities of intrusion and provocation carried out by Indian troops and once again urges the Indian Government to withdraw immediately from the Chinese territory all its newly established aggressive strong-points and its intruding troops. The Chinese Government categorically rejects the groundless and false accusation levelled by the Indian Government. It reiterates that the Indian Government must bear full responsibility for all grave consequences that may arise from obstinate practices of the Indian side. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 10 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Memorandum, dated the 8th July 1962. The allegations made in the Chinese memorandum are entirely baseless. Indian border forces have regularly been patrolling the Galwan valley. It cannot therefore be true that Chinese troops have infiltrated and set up a post “in the lower reaches of the Galwan valley”. The lower reaches of the Galwan valley are not only well inside Indian territory but also about 28 miles even from the claim line shown in the Chinese 1956 map about which Premier Chou En-lai wrote to the Indian Prime Minister in his letter, dated the 17th November 1959, that “it correctly shows the boundary alignment in this sector of the border”. If as

claimed in the Chinese memorandum reaches of the Galwan river”, it is a serious violation of Indian territory which must be vacated. The Government of India have had for some time a post at approximately 78° 38’ E, 34° 39.45’ N which is 10½ miles west and beyond the claim line shown in the Chinese map of 1956. The Indian post is located there for the legitimate defence of Indian territory. The Chinese memorandum has falsely charged that Indian border guards “made provocations” against a Chinese patrol on the north bank of the Galwan river, that the border guards crossed to the north bank at 1300 hours and went to within one hundred metres of the Chinese patrol, that the Chinese patrol thereupon ‘exercised self-restraint and repeatedly advised the Indian troops to avoid a clash’. On detailed verification it has been found that Indian border guards had not, as alleged, encountered any Chinese patrol on and up to 9th July 1962. However, more than 48 hours after the dispatch of the Chinese memo., i.e., at 0930 hours IST on 10th July 1962, a party of 25 Chinese soldiers took up position 200 yards opposite the Indian post. Ten minutes later the first party was reinforced by another party of 40-45 Chinese soldiers. These Chinese intruders immediately started to prepare for hostile action. A batch of Chinese soldiers soon after went from the rear up to within 75 yards of the Indian post, where they occupied a position astride the track leading to the Indian post. At 1800 hours the same day 300 more Chinese soldiers arrived and encircled the Indian post from the east, south and west. They moved up threateningly to within 50 to 70 yards of the post. The Government of India register a most emphatic protest against the threat posed to the Indian post by Chinese intruders. It is clear from the facts stated above that the Government of China have preferred entirely baseless allegations against Indian border guards making it appear as though the latter were in pursuit of the Chinese intruders. It is significant that after they had made these false and mischievous allegations about an imaginary encounter between the Indian border guards and Chinese intruders, large bodies of Chinese troops moved to take up hostile positions and to encircle the Indian post.

The Government of India lodge an emphatic protest against this unwarranted aggressive activity of the local Chinese forces and in view of the factual position stated above reject the Chinese memorandum of 8th July 1962. If any Chinese patrol has erroneously infiltrated into the “lower reaches of the Galwan river”, it must return to its base. At the same time the Government of China should strop the incessant intrusions deeper inside Indian territory and ceaseless provocative activities against Indian border guards. Time and again Indian border guards have exercised the utmost restraint in the face of grave provocations and attempts at encirclement by Chinese troops. There can be no doubt that the present situation in Ladakh has developed as a result of the aggressive activities systematically pursued by Chinese forces in Indian territory. If any untoward incident should now occur, the responsibility for it would entirely rest on the Government of China. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India the assurances of their highest considerations. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 12 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Ministry of External Affairs Note, dated 6th June 1962, in which it was pointed out that “carefully verified reports from . . . . . Ladakh show that Chinese troops are daily intruding into Indian territory, pushing forward in trucks and jeeps, blasting the mountain side with heavy explosives, constructing military bases and extending the military bases already set up”. The aggressive activities referred to above have led in recent weeks to the establishment of a number of new Chinese posts deep inside Indian territory. The particulars of these posts are given below:-

A

Chip Chap River Region 1. Post at 78° 08’ E, 35° 28’ N: This post is not only well inside Indian territory but also 2½ miles even beyond the claim line shown in the Chinese map of 1956. 2. Post at 78° 08’ E, 35° 29.45’ N: This post is 4 miles south of the international boundary in this sector. 3. Post at 78° 07’ E, 35° 24’ N: This post is not only well inside Indian territory but 6 miles further west from the claim line shown in the Chinese map of 1956. 4. Post at 78° 10’ E, 35° 20.30’ N: This post is not only well inside Indian territory but 6 miles south-west of the claim line shown in the Chinese map of 1956. 5. Post at 78° 11’ E, 35° 18’ N: This post is not only well inside Indian territory but also 9 miles further south-west from the nearest post on the claim line shown in the Chinese map of 1956. 6. Post at 78° 12’ E, 35° 16.30’ N: This post is not only well inside Indian territory but also 9 miles further south-west from the nearest point on the claim line shown in the Chinese map of 1956. 7. Post at 78° 15’ E, 35° 15.30’ N: This post is not only well inside Indian territory but also about 12 miles further south-west from the nearest point on the claim line shown in the Chinese map of 1956.

B.

Chang Chenmo Valley Region 8. Post at 79° 02’ E, 34° 17’ N: This post is more than 30 miles west of the international border in this sector.

C.

Spanggur Region 9. Post at 78° 50.30’ E, 33° 44.30’ N: This post is 12 miles beyond the international border in this sector.

Thus as many as 6 out of the 9 new Chinese posts referred to above are not only well inside Indian territory but well beyond even the boundary alignment claimed by the Government of China, in their 1956 map, about which Premier Chou En-lai

wrote in his letter, dated 17th December 1959 to the Prime Minister of India that “it (the 1956 map) correctly shows the traditional boundary between the two countries”. Although this 1956 Chinese alignment is itself fallacious and untenable the fact that Chinese forces have pushed even beyond it is indicative of China’s unlimited territorial ambitions in the region. These new Chinese posts, deep inside Indian territory, constitute further serious violations of India’s territorial integrity. Not only are Chinese forces now poised in menacing proximity to existing Indian posts in the area, but their incessant aggressive and provocative activities are increasing tension and, if not restrained, may create a clash at any moment. Recent Chinese moves have again given the lie to their much vaunted claims of maintaining the status quo on the border and of not sending forward patrols. The Government of India while lodging a strong protest against the establishment of these new Chinese posts urgently call upon the Government of China, in the interests of peace and good neighbourly relations, to withdraw from Indian territory and restore the status quo on the border as it prevailed until the Chinese aggressive activities in the last few years. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 13 July 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the Indian troops’ intrusion into the Galwan Valley in China’s Sinkiang in a deliberate attempt to provoke an armed clash, states again the following: The Chinese Government lodged a strongest protest on July 8, 1962, against the Indian troops’ flagrant intrusion on July 6, 1962, into the Galwan Valley in China’s

Sinkiang, cutting off the route of a Chinese post to its rear and making armed provocations against a Chinese patrol, and demanded that the Indian troops so as to avoid any unfortunate incident. The Indian side, however, has turned a deaf ear to the Chinese Government’s solemn warning and demand. Far from withdrawing its troops from Chinese territory up to now, the Indian side has actively reinforced its troops, tightened its encirclement of the Chinese post and patrol in preparation for an armed provocation at any time. In the three days from July 7 to 9, Indian reinforcements kept arriving at the Indian military strong point at 34° 37’ 30’ N, 78° 35’ 30” E. On July 10, Indian troops in three groups advanced further on the northern bank of the Galwan River to occupy positions and close in on the Chinese patrol, coming as near as 50 metres. On July 11, two Indian helicopters flew reinforcements to the aggressive strong point and circled over the vicinity at a low altitude for reconnaissance and intimidation against the Chinese post and patrolmen. On the same day, a detachment of the Indian troops moved down along the Galwan River for about nine kilometers and set up a new aggressive strong point there, thus further threatening the security of the Chinese post whose rear route had already been cut off. By now, the above-mentioned Chinese post has lost touch with the rear for as long as eight days, and the Chinese patrol is besieged by Indian troops of superior strength. The Chinese Government solemnly demands once again that the Indian troops immediately stop their provocations and threats against the Chinese frontier guards and withdraw from Chinese territory at once. The Chinese Government has just received the Indian Government’s note, dated July 10, 1962 and cannot but express great indignation at the attitude shown in it. While admitting that Indian troops have set up a military strong point in the Galwan Valley, the Indian Government has distorted the facts in an attempt to shirk its responsibility for intruding into Chinese territory and threatening Chinese frontier guards. The Indian Government asserts that there is no Chinese post on the lower reaches of the Galwan River and that Indian forces have regularly been patrolling

the Galwan Valley and have established a post there since long ago. This is entirely groundless. The plain fact is that the Chinese post has been there since long ago and is located at approximately 34° 42’ N, 78° 26’ E, while Indian troops had never been to the Galwan Valley in China before, let alone setting up a post there. As late as July 4, 1962 when a patrol sent by the above-mentioned Chinese post last patrolled the upper reaches of the River, no sign of any Indian troops or post was yet found. The Indian troops invaded this area only after July 4, 1962. It was only on its return after fulfilling a patrol task on July 6 that the Chinese patrol was hindered by the Indian post which had just been set up at 34° 37’ 30” N, 78° 35’ 30” E. This is an established and unchangeable fact. If India had earlier set up a strong point there (34° 39.45’ N, 78° 38’ E, as asserted in the Indian note), how could Chinese frontier guards get through the path controlled by the strong point to set up the post on the lower reaches of the Galwan River? In its note the Indian Government has repeated its customary method of describing the Indian troop intrusions as “legitimate defence of Indian territory” on the pretext that “the lower reaches of the Galwan Valley are not only well inside Indian territory but also about 28 miles even from the claim-line shown in the Chinese 1956 map”. This trick has long been repeatedly exposed and repudiated by the Chinese Government. As part of the whole Aksai Chin area, the lower reaches of the Galwan Valley have always been by Premier Chou En-lai and cited by the Chinese side during the meeting of the officials of the two countries, and the map handed over by the Chinese side during the meeting of the officials of the two countries in 1960 shown this area as within China. The delineations map of China is in full conformity with the boundary line which China has consistently pointed out. The Indian assertion about inconsistency in the Chinese Government’s position is a sheer slander. It is entirely a fact that on July 6 the Indian troops, as pointed out in the Chinese Government’s memorandum of July 8, came within 100 metres to make provocations against the Chinese patrol. Yet the Indian Government falsely alleged that the Indian troops had not encountered any Chinese patrol on and

upto July 9. Especially surprising is the fact that the Indian Government even fabricated the entirely groundless story that allegedly three to four hundred Chinese soldiers encircled the Indian post from three to four hundred Chinese soldiers encircled the Indian post from three directions and thereupon lodged a most emphatic protest with the Chinese Government. So unscrupulous has become the Indian Government in order to relieve the Indian troops of their responsibility. Facts can in no way be covered up. The Chinese Government categorically rejects the unwarranted charge and protest of the Indian Government. Since last spring, Indian troops have continually intruded into Chinese territory in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, established a series of aggressive strong points and made repeated provocations against Chinese frontier guards. In his speeches made in the Indian Parliament on June 20, 21 and 23, 1962, Prime Minister Nehru again and again boasted about the many new posts established by the Indian troops, saying that those posts “give us (India) certain advantage”. He openly admitted: “Our (India’s) movements sometimes go behind the Chinese positions”. The Chinese Government has lodged repeated protests against these Indian aggressive activities. Yet the Indian side has turned a deaf ear to them. There are many signs indicating that Indian activities in the western sector of the boundary in the past few months have been fully planned and systematic. India aims not only to assert its territorial claims on China by armed force, but also deliberately to provoke a military clash on the border so as to create an anti-Chinese atmosphere. Proceeding from the desire of maintaining friendship between the two countries and settling the boundary question peacefully, the Chinese Government has all along exercised forbearance and selfrestraint. The Chinese Government is extremely unwilling to see any unfortunate incident occurring on the Sino-Indian border. But if the Indian side should be compelled to defend itself, the Indian side would have to bear the whole responsibility.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 14 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs note, dated the 10th July 1962. It has been repeatedly pointed out in note after note from the Government of India that since 1957 the Government of China have started a process of intrusion and occupation of Indian territory. This process continued unabated even during the officials’ talks when it was expected that the two sides would not push forward or send it was expected that the two sides would not push forward or send out patrols. By September 1961, Chinese forces had made further advances into Indian territory and had set up three new posts as cited in Government of India’s note of 31st October 1961. Thereafter, they continued to push forward and set up more posts in Indian territory as cited in the Government of India’s notes of 15th April 1962, 21st May 1962. 16th June 1962, 28th June 1962 and 12th July 1962. Thus, in recent months, Chinese intruders have set up no less than 13 new posts in Indian territory. The Government of India could not ignore the threat to the security and territorial integrity of India posed by Chinese forces advancing and illegally occupying Indian territory. They had to take necessary measures for the defence of Indian territory. These measures taken in Indian territory are, however, purely for defensive purposes and threaten no one. As to the Indian posts cited in the Chinese note, although the references given are not all correct, it is true that the Government of India have some posts in that

general location. All these posts are, however, well within Indian territory and are there for the purpose cited in the preceding paragraph. Even assuming that the bearings given in the Chinese note are correct, these posts are not only well inside Indian territory but 20 to 25 miles west and beyond even of the claim line shown in the Chinese map of 1956 about which Premier Chou En-lai wrote to the Prime Minister of India in his letter, dated the 17th November 1959 that “it correctly shows the traditional border between the two countries in this sector”. As the Government of China aware, this claim line in the Chinese map of 1956 has been rejected by the Government of India and detailed reasons for this position have been given by the Indian officials in the report of the talks between officials. The fact, however, that the Chinese authorities are now attempting to cover up their intrusions into Indian territory by protesting against Indian posts which are not only well inside Indian territory but several miles west even of the claim line in 1956 Chinese maps shows beyond doubt the aggressive and expansionist policy of the Chinese authorities. The Government of India have repeatedly made it clear that their objectives are peaceful. They have no intention to embroil themselves in hostilities and armed clashes. The Government of India hope that the Chinese authorities would carefully consider the contentions in the various notes presented by the Government of India, revise their policy and peacefully withdraw from Indian territory which they are unlawfully occupying. It is false and mischievous to suggest that Indian troops have at any time threatened to encircle Chinese posts. There has not been to date a single incident of such encirclement. On the contrary, Chinese forces have set up new posts in the vicinity of Indian posts in order to encircle and harass them. The Chinese posts at 78° 08’ E, 35° 28’ N, 78° 12’ E, 35° 16.30’ N and 78° 15’ E, 35° 15.30’ N have been deliberately set up in Indian territory to encircle and harass the Indian post in that general location. More recently, Chinese troops have taken similar aggressive action against an Indian post in the Galwan valley (vide Ministry of External Affairs note, dated 10th July 1962).

The Chinese note makes a reference to road construction and fortifications by Indian troops in north Ladakh. It is the intruding Chinese forces who have incessantly carried on aggressive activities, constructed numerous roads and built fortified posts in Indian territory. In the face of these activities, Government of India had to take such minimum precautions as they considered necessary to stop further Chinese encroachment on Indian territory. The Chinese note has referred to an Indian post 33° 31.30’ N, 78° 47 E. This post is not only in Indian territory but it is even beyond any boundary claim in this region made by the Chinese authorities in the past. As the Government of China are aware, the international boundary in this sector of the border cuts across the eastern part of Spanggur lake and follows the northern and eastern watershed of the Indus. It is the Chinese Government who have violated Indian territory by setting up posts at 78° 52.30’ E, 33° 30’ N and 78° 48’ E, 33° 34’ N in Indian territory. Indian posts in the area are not threatening anyone but are there only to exercise normal vigilance against any further Chinese intrusions into Indian territory. It is an entirely baseless allegation that they fired shots at the heavily fortified Chinese post at Spanggur. That this allegation is absurd is clear from the fact that no one would fire at a post which is more than five miles away. It is obvious that such baseless allegations against Indian troops are being repeated merely to cover up Chinese aggressive plans in this area. There is no Indian post at 34° 18’ N, 78° 59’ E as mischievously alleged in the Chinese note. In any case, this location is well within Indian territory. It is the Government of China who have made a fresh intrusion into this area and set up a new post in Indian territory at 79° 02’ E, 34° 17’ N, 30 miles beyond the international border in this sector (vide Ministry of External Affairs note, dated the 12th July 1962). Indian aircraft have never violated Chinese air space. Indian maintenance aircraft fly on legitimate duty well inside Indian air space. In contrast, Chinese aircraft have on innumerable occasions violated Indian air space and carried out provocative activities.

The Chinese Government have made an out of context reference to the Indian Prime Minister’s reply to a debate in Parliament. What the Prime Minister of India conveyed in his reply in Parliament on 20th June 1962 was that Chinese intrusions into Indian territory which had taken place in the immediately preceding months were not on the same scale as the earlier ones from 1957-60 which involved “over 12,000 square miles of Indian territory”. It is a fact that Chinese forces are still attempting to nibble away at Indian territory but they are obviously unable to make the same deep inroads into Indian territory as they did from 1957 to 1960 because Indian posts and patrols are now standing guard against such intrusions. The process of intrusion and occupation of Indian territory started by the Government of China, since 1957, had been, by and large, brought to a halt. In the light of the facts stated above the Government of India reject the Chinese note of 10th July 1962. It is for the Government of China to call a halt to their aggressive activities and peacefully withdraw their forces from Indian territory. At the same time, the Government of India must urge that immediate steps be taken to end the recent menacing and provocative activities of Chinese forces against Indian posts in Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 16 July 1962 The Indian troops have lately set up another three aggressive strong points in Ari, Tibet, China, one at approximately 33 degrees 44 minutes north, 78 degrees 51 minutes east near Sirijap on the northern bank of the Pangong Lake, about two kilometres within Chinese territory, another at Yula (approximately 33 degrees 41 minutes north, 78 degrees 52 minutes east) on the southern bank of the Pangong lake over ten kilometers within China; and the third at approximately 34 degrees

3 minutes north, 78 degrees 43 minutes east, northwest of Nyagzu and about five kilometers within China. Taking advantage of the fact that the Pangong lake is astride of the boundary, the Indian side has moreover kept sending motorboats in intrude into part of the lake within China, making wanton harassment and bringing men and material to support its newly established aggressive strong points. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest with the Indian Government against these serious new intrusions and provocations by India. Since last April, Indian troops have set up a series of aggressive strong points at various places in the Chinese border area in the Western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary and recently even created a dangerous situation in the Galwan valley in Sinkiang in which an unfortunate incident may occur at any time. Now Indian troops again set up strong points in the Pangong lake area and the Nyagzu area within China and carried out provocations there. This shows that India’s aggressive activities against China along the entire western sector of the boundary have grown most fanatic. Already more than once the Chinese Government has shown forbearance to Indian troop intrusions and provocations. The Indian side will make a fatal mistake if it should think that China is flabby and can be bullied in view of her self-restraint and forbearance and persist in its act of playing with fire in an attempt to assert its territorial claims by armed force. The Chinese Government sternly demand that the Indian Government immediately withdraw its aggressive strongpoints and stop all its intrusions and provocations. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 22 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to state that on 21st July 1962 an Indian patrol in the region of Chip Chap river area, while performing routine patrol duties within Indian territory was attacked by Chinese troops with light

machine mortar and rifle fire resulting in the wounding of two members of the Indian patrol. Our patrol exercised extreme restraint and did not return fire. Later, however, in the face of continuing firing by the Chinese, they were forced to return the fire in self defence. On the same day, in the region of the Pangong lake Chinese troops fired at another Indian party. In spite of grave provocation, Indian forces exercised great self-restraint and did not return the fire. The Government of India had warned the Chinese Embassy as late as July 12 that the establishment of Chinese posts deep within Indian territory apart from being a violation of the territorial integrity of this country was also aggravating tension in that area and increasing the risk of a clash. The Government of India strongly protest at the aggressive action taken by the Chinese forces both in the Chip Chap river area and in the Pangong lake area. The Government of India deplore the continuing border tension in this area arising out of continuing provocations from Chinese forces and would urge the Chinese Government to issue orders to Chinese troops in the area to refrain from provocative armed action and to withdraw from Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 24 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ notes dated the 13th and 16th July, 1962.

As has been stated earlier in this Ministry’s note of 10th July an Indian post is located for the legitimate defence of Indian territory at E 78° 38’ N, 34° 39.45’ and not E 78° 35.30’ N, 34° 37.30’ as mentioned in the Chinese note. The Chinese allegations that reinforcements were sent to this post from 7-9th July, that on 10th July Indian troops advanced in three groups towards the north bank of the Galwan river and that two helicopters flew over the area on the 11th July are unfounded. The allegation that on 11th July a detachment of Indian troops moved down the Galwan river for about 9 kilometres and set up a new aggressive strongpoint is equally baseless. On the contrary, it is the Chinese forces who have as stated in this Ministry’s note of 10th July made aggressive and threatening moves against the Indian post and are interfering with its communications and supplies. The Government of India hope that this interference will cease and the Chinese forces will withdraw peacefully to the east of the international frontier in this region. The note of the Chinese Government that their patrol on its return after fulfilling a patrol task in a rear area was hindered by the Indian post on July 6th is without foundation. In their Memorandum of July 8th the Chinese Government vaguely referred to this post as “a post on the lower reaches of the Galwan”. It was only on the 13th of July that coordinates of the post have been given. It appears that the Chinese allegations are an obvious attempt to confuse the issue and to find an excuse for establishing an aggressive base in that area. The Indian Government have observed that in the Chinese note of 13th July after stating “both the 1956 map of China” and “the map handed over by the Chinese side during the meeting of the officials of the two countries in 1960 show this area as within China” the Chinese note goes on to maintain that the delineation of the Western Sector of the boundary in the above mentioned 1956 map of China is in full conformity with the boundary lines which China has consistently pointed out. That this contention is incorrect is clear from the fact that the Indian side at the Officials Conference referring to the 1956 and 1960 maps of the Chinese Government had stated that “the Indian side noted that the Chinese side were unable to explain the discrepancies between the alignment shown in this Sector

on the 1956 map and authoritatively confirmed by Premier Chou En-lai in 1959, and that shown in the map provided by the Chinese side at these meetings. The latter map showed an alignment which ran due east from the Karakoram Pass rather than south-east as in the 1956 map, and then, making a sudden turn southward, it cut across the Upper Shyok or Chip Chap river, the Galwan river, and the Changlung river to reach the Kongka Pass It did not run between the Shyok and the Qara Qash as the 1956 map had done. In the Pangong region, instead of leaving the entire western half of the lake in India as in the 1956 map, it cut across the Western Pangong Lake.” It is obvious that the Chinese authorities are either themselves confused or are deliberately confusing the question of the international frontier in this region. So far as the Government of India are concerned, the only frontier recognised by them is the international frontier that has been clearly established and indicated in the maps that have been handed over to the Chinese Government of Indian side at the meetings of the officials of the two Governments. The Chinese Note of July 16th refers to three Indian posts in Indian territory west of the international frontier. These are for defensive purposes and have been necessitated by continuing Chinese aggressive activities in the area. The Indian Government share the desire of the Chinese Government to see that no unfortunate incident takes place on the Indo-Chinese border and hopes that the Chinese Government will issue instructions to the Chinese forces in the area to desist from harassing Indian military posts established purely for the defence of Indian territory in this region and to withdraw to points outside Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 20 November 1961

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy of China and, with reference to the note of the Ministry of External Affairs of India to the Chinese Embassy in India dated September 19, 1961, has the honour to state as follows: With regard to the question of the western extremity of the Sino-Burmese boundary, the Indian Government, basing itself on its own distortion of the SinoBurmese Boundary Treaty and the Attached Maps, has on four successive occasions raised objection to the Chinese Government. Despite the fact that the Chinese Government has repeatedly given exhaustive explanations to the Indian Government, the Indian Government has persisted in its position of trying to impose on others the alignment claimed by the Indian side and continued to make unreasonable haggling. Under these circumstances, it would indeed be meaningless to continue the present exchange of notes. The Chinese Government only wishes to reiterate the following: No specific provisions are made in the Sino-Burmese Boundary Treaty regarding the exact location of the western extremity of the Sino-Burmese boundary, which is at the same time the trijunction of China, Burma and India. This is out of the consideration that the SinoIndian boundary has not yet been formally delimited, and there is a dispute between China and India over the boundary question. Once the Sino-Indian boundary is formally delimited through negotiation, as the Chinese Government has consistently desired, the question of the western extremity of the SinoBurmese boundary will be finally settled along with it. It is not difficult to see that the above-described way of dealing with the question in the Sino-Burmese Boundary Treaty is reasonable and appropriate, and does not affect at all the respective positions held by the Chinese and the Indian sides on the Sino-Indian boundary. The Chinese Government cannot but express deep regret at the fact that the Indian Government has repeatedly made unreasonable charges. It its note of September 19, 1961, the Indian Government once again tried to defend its unilaterally claimed alignment and the British imperialist activities of aggression against China. The Chinese Government has long ago thoroughly refuted these hackneyed arguments and there is no need to repeat here. But it

has to be pointed out that in its note, the Indian Government flagrantly slandered the Chinese Government as having “aggressive designs and imperialist ambitions.” Violating the Five Principles and “unauthorisedly occupying large areas of Indian territory”. The Chinese Government hereby strongly protests against these wanton slanders and provocations on the part of the Indian Government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 10 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to state that according to a communiqué issued by the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the 3rd May 1962, the Governments of China and Pakistan have entered into an agreement “to locate and align their common border”. As the Government of China are aware there is no common border between Pakistan and the People’s Republic of China. It is the India China boundary which starts from the tri-junction of the boundaries of India, China and Afghanistan at approximately long 74° 34’ E and Lat. 37° 3’ N and runs eastward upto the trijunction of the boundaries of India, Burma and China. There has never been any doubt that the sovereignty over the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir, including that part which is under Pakistan’s unlawful occupation vests solely in the Indian Union. The Government of India had so far believed that the Government of the People’s Republic of China had accepted this basic position without any reservation. This was confirmed by Premier Chou-Enlai when he stated to the Indian Ambassador in Peking on March 16, 1956 “that the people of Kashmir’s accession to India. The same impression was gained at

the meeting between the Secretary General of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and the Chinese Prime Minister in July 1961. At that time it seemed that the Government of China still acknowledged the final accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union. The Government of India are in view of this background, surprised that the Government of People’s Republic of China should have suddenly decided to enter into an international agreement to negotiate the boundary of that part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir which is Pakistan. This is reversal of the attitude of the Government of the People’s Republic of China in regard to India’s sovereignty over the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir and is obviously a step in furtherance of the aggressive aims that China has been pursuing towards India in recent years. In lodging an emphatic protest with the Government of the People’s Republic of China for this interference with the sovereignty of India over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Government of India solemnly warns the Government of China that any change provisional or otherwise, in the status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir brought about by third parties which seeks to submit certain parts of Indian territory to foreign jurisdiction will not be binding on the Government of India and that the Government of India firmly repudiate any agreements provisional or otherwise regarding her own territories arrived at between third parties who have no legal or constitutional locus standi of any kind. It is clear that the Government of China are in this matter acting in furtherance of their aggressive designs and are seeking to exploit the troubled situation in Kashmir and India’s differences with Pakistan for their advantage. The Government of India will hold the Government of China responsible for the consequences of their action. The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of the opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 31 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the Note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese Government dated the 20th November 1961 have the honour to state as follows: It is strange that the Chinese Government should continue ad infinitum to contend that the Sino-Indian boundary at the tri-junction of China, Burma and India has not been finally settled or that the Diphu pass has not been shown as the western extremity in the Sino-Burmese Boundary Treaty and its attached maps. The latter contention goes against the concrete evidence available in the text of the Sino-Burmese Boundary Treaty, and more particularly the first sheet of the map attached to the Treaty which is explicitly captioned “the map showing the entire boundary between Burma and China”. The northern and eastern boundary of India is traditionally well known and well recognised and requires no further definition. The Government of China, adopting an unhistorical and subjective view, have sought to exploit the opportunity offered by the China-Burma Boundary Treaty to raise a non-existent dispute in this sector of the Sino-Indian boundary which has been firmly fixed. The Government of India wish to make it clear that they cannot accept this unhistorical and subjective stand taken by the Government of China. The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 31 May 1962

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the note of the Ministry of External Affairs of India dated May 10, 1962, has the honour to state the following: 1- The Indian Government in its note has gone to the length of lodging a protest with the Chinese Government against Sino-Pakistan negotiations for a provisional boundary agreement and wantonly slandering and intimidating China. The Chinese Government categorically rejects the unjustifiable protest of the Indian Government and, from the Indian Government’s completely unreasonable attitude of imposing its will on others, cannot but draw with regret the conclusion that the Indian Government is bent on making use of the Sino-Pakistan negotiations to whip up anti-Chinese sentiments and aggravate the tension between China and India. 2- The Indian note alleges that the Chinese Government accepted without reservation the position that Kashmir is under Indian sovereignty, that there is no common boundary between China and Pakistan, and that therefore China has no right to conduct boundary negotiations with Pakistan. This allegation is totally untenable. When did the Chinese Government accept without any reservation the position that Kashmir is under Indian sovereignty? The Indian Government could not cite any official Chinese document to prove this arbitrary contention but, basing itself solely on the guesswork and impression of Indian diplomatic officials who have been to China, insisted that Chinese Government authorities had made statements to that effect. This is not only a unilateral misrepresentation of the fact but a conclusion imposed on others, to which the Chinese Government categorically objects. There is a boundary of several hundred kilometres between China’s Sinkiang and the areas the defence of which is under the control of Pakistan, and it has never been formally delimited and demarcated. If one does not shut his eyes to the facts, how can be assert that there is no common boundary between China and Pakistan? Since both China and Pakistan are

sovereign states, why cannot China conduct negotiations with Pakistan to settle the question of the actually existing common boundary so as to maintain tranquillity on the border and amity between the two countries? Long before it agreed with the Government of Pakistan to negotiate the boundary question, the Chinese Government had repeatedly proposed, and now still proposes, to conduct negotiations with the Indian Government for the settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. But the Indian Government has again and again turned down China’s proposal consequently the Sino-Indian boundary question. But the Indian Government has again and again turned down China’s proposal consequently the Sino-Indian boundary question remains unsettled and the situation on the SinoIndian boundary question remains unsettled and the situation on the Sino-Indian border becomes increasingly tense. Now the Indian Government not only refuses itself to negotiate a settlement of the boundary question with China, but object to China’s negotiating a boundary settlement with Pakistan. Does it mean that the Indian Government, after creating the Sino-Indian boundary dispute, wishes to see a similar dispute arise between China and Pakistan? 3- The boundary negotiations between China and Pakistan do not at all involve the question of the ownership of Kashmir. The agreement between the Governments of China and Pakistan made it crystal clear that after the settlement of the dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir the sovereign authorities concerned shall reopen negotiations with the Chinese Government on the question of the Kashmir boundary so as to conclude a formal boundary treaty to replace the provisional agreement to be signed after the Sino-Pakistan negotiations. The signing of such an agreement will only help maintain tranquillity on the existing boundary between China and Pakistan and will in no way prejudice a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. The Indian Government is wholly unjustified in objecting to boundary negotiations between China and Pakistan on the pretext of the Kashmir dispute.

4- With regard to the Kashmir dispute, it has been the consistent position of the Chinese Government to be impartial and to wish that India and Pakistan will reach a peaceful settlement. This has been and still is, the Chinese position. The Indian Government is clearly aware of this. Suffice it to point out the fact that Premier Chou En-lai declared at a press conference in Calcutta on December 9, 1956, that the Chinese Government considered the Kashmir question “an outstanding issue between India and Pakistan”. Furthermore, Premier Chou Enlai, together with the late Prime Minister Bandaranaike of Ceylon, made an appeal in their joint statement issued on February 5, 1957, to India and Pakistan to strive further for a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir question. This attitude of the Chinese Government of never getting involved in the dispute over Kashmir can in no way be distorted and is well-known throughout the world. 5- The Chinese Government has always refrained from making any remarks on the historical background of the Kashmir question. Nevertheless, the Kashmir question is after all a dispute between two legal governments, those of India and of Pakistan. China has diplomatic relations with India and also with Pakistan, and India, too, has diplomatic relations with Pakistan. The Chinese Government only hopes that this dispute between India and Pakistan will be settled by them peacefully, and has always been against anyone taking advantage of it to sow discord in the relations between the two countries. So far as China is concerned, nothing would be better than a peaceful settlement of this dispute by India and Pakistan through negotiation. However, more than ten years have passed and despite the best wishes and expectations all along cherished by China, this dispute between India and Pakistan remains unsettled. In these circumstances, anyone with common sense can understand that the Chinese Government cannot leave unsettled indefinitely its boundary of several hundred kilometres with the areas the defence of which is under the control of Pakistan merely because there is a dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. It is entirely necessary, proper, legitimate and in accordance with international practice for the Chinese Government to agree with the Government of Pakistan to negotiate a provisional agreement concerning this boundary pending a final settlement of the Kashmir

question. What fault can be found with this? Yet in the note the Indian Government rudely slanders the Chinese Government’s agreeing to open negotiations with Pakistan as taking advantage of difference between India and Pakistan and committing aggression against India. But unreasonable assertions can never hold water. The fact, on the contrary, is that the Indian Government itself is seeking to make use of the boundary question to sow discord in the relations between China and Pakistan. On May 7, 1962, Prime Minister Nehru openly admitted in the Indian Parliament that “we treated the Pakistan Government in a friendly way in these matters because we thought that any action which they might take should be in line with the action we were taking in regard to this border and should not conflict”. Small wonder that the Indian Government should get so excited about Sino-Pakistan negotiations. Its scheme to sow discord in the relations between China and Pakistan has failed. 6- The excitement of the Indian Government will only bring results contrary to its expectations. Anyone in the world with common sense will ask: Since the Burmese and Nepalese Governments can settle their boundary questions with China in a friendly way through negotiations and since the Government of Pakistan has also agreed with the Chinese Government to negotiate a boundary settlement, why is it that the Indian Government cannot negotiate and settle its boundary question with the Chinese Government? Such a common-sense query is indeed rather embarrassing. But it is useless to get furious with China. As in the past, the Chinese Government still stands for a friendly settlement of the SinoIndian boundary question through peaceful negotiations. The Indian Government’s unenviable situation on this matter is of its own making. For example, the Indian Government’s note says: “It is the India-China boundary which starts from the tri-junction of the boundaries of India, China and Afghanistan. . . . . . . and runs eastward upto the tri-junction of the boundaries of India, Burma and China”. Pray, what kind of an assertion is that? Not only are the areas the defence of which is under the control of Pakistan negated, but even Nepal no longer exists, Sikkim no longer exists, and Bhutan no longer exists. This

is out-and-out great-power chauvinism. The Indian Government should realize that it is now in the sixties of the 20th century and that the cursed era in which great powers controlled everything has gone for ever. Anyone who persists in an attitude of great-power chauvinism in international affairs will always knock his head against a stone wall. 7 - The Chinese Government is deeply convinced that it is a good thing to hold boundary negotiations between China and Pakistan, which are in the interests of both friendship among Asian countries and peace in Asia. NO slander of any kind can ever distort this fact. T he position of the Chinese Government is not difficult for any reasonable person to understand. One who tries to make use of SinoPakistan negotiations to whip up anti-Chinese sentiments will only be lifting a rock to crush his own toes in the end. The Chinese Government hopes that the Indian Government will coolly think it over: Would it not be better to make some earnest effort towards a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question, rather than wasting its strength in such fruitless quarrel? The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 30 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Government of Chinas note dated 31st May, 1962, regarding Sino-Pakistan agreement “to locate and align” their “common boundary”. The Government of China have made an attempt to minimise the grave implications of the step they have taken to enter into negotiations with Pakistan

for the demarcation of Indian territory, and have also brushed aside the legitimate and well-founded objections of the Government of India in this regard as “wanton slander” and “intimidation”. The Government of India deplore the use of such expressions which cannot, however, lessen the Government of China’s responsibility for having taken a calculated step which is bound to further aggravate tension in the area. It has been argued by the Government of China that “they cannot indefinitely leave unsettled their boundary of several hundred kilometers with the areas the defence of which is under the control of Pakistan merely because there is a dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir”. To justify their untenable move, the Government of China have emphasised a particular necessity which in fact does not exist. There is no boundary dispute in this sector of the Sino-Indian boundary and no urgency for a fresh settlement over it. Even in 1847, the Government of China had informed the British Government that as the boundary in this sector was sufficiently and distinctly fixed there was no need for any additional measures for refixing it. The initiative in this matter was for political reasons taken by the Government of Pakistan who had committed aggression in Kashmir. Though the Chinese Government had not responded to this initiative earlier, it is clear that they decided to do so now for possible political advantage to be obtained by exploiting the Indo-Pakistan differences in this matter. The position stated in the preceding paragraph is confirmed by the earlier Chinese attempts to exploit Indo-Pakistan differences. On 23rd May, 1959, the Chinese Ambassador in New Delhi had mentioned to the Indian Foreign Secretary that India could not afford to have “two fronts” against her. Now the Government of China have brought the “two fronts” together against India to further the territorial ambitions of Pakistan and China. It is patent that the Government of China have now taken a new stand on the legal status of Kashmir. Hitherto, while not formally declaring their official stand on the status of Kashmir, they had, perhaps with mental reservations of their own, given the impression on a number of occasions that they had, by an large, accepted India’s basic position in Kashmir. At other times, they had declared

themselves against any third party interference in the situation created by Pakistan’s aggression in Kashmir. On March 16, 1956, Premier Chou En-lai told the Indian Ambassador in Peking that “the people of Kashmir have already expressed their will”. Again on 16th July 1961, at the talks between Premier Chou-En-lai and the Secretary-General of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, Premier Chou En-lai stated that “Pakistan had formally proposed border talks” but emphasised that the Chinese Government “have not discussed with them anything so far”. In the same discussions, Premier Chou En-lai went on to ask the Secretary-General, “Can you cite any document to show that we have ever said that Kashmir is not a part of India?” Now this position has been reversed. The Chinese note under reply asks, “Can you cite any document to show that we have ever said that Kashmir is a part of India?” The issue in Kashmir is one of Pakistan’s aggression, and there is no room in this for any third party intervention. That, as the Chinese note states, had been acknowledged in the Chinese Premier’s press conference in Calcutta on 9th December 1956 and in the joint statement of Premier Chou En-lai and the late Prime Minister of Ceylong Mr. Bandarnaike of 5th February 1957. At a press conference in Karachi on December 24, 1956, Premier Chou En-lai correctly observed “I hope Pakistan and India will settle this question directly between themselves”. The advice given by Premier Chou En-lai in his various statements refer to the situation created by Pakistan’s aggression in Kashmir and do not question India’s sovereignty based on the State’s accession to India. Again, in the joint statement issued by Premier Chou En-lai went on to ask the Secretary General, “Can you cite any document to show that we have ever said that Kashmir is not a part of India?” Now this position has been reversed. The Chinese note under reply asks, “Can you cite any document to show that we have ever sad that Kashmir is a part of India?” The issue in Kashmir is one of Pakistan’s aggression, and there is no room in this for any third party intervention. That, as the Chinese note states, had been acknowledged in the Chinese Premier’s press conference in Calcutta on 9th December 1956 and in the joint statement of Premier Chou En0lai and the late

Prime Minister of Ceylon Mr. Bandarnaike of 5th February 1957. At a press conference in Karachi on December 24, 1956, Premier Chou En-lai correctly observed “I hope Pakistan and India will settle this question directly between themselves”. The advice given by Premier Chou En-lai in his various statements refer to the situation created by Pakistan’s aggression in Kashmir and do not question India’s sovereignty based on the State’s accession to India. Again, in the joint statement issued by Premier Chou En-lai and Prime Minister Cyrankiziez of Poland in Peking on April 11, 1957, it was stated that the Kashmir question “should be settled by the countries concerned through peaceful negotiations and should not be allowed to be made use of by external forces to create new tensions.” The entire evidence cited above supports the view that, until recently, the Chinese Government had declared themselves in favour of the question of Pakistan’s aggression in Kashmir being settled peacefully, and against any third party taking advantage of it. However, this stand of the Government of China has changed and a new situation now created by the Sino-Pakistan agreement to demarcate their non-existent common border. In departing from their earlier policy of non0interference in the Kashmir situation, the Government of China are giving legal and moral encouragement to an aggressor State and prejudicing the prospects of a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. There is an out of context reference in the Chinese note to a statement made by the Indian Prime Minister about certain exchange of information between India and Pakistan in regard to the border. This step was essential to safeguard India’s territorial integrity. The Chinese note has also referred to the Sino-Indian boundary question and has drawn attention to the settlements which the Government of China have reached with Nepal and Burma. It is known that these are common principles which are the basis of the international frontiers of Burma, Nepal and India but this fact has been consistently ignored by the Government of China. If the same terms are applied in the case of India, there should be no boundary dispute between India and China.

India has not laid any claims to Chinese territory: nor has she exercised diverse pressures to force these claims on China. It is the Government of China who have used force and diverse other pressures and unlawfully occupied 12,000 square miles of Indian territory since 1957. Only the Government of China’s persistent efforts at misrepresentation of facts can explain their deliberate misreading of the description of the India-China boundary given in the Government of India’s note of 10th May 1962. This description was not a complete description of the border but only gave two terminal points to show that Pakistan and the People’s Republic of China have no common border, whether in the West or in the East. Government of India regret that this limited description has been deliberately and mischievously twisted by the Chinese authorities in an attempt to cause damage to the existing friendly relations between India and Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim. The Government of India on their part not only respect the independence and sovereignty of Nepal but are interested in seeing Nepal grow from strength to strength. They have full faith in their relations with Nepal, and have no doubt that their age-old fraternal ties with the Kingdom of Nepal will stand the test of time. The Government of India have treaty relation with Bhutan and have, at the request of the Government of Bhutan, taken up at cartographic aggression on Bhutan, protection of Bhutan’s rights and interests in Tibet and violation of Bhutan’s air space by Chinese aircraft. There can be no question but that, in cooperation with the Government of Bhutan, the Government of India are bound to ensure the protection and inviolability of the territory of Bhutan. The Government of India’s position in relation to Sikkim is clear. The Government of India are responsible for the defence and external relations of Sikkim and no foreign power has any right to interfere in Sikkim. The Government of India, while rejecting the Government of China’s note under reference, would again reiterate that any change, provisional or otherwise, in the status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir brought about by third parties which seeks to submit certain parts of Indian territory to foreign jurisdiction will not be binding on the Government of India.

The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 7 October 1961 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the continued intrusions into China’s air space by Indian aircraft, has the honour to state as follows:1. About 11:25 hours on the morning of August 8, 1961 an Indian airplane intruded into China’s air space over Spanggur (approximately 33° 36’ N, 78° 49’ E) in Tibet China. 2. About 9:40 hours on the morning of August 9 and about 9:50 hours on the morning of August 14, 1961, each time one Indian airplane intruded into China’s air space over Height 6,181 metres (approximately 35° 07’ N, 78° 11’ E) and Height 5,651 metres (approximately 35° 20’ N, 78’° 04’ E) in Sinkiang, China. The one which flew in on August 9 circled over the said places as long as 30 minutes. 3. About 10:00 and 10:40 hours on the morning of August 14, 1961, each time one Indian airplane intruded into China’s air space over a place (approximately 34° 19’ N, 79° 07’ E) east of the Kongka Pass in Tibet China. The former circled at a low altitude for about 5 minutes and the latter for about 10 minutes. 4. About 9:00 hours on the morning of August 26, 1961, an Indian airplane penetrated deep into China’s air space over a place east of Lake Spanggur in China’s Tibet region and then flew at a low altitude along the same Lake back to India.

5. From September 11 to 25, 1961, Indian airplanes intruded into China’s air space over the above-mentioned Height 5,651 metres in Sinkiang. China, for 19 sorties as follows: 12:18 hours at noon on September 11, one airplane; about 10:00 hours on the morning of September 12, two airplanes; about 11:20 hours on the morning of September 13, three airplanes; 10:12 hours on the morning of September 14, one airplane; about 10:00 and 11:10 hours on the morning of September 22, one airplane each time; and about 10:25 hours on the morning of September, one airplane. Each of these aircraft circled at least 20 minutes over the said place. The two airplanes which flew in on September 12 circled over there as long as 40 minutes. 6. From September 23 to 25, 1961, Indian airplanes intruded into China’s air space over the area around 35° 18’ N, 78° 09’ E in Sinkiang, China, for four sorties, one each, as follows. About 10:20 hours on the morning of September 23, about 10:05 and 10:30 hours on the morning of September 24; and about 10:00 hours on the morning of September 25. Each of these aircraft circled about 20 minutes over the said place. Since recently, Indian aircraft have time and again violated China’s air space, thus creating new tension in the China-India border areas. Although the Chinese Government has made repeated representations, such Indian intrusions, instead of coming to an end or decreasing, have obviously been on the increase. In the period of one month and more since August 8, Indian airplanes have intruded into China’s air space for at least 20 sorties. What is particularly most disturbing is that these Indian aircraft time and again circled for along time at a low altitude over the Chinese border areas where Chinese frontier guards were stationed. The Chinese Government lodges a serious protest with the Indian Government against these deliberate provocations by the Indian side and demand once again that the Indian Government should take effective measures at an early date against the recurrence of such intrusions into China’s air space by Indian aircraft. The Ministry avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy the assurances of its high consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 2 November 1961 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to incidents of Indian aircraft encroaching on China’s territorial air, has the honour to state as follows: 1. On October 4, 1961, about 12:00 hours at noon, an Indian airplane intruded into the air space over the Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China, and circled around the area of Lanak La (approximately 34° 23’ N, 79° 32’ E), Howeitan (approximately 34° 58’ N, 78° 36’ E) and Chipchap La (approximately 35° 19’ N, 78° 25’ E) for as long as one and half hours. 2. About 5:50 hours in the afternoon of the same day, an Indian airplane intruded into the air space over the area of Nischu (approximately 34° 37’ N, 79° 06’ E ) in the Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China, and then circled as long as about 35 minutes over the area between Nischu and Howeitan. The Chinese Government has noted that the Indian side, in disregard of the Chinese Government’s repeated protests against Indian aircraft encroaching on China’s territorial air, has again sent its aircraft to penetrate deep into China’s territorial air and circle for an unusually long time over several thousand square kilometres of Chinese territory. Against these acts of deliberate provocation and tension-creating by Indian aircraft, the Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest with the Indian Government and demands that it immediately adopt effective measures to prevent the recurrence of incidents of Indian aircraft encroaching on China’s territorial air. The Ministry avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 4 December 1961 The Ministry of External Affairs presents their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India, and with reference to note dated October 7, 1961, handed over by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China to the Indian Embassy in Peking, have the honour to state that the Government of India after due verification is in a position to state that there has been no violation of Chinese air space by Indian aircraft as alleged in the Note. 2- It has been noted that of the places mentioned in the Chinese Note all but one are in Indian territory now under unlawful Chinese occupation. 3- The Government of India does not accept the Chinese Government’s right to be present in these places which lawfully belong to and form part of the territories of the Indian Union. 4- In the interests of peace and international amity the Chinese Government may wish to consider the immediate withdrawal of its forces from Indian territory to Chinese territory. The Ministry of External Affairs take this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 9 December 1961 The Ministry of External Affairs presents their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the note dated 2nd November 1961 handed over to the Indian Charge d’Affaires in Peking about alleged intrusions into Chinese air space have the honour to state as follows:1. An enquiry into the specific instances of air space violation mentioned in the Chinese note has established that no Indian aircraft flew, as alleged, on

October 4, 1961, at noon and at about 5:50 hours in the afternoon over Lanak La Howeitan, Chip Chap La and Nischu. 2. However, in recent months the Chinese Government has been sending note after note about alleged intrusions by Indian aircraft into “Chinese air space”. There would be no occasion for such allegations had the Chinese Government not entertained an exaggerated notion of its territorial limits. As in the past it transpires that all the places mentioned in the present Chinese note are well within Indian territory. If Indian aircraft had flown over these places, which are inalienable parts of Indian territory, there would be no violation of any foreign air space. This effort to legitimise unlawful Chinese occupation of Indian territory by charging India with sending aircraft deep into ‘Chinese air space’ is fictitious in fact as well as law. In the interests of peace and international amity the Chinese Government should withdraw its forces from Indian territory and vacate its aggression on India. 3. The Government of India rejects the Chinese note of 2nd November 1961 which is baseless. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 4 January 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state as follows: The Chinese Government points out with great regret that the Indian Government, in disregard of the previous protests by the Chinese Government, not only failed to take measures to prevent the recurrence of intrusions into

China’s air space by Indian aircraft, but has of late stepped up the dispatch of aircraft for continued intrusions into China’s air space, numbering 49 sorties in the two months alone from October 6 to December 5, 1961. What is particularly serious is that on many occasions Indian aircraft penetrated deep into the air space over Chinese territory and flagrantly circled and reconnoitered over it for long periods, sometimes as long as an hour. Following are the facts of the intrusions of Indian aircraft in 49 sorties into China’s air space in the abovementioned two months: 1. At 10.05 hours October 6, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over Sama (approximately 28° 22’ N, 97° 03’ E) in Tibet, China, circling about 20 minutes. 2. At 15.00 hours October 7 and 14:20 hours October 11, 1961, respectively, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over Spanggur area in Tibet, China. 3. At 13:30 hours October 18, 1961, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over the area around Tashigong (approximately 32° 32’ N, 79° 41 E) in Tibet, China. 4. At 13:30 hours October 19 and 16:00 hours October 20, 1961, respectively, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Chiakang (approximately 32° 54’ N, 79° 37’ E) in Tibet, China. 5. At 12:40 hours October 20, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over China’s Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region, circling about an hour over the area between Howeitan (approximately 34° 58’ N, 78° 36’ E) and Qiziljilga. 6. At 16:00 hours October 20 and 12:40 and 16:20 hours October 22, 1961, respectively, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the area between Howeitan and the upper reaches of the Chipchap River, in China’s Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region. The aircraft which intruded on October 20 circled about an hour and the one which intruded at 16:20 hours October 22 circled for more than 40 minutes.

7. At 16:45 hours October 20, 1961, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Ngolo (approximately 32° 35’ N, 79° 36’ E) in Tibet, China. 8. At 14:00 October 23, 1961, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over the area around Shingzhang (approximately 33° 32’ N, 79° 01’ E) in Tibet, China. 9. At 14:15 hours November 1, 12:14 hours November 3, 12:50 hours November 4 and 13:00 hours November 5, 1961, respectively, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the area of the Spanggur Lake. 10. At 15:00 hours November 1, 13:15 hours November 2, 14:25 hours November 3, 12:50 hours November 5 and 14:10 hours November 18, 1961, respectively, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the area around Howeitan in China’s Sinking Uighur Autonomous region. The aircraft which intruded on November 5 circled for 30 minutes and the one which intruded on November 3 circled for one hour and 50 minutes. 11. Between November 3 and 18, 1961, Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the area (approximately 35° 22’ N, 78° 04’ E) north of Height 5651 metres beside the Chipchap River in China’s Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region in 7 sorties, i.e., one at 10:45 hours November 3, 10:40 hours November 4, 10:40 hours November 6, 10:30 hours November 7, 11:17 hours November 9, 11:02 hours November 11 and 11:15 hours November 18 respectively. These Indian aircraft all circled repeatedly over the said place. 12. At 14:10 hours and 15:25 hours November 3 and 13:20 hours November 5, 1961, respectively, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space and circled over the upper reaches of the Chipchap River in China’s Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region, the one which intruded at 15:25 hours November 3 circling about an hour. 13. At 14:49 hours November 3, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the upper reaches of the Chipchap river and the area around 35° 26’ N, 78° 09’ E in China’s Sinkinag Uighur Autonomous Region, circling about 16 minutes.

14.

At 14:20 hours November 3, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into

the air space and circled repeatedly over the area approximately 35° 36’ N, 77° 57’ E, northeast of the Karakoram Pass in China’s Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region. 15. At 13:15 hours November 5, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over Hot Springs (approximately 34° 25’ N, 78° 55’ E) in China’s Sinkaing Uighur Autonomous Region. 16. At 13:20 hours November 6, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the area (approximately 33° 44’ N, 79° 01’ E) south of the Khurnak Fort in Tibet, China. 17. At 13:18 hours November 6, 1961, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over the eastern extremity (approximately 33° 31’ N, 79° 30’ E) of Pangong Mountain in Tibet, China. 18. 19. At 14:00 hours November 6, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into At 10:48 hours November 20 and 10:25 hours November 25, 1961, the air space over the Tashigong area in Tibet, China. respectively, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the area around the Spanggur Lake in Tibet, China. 20. 21. At 12:05 hours November 29, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into At 13:17 hours December 2, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into the the air space over Tashigong in Tibet, China. air space over Howeitan in China’s Sikiang Uighur Autonomous Region. At 14:00 hours December 4, two Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the same place, one of which circling there about an hour. 22. At 13:40 hours and 13:45 hours respectively on December 3, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the area between the upper reaches of the Chipchap River and the Chipchap La in China’s Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region, and circled there about 50 minutes. 23. At 14:10 hours December 4, 1961, two Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the area among Hot Springs (approximately 34° 25’ N,

78° 55’ E) the point approximately 34° 37’ N, 79° 06’ E) in China’s Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region and Tibet Region, circling about 30 minutes. 24. At 15:00 hours December 5, 1961, two Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over Nischu in China’s Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region. The fact that Indian aircraft so frequently intruded into China’s territorial air cannot but be regarded as planned provocation against China and an attempt to create tension. The Chinese Government strongly protests against this, and once again asks the Indian Government immediately to stop dispatching its aircraft for further intrusions into China’s air space, otherwise the Indian Government must bear responsibility for any consequences that may arise therefrom. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances to its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 24 January 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state as follows:On January 14, 1962, at 12-15 hours, an Indian airplane bearing the marking of “BK 505” flying from the direction of the Indian post at Dauletbeg Oldi intruded into the airspace over the Chinese post at 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E in the Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region China, and made repeated reconnaissance circlings at an altitude as low as about 200 metres from the ground for about 15 minutes and dropped scores of stuffed gunnies and wooden cases on the Chinese post. In its note of November 30, 1961, the Chinese Government already made an explicit reply to the Indian Government that China had a post at the above-mentioned place. It is obviously a deliberate encroachment on the Chinese territorial air and territory and a provocation that the Indian Government should have now gone so

far as to send its aircraft to intrude into the air space over the said place for reconnaissance and air-dropping. The Chinese Government against this and demands that the Indian Government take effective measures at once to ensure against the recurrence of similar incidents in the future. In its previous notes, the Chinese Government has already cited more than once large amounts of facts of repeated encroachments on China’s territorial air and reconnaissance and provocative activities carried out by Indian aircraft. The Indian Government, however, has always tried its hardest to deny and quibble about it. But this time the Indian air-dropping of a large quantity of material into Chinese territory has once again thoroughly refuted the denials and quibbles of the Indian side and testified to the conclusive truth of the Chinese Government’s charges. The Chinese Government must also point out emphatically that the Indian side is certainly mistaken if it thinks it can benefit by unscrupulous provocations against Chinese posts. In the consistent spirit of valuing Sino-Indian friendship, the Chinese Government is willing, given true assurance against the recurrence of such intrusions from the Indian Government, to consider letting the Indian side take back the material illegally air-dropped into Chinese territory. The procedures for the taking-back can be arranged through diplomatic channels. The Chinese Government requests an early reply from the Indian Government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 25 January 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India, and have the honour to state that there has

been yet another violation of India’s air space by Chinese aircraft. On January 6, 1962, at about 9-45 A.M. Indian standard time, a Chinese aircraft flew over Sherathang (approximately 2,722 North, 8,850 East) in Sikkim for about five minutes. The Government of India protest against this renewed violation of Indian airspace by Chinese aircraft, and urge upon the Chinese Government to adopt measures to stop similar violations of Indian air space which could have grave consequences. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 22 February 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in New Delhi, and with reference to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs note given to India’s Charge d’Affaires in Peking on 24th January 1962, regarding the dropping of supplies at the wrong location, have the honour to state that facts about the incident are as follows: 2- On 14th January 1962, an Indian aircraft bearing number “BK 505” went on a supply dropping mission to the Indian outpost at the track junction seven miles south south-east of Dauletbeg Oldi. The aircraft arrived in the area of the outpost approximately at 09-50 hours IST. The pilot of the aircraft spotted some tents and dropped the supplies. 3- Enquiries made since the receipt of the Chinese note of 24th January have elicited the information that the aircraft drifted 3-4 miles east of the track junction outpost due to a westerly wind. The airdrop occurred at the wrong location because the pilot mistook a Chinese patrol camp 12 miles further forward from the Chinese post set up on Indian territory at MR 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E on the Chip Chap already entered a strong protest with the Chinese Government

(vide Ministry of External Affairs’ Note dated 31st October, 1961) to be the Indian outpost at the track junction seven miles south-east of Dauletbeg Oldi. 4- It is a matter of deep regret to the Government of India that the Chinese Government has been sending out advance patrols further inside Indian territory so soon after renewing the assurance that Chinese forces on the Sino-Indian border have been strictly enjoined to maintain the status quo. The Chinese Government’s statement which claims that the supplies were actually dropped, in order to make out an untenable case of air space violation against the Government of India, is factually incorrect. 5- In the light of the facts stated above, the Government of India urges the Chinese Government to issue strict instructions to maintain the status quo and to direct that no patrols should be sent out to make further inroads into Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 7 March 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China, and, with reference to the note of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government dated January 25, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: With regard to the Indian Government’s charge made in the note that a Chinese aircraft flew over Sherathang, Sikkim on January 6, 1962, it has been established through detailed investigation conducted by the Chinese Government that no Chinese aircraft has entered the territorial air of Sikkim. The Chinese Government has repeatedly stated that no Chinese aircraft has ever violated the territorial air of other countries, but the Indian Government has now once again made

groundless charges in disregard of the facts. The Chinese Government cannot but express its surprise and regret at this and reject the Indian Government’s protest. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 9 March 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to draw the latter’s attention to the fresh violations of Indian air space by Chinese aircraft on the 11th January 1962. At 08-30 hours IST a Chinese aircraft painted white flew over Spiti (3205 N 7845 E) which is 5 miles inside Indian territory. The same day Chinese aircraft were detected flying over Chini (3130 N 7815 E) and Jangi (3137 N miles and 30 miles respectively inside Indian territory. These fresh violations of Indian territorial air space so soon after the violation of Indian air space referred to in the Indian Government’s note of the 25th January 1962, constitute grave provocation. The Government of India protests against these violations and urge the Chinese Government to take necessary measures to stop such violations of Indian airspace in future. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 10 March 1962

The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the Ministry’s note dated 9th March, 1962 regarding fresh violations of Indian air space by Chinese aircraft has the honour to state that Chinese aircraft was detected flying over Chini (3130 N 7815 E) between 07-30 and 08-35 IST on 12th January, 1962. The details of the other Indian air space violations by Chinese aircraft are the same as in the Ministry’s earlier note. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 10 March 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, and with reference to the note dated 4th January, 1962, addressed by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Embassy of India in China, regarding the alleged intrusions into China’s air space by Indian aircraft, has the honour to state as follows:The Government of India have carried out a full enquiry into the alleged instances of air space violation mentioned in the Chinese note and have found that none of the facts relating to them is correct. In fact, no Indian aircraft flew over any of the places mentioned in the Chinese note. On the other hand, the Government of India are constrained to point out that of the 24 cases detailed in the Chinese note, as many as 16 (viz., 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; 19; 21; 22; 23 and 24) are in respect of places or regions which form part of the Indian Union by custom, tradition and treaty. There is,

therefore, no foundation for a Chinese protest in these cases of alleged air intrusions by Indian aircraft over what is indisputably Indian territory. In a number of cases cited in the Chinese note no precise map reference has been given, leaving the entire allegation vague and uncertain. It is a matter of regret to the Government of India that the Chinese Government are continuing to make unfounded allegations against the Government of India. The Ministry of External Affairs renews to the Embassy of the Peoples’ Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking to the Embassy of India in China, 14 March 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the note of February 22, 1962, delivered by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government to the Chinese Embassy in India, has the honour to state as follows: In its note of January 24, the Chinese Government lodged a serious protest with the Indian Government in regard to the intrusion of an Indian aircraft into China’s air space on January 14 for air-dropping on the Chinese post at 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E. In its reply note, the Indian Government, while admitting the air-dropping by Indian aircraft, asserted that the air-dropping was not made at the above mentioned Chinese post, but at a “Chinese patrol camp” twelve mile to its west. This is a sheer fabrication. The fact is that it was precisely at the Chinese post that the Indian aircraft made the air-dropping, and there was no “Chinese patrol camp” whatsoever in its vicinity. Moreover, an obvious flaw can be found in the Indian assertion in the light of the fact that Prime Minister Nehru said in a statement in Parliament on November 28, 1961 that the Indian post at Dauletbeg Oldi is ten to twelve miles to the west of the above mentioned Chinese post. If the air-dropping had been made at the place where the said Indian post was

located, as claimed in the Indian note, how could it be that China had all at once set up a “patrol camp” or tent there? Basing itself on its own fabrication, the Indian Government further falsely counter charged in its note that China had sent out patrols further inside Indian territory in violation of the status quo of the boundary. The Chinese Government categorically rejects this groundless charge. The Chinese Government has consistently devoted itself to the maintenance of the status quo of the boundary, while the Indian side, in contrast, has repeatedly taken unilateral action to disrupt the status quo of the boundary unscrupulously. The Chinese Government seriously urges the Indian Government to observe strictly the principle of maintaining the status quo of the boundary and stop its intrusions into China’s territory and air space. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 20 March 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, in regard to the serious cases of violation of China’s air space by Indian aircraft on 37 sorties from December 4, 1961 to the end of February 1962, has the honour to state as follows:1. At 09:58 hours December 4, 1961, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over Digra (approximately 33° 33’ N, 78° 50’ E) in Tibet, China. 2. At 14:40 hours December 5, 1961 two Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Shingzhang (approximately 33° 32’ N, 79° 01’ E) in Tibet, China.

3. At 15:09 hours December 15, 1961, 10:17 hours February 2 and 17:10 hours February 26, 1962 respectively, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Chiakang (approximately 32° 54’ N, 70° 37’ E) in Tibet, China. The Indian aircraft which intruded on February 2, 1962 even penetrated into the air space over the area near Kiagang (approximately 32° 55’ N, 79° 47’ E). 4. At 15:25 hours January 2 and 1330 hours January 7, 1962 respectively, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space and circled over the area near Toling (approximately 31° 29’ N, 79° 48’ E) in Tibet, China. 5. From January 2, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space and circled over Parkha (approximately 30° 52’ N, 81° 18’ E) in Tibet, China. 6. From January 2 to February 5, 1962, Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Rudok (approximately 33° 27’ N, 79° 42’ E) and its adjacent areas in Tibet, China on eight sorties, one at each of the following times: 17:15 hours January 2, 14:00 hours January 16, 13:44 hours January 28, 16:20 hours January 29, 10:25 hours January 30, 16:37 hours January 31, 11:22 hours February 3, and 16:20 hours February 5. 7. At 19:10 hours January 6, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space and circled over Gyanima (approximately 30° 49’ N, 80° 46’ E) in Tibet, China. 8. From January 16 to February 28, 1962, Indian aircraft intruded into the air space and repeatedly circled at low altitude over the area of Height 5,651 metres (approximately 35° 20’ N, 78° 04’ E) on the Chipchap River in Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China, on eight stories, one aircraft at each of the following times: 14:10 hours January 16, 11:40 hours January 24, 11:20 hours February 19 and 11:20 hours February 28, and two aircraft at 11:30 hours February 12 and 11:12 hours February 21 respectively. 9. At 13:50 hours January 28, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the area of Chang Pass (approximately 33° 01’ N, 79° 22’ E) an Tashigong (approximately 12° 32’ N, 79° 41 E) in Tibet, China.

10.

At 10:00 hours February 1, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into

the air space over the area of Gunsa (approximately 32° 11’ N, 79° 59’ E) in Tibet, China. 11. 12. At 09:32 hours February 2, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into At 10:00 hours February 2, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Aunglajui Lake to the northeast of Rudok in Tibet, China. the air space over Tsaperang (approximately 31° 28’ N, 79° 40’ E) in Tibet, China. 13. At 11:32 hours February 3 and 11:41 hours February 6, 1962 respectively, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Chilong (approximately 33° 24’ N, 79° 33’ E) in Tibet, China. 14. At 16:50 hours February 7, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space and circled over Height 5,200 metres approximately 33° 59’ N, 78° 53’ E) near Nyagzu in Tibet, China. 15. At 17:55 hours February 7, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over Kota village (approximately 34° 29’ N, 78° 53’ E) in the Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China. 16. At 13:20 and 15:06 hours February 13, 1962 respectively, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the Chinese post (approximately 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E) and its vicinity in the Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China. 17. At 16:24 hours February 14, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Tashigong and Bongru Pass (approximately 32° 26’ N, 79° 33’ E) in Tibet, China. The aforesaid cases show that since last December intrusions by Indian aircraft into China’s air space over Sinkiang and Ari, Tibet, have become more serious than ever before. Of the above-mentioned 37 sorties of Indian aircraft intrusions, 24 sorties have exceeded the alignment unilaterally claimed by India, and some even intruded into the air space over Rudok, Gunsa, Toling, Gyanim and Parkha, which are all towns well within Ari in Tibet, China. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest with the Indian Government against such

deliberate Indian provocations in disregard of China’s sovereignty in serious violation of China’s air space, and demands that the Indian Government immediately stop such illegal actions. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 20 March 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the note of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government dated March 9, 1962, has the honour to state as follows:With regard to the charge made in the Indian Government’s note that Chinese aircraft had flown over Spiti, Chini and Jangi, it has been established through close investigation conducted by the Chinese Government that no such incidents as alleged have ever occurred. The Chinese Government has more than once stated that China absolutely does not allow its air-craft to violate the territorial air of any other country, and that in case the Indian Government should discover any unidentified aircraft in the air space over its border areas, it is fully entitled to deal with them on its own. The Chinese Government has notified the Indian and Burmese Government’s respectively that there are at times aircraft of the United States of America and the Chiang Kai-shek clique engaged in illegal activities over the Sino-Indian and Sino-Burmese borders, and expressed the hope that China, India and Burma would maintain common vigilance. Facts have proved that the Chinese Government is correct. The Burmese side has shot down an aircraft of the Chiang Kai-shek clique within the Burmese border, a fact which was testified to by Prime

Minister Nehru himself in his speech before the Indian Rajya Sabha on December 11, 1961. Nevertheless, the Indian Government repeatedly made groundless charges against the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government cannot but express deep regret at this. The Chinese Government states once again that the Indian Government is fully entitled to deal with any unidentified aircraft discovered in Indian air space without having to make any enquiries of the Chinese Government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 24 March 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to state as follows: On 27th November 1961 at 08:30 hours a Chinese jet aircraft flew over Thimpu, Bhutan. Similar violations of the air space over Chinese aircraft flew over Paro. The aircraft in question were observed approaching from a North-East direction. The Government of India, on behalf of the Government of Bhutan, hereby lodge a protest against these violations of Bhutan’s air space by necessary measures to avoid similar violations in future, which could have serious consequences. The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 4 April 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the Note dated 7-3-1962 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, has the honour to state as follows: The Ministry of External Affairs’ protest note dated 25th January, 1962 in regard to a fresh violation of India’s air space by Chinese aircraft over Sherathang (2722 N-8850 E) on January 6, 1962, at about 9:45 A.M. IST, was lodged after a full verification of the facts. It is a fact that the aircraft immediately after committing the aforesaid air space violation flew back into the Tibet region of China from whence it came. The Government of India regret that in the face of facts the Government of China in their note under reference have disowned responsibility for the air space violation. Considering the seriousness of the matter, the Government of India would again request the Government of China to take necessary measures to prevent similar violations of Indian air space in future. The Ministry of External Affairs renews to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 17 April 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note dated 14th March 1962 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China.

All the facts concerning the dropping of supplies at the wrong location on 14th January 1962, have been stated in the Ministry of External Affairs Note of 22nd February 1962. The facts do not warrant the Chinese Government’s contention that the air drop took place over the Chinese post at MR 35° 19’ N 78° 12’ E. The air drop of the 14th January 1962 had taken place a full 12 miles away from the illegal Chinese post set up on Indian territory referred to above, and the supplies dropped had been intended for the regular Indian outpost situated at the track junction 7 miles south south-east of Dauletbeg Oldi. There is no doubt that on the day of the supply dropping mission, that is, on the 14th January 1962, a Chinese patrol had pitched tents some 3 to 4 miles east of the Indian track junction outpost, violating the status quo and committing fresh intrusion into Indian territory. In this contest it is far fetched to suggest that the supplies had been dropped over the Chinese post at MR 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E, the existence of which is known to the Government of India and which had also formed the subject matter of the Ministry of External Affairs note dated 31st October 1961. In the light of these known facts, it is surprising that the Chinese Government should insist that it was “precisely at the Chinese post that the Indian aircraft made the air dropping”. This view is neither consistent with fact nor with logic, for surely it is not the intention of Indian air-drop missions to supply Chinese posts illegally set up on Indian soil. The Chinese Government’s charge that India “has repeatedly taken unilateral action to disrupt the status quo” is a travesty of the truth and an obvious attempt to confuse the actual situation on the border. It is the Government of China who have been guilty of systematic and continuous aggression into Indian territory and it is they who have sought to justify unlawful occupation by unwarranted territorial claims as the evidence cited in the Ministry of External Affairs’ note dated 26th February 1962 has established. In rejecting the contention of the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the Government of India would once more urge that Chinese forces on the SinoIndian border be strictly enjoined to maintain the status quo and to desist from attempting further inroads into Indian territory.

The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 19 April 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to acknowledge the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Note dated 20th March 1962, regarding alleged violations of China’s air space by Indian aircraft. It is remarkable that many of these alleged air space violations relate to the air space over Indian territory under unlawful Chinese occupation as has indeed been admitted in the Chinese note itself. Any protest from the Government of China on this account is, therefore, improper. The Government of India are, however, after full investigation into all the cases of alleged violations of Chinese air space, satisfied that no Indian aircraft had been involved in any of these alleged cases. As the Government of China are well aware, there are strict instructions against Indian aircraft entering Chinese air space. The Government of India regret that the Government of China are still persisting with these unfounded allegations about violations of Chinese air space by Indian aircraft which are not conducive to peace and friendship between the two countries. The Ministry of External Affairs renews to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 23 April 1962

The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, and with reference tot he latter’s note dated 20th March, 1962, have the honour to state as follows: The Government of India are reassured to learn that the Chinese Government “absolutely does not allow its aircraft violate the territorial air space of any other country”. However the facts relating to violations of Indian air space over Spiti, China and Jangi had been carried out. The Government of India would request the Government of the People’s Republic of China to issue once again necessary instructions in this regard to the concerned authorities so as to avoid similar occurrences in future. In this connection the Chinese Government have suggested that the aircraft concerned could well belong to the United States of America or other third parties such as Taiwan. But there would appear to be little evidence to support this view, particularly as all the three air space violations specified relate to the western half of India’s border. The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of the opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 17 May 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China, and, with reference to the note of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government dated April 17, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: Regarding the intrusion of an Indian aircraft into the air space over a Chinese frontier post in Sinkiang, China, for air-dropping on January 14, the Chinese

Government has, in its notes of January 24 and March 14, brought forward indisputable facts which established the case conclusively. In its two reply notes, the Indian Government, while admitting the air-drop by Indian aircraft, willfully insisted that the air-drop took place 12 miles away from the Chinese post and arbitrarily asserted that there had been Chinese patrol tents there. This is indeed very poor quibbling. As the Chinese Government already pointed out, since the place where the Indian Government alleged the air-drop was made was, as claimed by Prime Minister Nehru, precisely where an Indian post was located, there naturally could not be any Chinese “patrol camp” or tents there. The Indian Government had no other recourse but to leave this obvious flaw unmentioned in its reply note. As for the false counter charges lodged by Indian that China has disrupted the status quo of the boundary and has been “guilty of systematic and continuous aggression into Indian territory”, they are completely untenable. Facts are precisely to the contrary. As admitted in its note of April 17, the Indian Government has been clearly aware that China has a post at 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E. However, of late, the Indian Government has again sent its troops and aircraft to intrude into that area; the Indian troops have even set up aggressive posts around the said Chinese post, pressed on it and perpetrated provocations. It has now become crystal clear that the unlawful airdrop of January 14 is not only an act of flagrant contempt for China’s sovereignty over its territorial air and a provocation against the Chinese post, but also an action in direct co-ordination with the encroaching activities of India on the ground. The Chinese Government hereby once more solemnly and sternly urges the Indian Government to stop immediately all its intrusions into China’s territory and territorial air. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 21 May 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the Indian Government’s notes of April 4 and 23, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: In its notes, the Indian Government, completely ignoring the clear and definite answer provided in the Chinese Government’s notes of March 7 and 20, 1962, continued to insist on its fabricated charges that Chinese aircraft had flown into the air space over Sikkim and India. The Chinese Government hereby once again categorically rejects the Indian charge. The Chinese Government has always firmly held that, pending a settlement of the boundary question, the status quo of the Sino-Indian boundary should be maintained by both China and India. The Chinese Government has also on many occasions stated that China absolutely would not allow its aircraft to violate the territorial air of any other country. And in fact, no Chinese aircraft has ever violated the territorial air of any other country. The slanders repeatedly made in disregard of the facts by the Indian Government that Chinese aircraft had flown across the border and that China had violated the status quo of the Sino-Indian boundary are obviously intended for camouflaging the stepped-up activities of Indian personnel and aircraft in violating Chinese territory and territorial air. Moreover, the Indian Government, in an attempt to sow discord between China and Bhutan, made a groundless charge in its note of March 24, 1962, that Chinese aircraft had violated Bhutan’s territorial air. The Chinese Government expresses its regret at this. As a matter of fact, there does not exist at all the question of violation or threat on the part of China in regard to Bhutan’s territory and territorial air. The repetition of such slanders can only be regarded as representing ulterior motives. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 31 May 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state as follows: 1- Of late, Indian aircraft have continued to intrude into China’s air space and within the fifty-six days from March 6 to April 30, 1962, counting only those which have been verified, another sixty-seven sorties took place, raising the frequency of intrusions to an unprecedented height. (See annex for the list of intrusions). The Chinese Government hereby once again lodges a serious protest with the Indian Government against this. 2- The intrusions of Indian aircraft took place all over the eastern, middle and western sectors of the Sino-Indian border, with the intrusions into China’s air space over the western sector the most serious. It is obvious that such intrusions by Indian aircraft were made in direct co-ordination with the setting up of new military strong points on Chinese territory and other recent Indian activities of intrusion and provocation on the ground. Many of these intruding Indian aircraft repeatedly circled and carried out reconnaissance over Chinese territory and especially over Chinese posts, some even circling for as long as one hour. Of these, planes in twelve sorties even went beyond the boundary line unilaterally claimed by India and flew over Gyanima, Chilong, Risung and other places which are well inside the Ari district of Tibet, China. 3- In its notes of March 10 and April 19, the Indian Government tried to deny the established facts of the repeated intrusions of Indian aircraft into China’s air space from last October to February as previously cited by the Chinese Government. This attempt is completely futile. It claimed in one of the two notes that “there are strict instructions against Indian aircraft entering Chinese air

space.” However, it can be seen from facts listed in the annex that the aforesaid assurance of the Indian Government is not a genuine one. Moreover, the extent of intrusions by Indian aircraft into China’s air space has far exceeded the area for which India has groundlessly laid territorial claims on China, and extended to many towns well inside the Ari district of Tibet, China. 4- No arbitrary arguments or distortions by the Indian Government will help it shake off its responsibility for aggravating the tension on the border. The Chinese Government once again demands that the Indian Government immediately stop its intrusions into China’s air space. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. Annexe Cases of Intrusions into China’s air space by Indian Aircraft in March and April 1962 Indian aircraft successively intruded into the air space over Height 5,651 metres (approximately 35° 20’ N, 78° 04’ E) in Sinkiang, China, totalling 31 sorties; some of the circled repeatedly at a low altitude over that Height. The specific dates and times of the intrusions are as follows:March 6, 1962, at 10:15 hours March 6, 1962, at 14:45 hours March 7, 1962, at 10:20 hours March 7, 1962, at 11:25 hours March 8, 1962, at 11.20 hours March 13, 1962, at 10:17 hours March 14, 1962, at 12:57 hours March 14, 1962, at 14:15 hours March 18, 1962, at 10:40 hours March 23, 1962, at 13:00 hours March 24, 1962, at 10:00 hours March 25, 1962, at 10:00 hours March 28, 1962, at 9:44 hours March 30, 1962, at 10:00 hours April 14, 1962, at 10:15 hours April 19, 1962, at 10:20 hours April 19, 1962, at 12:15 hours April 19, 1962, at 12:20 hours April 23, 1962, at 10:15 hours April 24, 1962, at 9:35 hours

April 28, 1962, at 9:35 hours April 28, 1962, at 10:00 hours April 29, 1962 at 14:58 hours April 29, 1962, at 15:05 hours April 29, 1962, at 13:00 hours April 29, 1962, at 13:07 hours April 29, 1962, at 14:58 hours April 29, 1962, at 15:05 hours April 30, 1962, at 13:10 hours 2. Indian aircraft intruded into the air space and circled over Howeitan (approximately 34° 58’ N, 78° 36’ E) in Sinkiang, China, one at each of the following dates and time: March 7, at 12:00 hours; April 20, at 13:40 hours; April 28, at 10:45 hours; April 28, at 16:10 hours; April 29, at 14:20 hours; and April 29, at 14:30 hours all in 1962. 3. At 13:05 hours, March 7, 1962, two Indian aircraft intruded into the air space and made reconnaissance over the place at approximately 33° 58’ N, 78° 55’ E) and the place at 34° 27’, 78° 53’ E in Sinkiang. 4. Two Indian aircraft, at 13:05 hours, March 7, 1962, and one Indian aircraft, at 7:30 hours, March 13, intruded into the air space over the region around the Spanggur Lake in Tibet, China, and the place at approximately 33° 38’ N, 78° 51’ E. 5. At 16:20 hours, March 12, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over Tibet, China, in the area near Chang Pass (approximately 33° 01’ N, 79° 22’ E), the area west of Chiakang (approximately 32° 54’ N, 79° 37’ E) and Jara Pass (approximately 32° 47’ N, 79° 33’ E), and circled repeatedly over Jara pass. 6. At 13:15 hours, March 13, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space and circled over Sama (approximately 28° 22’ N, 97° 03’ E) and Ladin (approximately 28° 25’ N, 97° 05’ E) both located in Tibet, China. 7. At 12:40 hours, March 15, and 15:01 hours, March 22, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space over Khoja (approximately 30° 13’ N, 81° 13’ E) and Chihtai (approximately 30° 15’ N, 81° 09’ E) of Tibet, China. 8. At 12:50 hours and 13:42 hours, March 15, 1962, one Indian aircraft, each respectively intruded into the air space over Toyu (approximately 30° 18’ N,

81° 10’ E), Renkung (approximately 30° 25’ N, 81° 05’ E) and the nearby areas, all located in Tibet, China. 9. At 11:00 hours, March 16, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space and made repeated circlings over Chilong (approximately 33° 24’ N, 79° 33’E) and Risung (approximately 33° 02’ N, 79° 51’ E), both located in Tibet, China. 10. At 14:20 hours, March 22, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Gyanima (approximately 30° 49’N, 79° 51’E) and Renkung, both located in Tibet, China. 11. At 13:45 hours, March 25; and 12:10 hours, March 29, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, penetrated into the air space over Tashigong (approximately 32° 32’ N, 79° 41’ E) in Tibet, China, and repeatedly circled over there for reconnaissance—the former for as long as one hour and the latter 40 minutes. 12. At 14:15 hours, March 25, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Tashigong, the place at 32° 44’ N, 79° 44’ E) and Jara Pass, all these places being in Tibet, China, and repeatedly circled for as long as 35 minutes. 13. At 12:40 hours, March 29, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over Hot Springs, Nischu (approximately 34° 37’ N, 79° 06’ E) and Kota Village (approximately 34° 29’ N, 78° 53’ E) in Sinkiang, China, and repeatedly circled over there. 14. At 12:50 hours, March 29, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space of a place (approximately 34° 23’ N, 79° 06’ E) to the east of Kongka Pass in Sinkiang, China. 15. At 13:10 hours, March 29, 1962, an Indian aircraft penetrated into the air space over Chiakang and Kiagang (approximately 32° 55’ N, 79° 47’ E) both located in Tibet, China, and circled over there. 16. At 14:50 and 15:30 hours, April 21; 10:40 hours, April 23; and 17:15 hours, April 28, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time intruded into the air

space over the place at approximately 35° 18’ N, 78° 54’ E and its adjacent areas in Tibet, China. 17. At 10:43 hours, April 27; 16:25 and 17:05 hours, April 28, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space over Height 5,851 metres approximately 35° 17’ N, 78° 12’ E) and Height 5,651 metres in Sinkiang, China. Moreover, the aircraft that intruded on April 27 circled repeatedly at a low altitude over Height 6,200 metres (approximately 35° 14’ N, 78° 13’ E). 18. At 14:00 and 17:10 hours, April 28, 1962, Indian aircraft, two at each time, intruded into the air space over Hot Springs and the areas to the northeast in Sinkiang, China. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 6 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the note dated 17th May 1962 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. Facts regarding the airdrop on 14th January, 1962 have been given in the Government of India’s notes dated 22nd February and 17th April, 1962. There is nothing new to add to what has already been stated in these earlier notes. It is true that the airdrop in question went wide by 3 to 4 miles, and the pilot of the aircraft himself has confirmed that he dropped supplies where he spotted some tents similar to those at the Indian track-junction outpost. The error in this case was caused by a strong westerly wind on the morning of the airdrop. The Government of India have known about the existence of the Chinese post at 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E since it was first set up in Indian territory between 1960 and 1961, and had lodged a strong protest in their note dated 31st October, 1961. The setting up of this post, deep inside Indian territory, coincided with official level

talks between the two governments. This action of the Chinese authorities violated the tacit understanding that, for the duration of the talks, the two sides would keep to their actual line of control and refrain from pushing forward. Apart from this case, the Chinese authorities further violated this understanding by setting up, during the same period and immediately after two more new posts on Indian territory at Nyagzu and Dambuguru. As to Indian posts which exist in certain parts of Ladakh, the Government of India would like to reassure the Government of China that these posts are not there for any offensive action but entirely for the defence of Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 13 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the Chinese Government’s Note No. 439 dated the 21st May 1962 have the honour to state as follows:The Government of India have no doubt about the facts concerning the air violation over Cherathang (2722—8850 E) on January 6, 1962 at 9.45 A.M. IST. These facts were carefully verified and confirmed before a protest was lodged with the Chinese Government. Moreover it is undeniable that the Chinese aircraft had, after committing the aforesaid air space violation, flown back into the Tibet region of China from whence it came. The Government of India regret that faced with the truth the Government of China have disowned responsibility for this unlawful act and have resorted to baseless allegations against the Government of India. What is required is not a casual dismissal of these charges as ‘slander’ but the adoption of firm measures to put an immediate stop to further unlawful encroachments into Indian air space.

As to the specific instances when Chinese aircraft violated the air space over Bhutan, viz., on the 24th and 25th November 1961 over Paro and on the 27th November 1961 over Thimphu, the intruding Chinese aircraft were distinctly observed approaching from the direction of the Tibet region of China. It is no use simply denying these air intrusions. The Government of India are surprised that their legitimate move on behalf of the Government of Bhutan to ensure the protection and inviolability of the territorial air space of Bhutan has been construed by the Government of China as an attempt to ‘sow discord’ in the relations between Bhutan and China. The Government of India are not aware that China ha any relations with Bhutan. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 28 June 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following: During the month of May 1962, the Indian Government continued to send its aircraft to intrude repeatedly into China’s air space, with a total of 59 sorties verified through repeated investigations (see Appendix for facts), reaching nearly two sorties a day on average. It can be seen from the facts listed in the Appendix that all the intrusions of Indian aircraft during the moth of May were concentrated on the air space over the Chinese territory in the western sector of the Sino-Indian border. It was in coordination with the intrusions of Indian troops on the ground that the Indian aircraft made these intrusions. They made long circlings for reconnaissance over Chinese territory, especially over Chinese posts, dropped supplies on a large-

scale time and again to the aggressive strong points illegally set up lately by Indian troops in Sinkiang, China. Obviously, these activities were done for the purpose of facilitating long entrenchment by Indian troops on these strong points and expansion of their encroachments on Chinese territory. The Chinese Government once again lodges a serious protest with the Indian Government against the increasingly frequent Indian aircraft intrusions and the activities deliberately intended for aggravating the tension on the border, and demands that the Indian Government immediately stop its intrusions into China’s air space. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration. APPENDIX Facts of Intrusions into China’s Air Space by Indian Aircraft in May 1962. 1. At 12:30 hours, May 1; 11:50 hours, May 5; 10:10 hours, May 14; and 13:30 and 14:25 hours, may 16, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space over Height 6,200 metres (approximately 35° 14’ N, 78° 13’ E) and its adjacent areas in Sinkiang, China. The one that intruded on May 1 even circled over the Chinese post at 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E. 2. At 12:30 hours, May 2 and 10:00 hours, May 3, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space over the point at 35° 08’ N, 78° 31’ E and its adjacent areas in Sinkiang, China. The one that intruded on May 3 circled over there as long as 40 minutes. 3. Indian aircraft, totalling 11 sorties, successively intruded into the air space over Howeitan (approximately 34° 58’ N, 78° 36’ E) and its adjacent areas in Sinkiang, China, and made long-time circlings at a low altitude over there, some even lasting more than one hour. The specific dates and time of the intrusions are: 12:37 hours, May 2; 10:55 hours, May 5; 0:04 hours, May 9; 9:50 hours, May 10; 9:10 hours, May 13; 9:20 and 12:30 hours,

May 14; 9:00 hours, May 15; 13:45 hours, May 17; 8:50 hours, May 23; and 12:45 hours, May 26, 1962. 4. Indian aircraft, totalling 18 sorties, successively intruded into the air space over Height 5,651 metres (approximately 35° 20’ N, 78° 04’ E) in Sinkiang, China, and some of them even repeatedly circled at a low altitude over that Height. The specific dates and time of the intrusions are: 9:15 hours, May 4 (two aircraft); 9:20, 10:17, 11:00, 11:05, 11:14 and 12:18 hours, May 8; 10:45 hours, May 11; 11:55 hours, May 14; 14:28 hours, May 15; 10:20 hours, May 17; 8:47 hours, May 21; 12:10 hours, May 23; 8:30, 10:10 and 13:00 hours, May 25; 8:36 hours, May 27, 1962. 5. At 11:20 hours, May 5 and 8:30 hours, May 9, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space over the area southeast of the point at 35° 15’ N, 78° 16’ E in Sinkiang, China. 6. At 9:30 hours, May 8 and 9:20 hours, May 9, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space over the area southeast of the point at 35° 16’ N, 78° 08’ E in Sinkiang, China and repeatedly circled over there. The two that intruded on May 8 circled as long as 50 minutes and the two on May 9 intruded, in addition, into the air space over Height 6,200 metres and repeatedly circled over there. 7. At 14:30 hours, May 8, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space of the area southwest of the Chinese post at 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E in Sinkiang, China. 8. At 9:15 hours, May 10 and 8:50 hours, May 23, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space over the Chinese post at 35° 19’ N, 78° 12’ E and its adjacent areas in Sinkiang, China. The one that intruded on May 10 circled at a low altitude over the Chinese post as long as 30 minutes. 9. At 11:00 hours, May 11; 12:30 hours, May 15; and 13:35 hours, May 17, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space and repeatedly circled over the point at approximately 35° 16’ N, 78° 08’ E in Sinkiang, China. The aircraft which intruded on May 11 and 17 even made

air drops over the aggressive strong point unlawfully set up there by Indian troops. Three bales of supplies were dropped on May 11 and three air-drops were successively made on May 17. 10. At 13:30 hours, May 13 and 12:05 hours May 21, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space over the vicinity of the Spanggur Lake in Tibet, China. The one that intruded on May 13 also repeatedly circled over the point at 33° 34’ N, 77° 50’ E in Sinkiang, China. 11. 12. At 12:20 hours, May 14, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air At 15:30 hours, May 17, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space over the area around 35° 34’ N, 77° 50’ E in Sinkiang, China. space of Hongshantou (approximately 35° 18’ N, 78° 05’ 30” E) in Sinkiang, China. 13. At 8:50 hours, May 21 and 9:00 hours, may 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space and circled over the point at 35° 0’ N, 78° 29’ E in Sinkiang, China. The one that intruded on May 21 circled over Howeitan also. 14. At 8:50 hours, May 23; 8:30 hours, May 25; and 8:40 hours, May 27, 1962, Indian aircraft, one at each time, intruded into the air space and repeatedly circled over the point at 35° 0’ N, 78° 29’ E and its adjacent areas in Sinkiang, China and air-dropped large quantities of supplies over the aggressive strong point at approximately 34° 58’ 30” N, 78° 22’ 30” E unlawfully set up in Sinking, China by Indian troops. About 80 parachutes were dropped on May 23, over forty bales of supplies were dropped on May 25, and over thirty bales of supplies were dropped on May 27. 15. At 9:00 hours, May 26, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air space and repeatedly circled over Height 5,651 metres in Sinkiang, China and dropped over thirty bales of supplies over the aggressive strong point unlawfully set up at approximately 35° 16’ N, 78° 08’ E by Indian troops. 16. At 14:15 hours, May 26, 1962, an Indian aircraft intruded into the air *** space and circled over the point at 35° 27’ N, 78° 09’ E in Sinkiang, China.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to Embassy of China in India, 30 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Government’s note dated 31st May, 1962. The Government of China have themselves admitted in their note that as many as 55 out of 67 sorties about which they have protested related to the air space over areas which are inside India. The Government of India firmly repudiate the untenable position assumed by the Government of China to protest on a matter which is exclusively within the sovereign jurisdiction of the Government of India. The Government of India have, however, made careful enquiries into each case of alleged intrusion by Indian aircraft including the other 12 instances of intrusion into Chinese air space cited in the Chinese note and have found that no Indian aircraft had been to any of the places at the time and date given in the note. It is obvious that by repeating such baseless allegations, the Government of China are merely serving the ends of their anti-Indian propaganda. However, as the record shows, it is the Government of China who have steadily increased their wrongful occupation of Indian territory in recent years and have carried out activities there in violation of India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In the light of facts stated above, the Government of India reject the protest lodged by the Government of China in their note dated 31st May, 1962. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 25 July 1962

The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Government’s note dated 28th June 1962. The details given in the “Appendix” to the Chinese note show that all the places except one over which the alleged violation of air space are stated to have occurred, are well inside Indian territory. Any protest from the Government of China in regard to flights over Indian territory is not only highly improper but constitutes unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of India. The Government of India reject this untenable position assumed by the Chinese Government. The Government of India have, however, carefully investigated each of these allegations about flights by Indian aircrafts, including the solitary instance relating to Chinese air space, cited in the Chinese note, and have found that no Indian aircraft had flown over any of the places at the times and dates mentioned. It is noticed in this connection that the Chinese note has repeated the general allegations made in their earlier note dated 31st May 1962, which have been fully refuted in the Indian Government’s reply dated 30th June 1962. At no time have Indian military personnel or aircraft crossed the traditional well-recognised boundary of India. Indian maintenance aircraft of legitimate duty invariably keep well inside Indian air space. In sharp contrast, Chinese aircraft have violated Indian air space on innumerable occasions and Chinese troops have unlawfully established posts on Indian territory. The Government of India deplore this aggressive attitude adopted by the Chinese forces which has caused serious strain and tension in the relations between the two countries. The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 25 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to draw the latter’s attention to a fresh violation of Indian air space by Chinese aircraft. On 7th July 1962 at 0900 hours I.S.T. a Chinese aircraft was observed flying over Chushul (33° 35’ North 78° 40’ East) which is 18 miles inside Indian territory. After committing the violation the aircraft flew back to the Tibet region of China. Such repeated violations of Indian air space by Chinese aircraft constitute a deliberate provocation and serve to increase the existing tension on the border. While lodging a strong protest on the present violation, the Government of India once more urge the Chinese Government to put a stop to such aggressive activities. The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Consulate General of China, Calcutta, to the Government of West Bengal, 28 November 1961 In the afternoon of November 18, 1961, four Chinese nationals namely Mr. Yeh Tien-lin, the acting Principal of Chinese Primary School in Calcutta, Mr. Ling Chikang, a shoe merchant in Calcutta, Mr. Hu Tung-hai, a barber in Calcutta and Mr. Fu Yin, a bean-curd seller in Kalimpong were arrested by the Indian Government and deported from India. Mr. Yeh Tien-lin, Mr. Ling Chi-kang, Mr. Hu Tung-hai and Mr. Fu Yin are Chinese nationals who have long been residing in India. They have always been lawabiding, and have had proper occupations. The West Bengal Government,

however, ordered them to quit India, arrested and detained them, put them on trial and finally unwarrantedly deported them tot China through Nathula Pass under custody. This is obviously very unfriendly and inhumane. For this, the Chinese General in Calcutta lodges a protest with the West Bengal Government. *** Note given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 2 December 1961 The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India presents its compliments to the Ministry of External Affairs of India, and has the honour to state as follows: 1. At about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of November 25, 1961 about 40 Indians gathered outside the Chinese Consulate General at Calcutta, clamouring and shouting anti-Chinese slogans; they stayed there for about half an hour and dispersed. 2. At about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of November 25, 1961 about 50-60 Indians demonstrated in front of the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay, holding anti-Chinese placards and shouting slogans, slandering China such as “Chinese aggressors quit India”, etc. Among them some one made a speech. They went away at about half past five. 3. At about 7 o’clock in the afternoon of November 27, 1961, some 100 Indians went to the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay, clamouring and shouting. They held anti Chinese placards, such as “Down with red China” and “Shut up the Chinese Consulate-General”. They frantically shouted slogans, maliciously slandering China and insulting the Chinese leaders, such as “Chinese aggressors get out of India”, etc. Among them, eight or nine persons rushed to the gate of the Consulate, burned effigies of Chinese leaders, Chairman Mao Tse-tung and Premier Chou En-lai; there was also another person who held a chain in his hand, approached the gate of the Consulate and attempted to lock it up from outside.

Since the Indian Government made baseless charges in the Parliament that China had further violated India’s territory another new wave against China has been unleashed in India. A few ruffians have been permitted to make troubles in front of the Chinese Consulates-General and burn straw effigies of the Chinese people’s respected and beloved leaders Chairman Mao Tse-tung and Premier Chou En-lai. This is a serious provocation to China, for which the Government of China cannot but express indignation at it, and hereby lodges a strong protest and requests that the Indian Government immediately take effective measures to prevent recurrence of similar incidents. The Embassy takes this opportunity to renew to the Ministry the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 4 December 1961 On November 18, 1961, the Government of India unwarrantedly arrested, all of a sudden, Chinese nationals Ling Chi-kang, Yeh Tien-lin, Fo Yin (Wang Ching-shan) and Hu Tung-hai, and soon after that on November 21 brought them in custody to the desolate and bitterly cold Nathula Pass and deported them out of India, subjecting them to physical harm. Once more the Indian Government took such a rude measure as to have unwarrantedly arrested and deported Chinese nations out of India, at which the Embassy expresses utmost regret. This year, the Indian Government has more than once unwarrantedly arrested Chinese nationals and deported them from India under the pretext of the socalled “anti-India activities”. The persecution of Ling Chi-kang and three others this time is the fourth one of the series. The Indian Government again used “antiIndia activities” as a pretext, but there is no factual basis at all. Ling Chi-kang, Yeh Tien-lin, Fo Yin (Wang Ching-shan) and Hu Tung-hai all resided in India for a long time and had proper occupations as teacher, shoe-maker, hair-dresser and

bean-curd seller. During their stay in India, the Indian local authorities had never charged them with any act against the law. The Indian Government, however, first unreasonably ordered them to leave India within a stipulated period, then successively arrested, sentenced and imprisoned them, and despite the fact that they had, in accordance with law, applied for continuing to stay, forcibly deported them under escort out of India, with the result that they were separated from their families. This is an act utterly devoid of any justification. The Chinese side, having regard for the friendship between the peoples of China and India, has time and again adopted an attitude of restraint and tolerance towards such continuous persecution of Chinese nationals by the Indian side. But is regrettable that the Indian Government has unceasingly carried out various persecutions against Chinese nations and time and again deported under escort innocent Chinese nationals out of India. This absolutely runs counter to the wish for friendship of the peoples of the two countries. In the interest of maintaining the friendship between the two peoples, the Embassy requests that the Government of India respect the proper and legitimate rights of the Chinese nationals and immediately stop measures of persecution against Chinese nationals. *** Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 12 December 1961 Regarding the case of false charge against Mr. Ma Chu-tsai, a Chinese national who originally resided in Kalimpong, the Chinese Embassy, at the request of Ma’s family, has on many occasions made representations to the Ministry of External Affairs of India. However, Ma’s case, which has lasted as long as over one year, still remains delayed and unsettled. As recently reported by Ma’s family, the case has undergone several trials at the Court of Jalpaiguri, and from all the circumstances as shown in these trials it

should have been very clear that Mr. Ma Chu-tsai is completely innocent, and even the Court has also indicated that it is difficult to consider the case as established, and that is should be settled speedily. Nevertheless, it has again decided that the case be transferred to another court for continued trial. Thus Ma’s wronged case will again continue to remain unsettled, and Ma’s health will continue to be subjected to suffering. It should be noted that Mr. Ma Chu-tsai has been compelled to move to Calcutta. He has been asked to appear at the Court of Jalpaiguri which is several hundred miles away. These long journeys have caused difficulties to him. His family is very much concerned about the health of this old man at an advanced age of over 70. Moreover, he is financially facing a helpless plight. He has repeatedly requested the Embassy to render him assistance so that he may be able to return to China at an early date. The Embassy is much concerned over this. The Embassy once again hopes that the Government of India will out of humanitarian considerations give assistance to Mr. Ma Chu-tsai so that he may leave India for China at an early date. *** Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India, to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 12 December 1961 On the morning of December 2, 1961, elements of the Chiang Kai-shek clique in Kalimpong, under the name of the so-called refugee school, intruded into the Chung Hwa School, Kalimpong, making disturbances and clamouring noisily in an attempt to seize the School. This seriously affected the normal studies of the students of the School. It must be pointed out that, in June 1961, the elements of the Chiang Kai-shek clique were engaged in plotting to seize the Chung Hwa School. At that time, the Kalimpong local authorities confirmed to the Chung Hwa School that the Chiang Kai-shek clique elements had consulted the Sub-Divisional Officer of Kalimpong in an attempt to seize the Chung Hwa School. The Chinese Consulate General at

Calcutta took up this matter with the Government of West Bengal on July 3, 1961. It is surprising that the Chiang Kaishek clique elements should have been further allowed to intrude into the school to make disturbances. This cannot but be considered as connivance by the Indian local authorities at the activities o the Chiang Kai-shek clique elements. Since the beginning of 1960, the Indian local authorities have been without any justification, carrying out planned persecution against the Chung Hwa School. They successively ordered Mr. Linag Tsu-Chin, Head of the Board of Directors of the School, Mr. Chang Nai-chin and Mr. Ma Chia-kuei, Deputy heads of the Board of Directors, to leave India or Kalimpong within a stipulated period. They further unwarrantedly detained the Principal of the School Mr. Chang Hsiu-feng and his wife, gave them extremely inhuman treatment, and finally compelled them to leave India. Since October 1961, the local government of India again carried out persecution against the Chung Hwa School. It first ordered the acting Principal of the School Wang Wei-chin and teacher Pema, and then ordered teachers Ma Fushou and Yang Lan-ying to leave Kalimpong within a stipulated period. In the meantime, the parents of the children of he School have been subjected to constant threat that they should not send their children to study in the School. This series of unwarranted persecution carried out by the Indian local government against the Head of the Board of Directors, Deputy Heads, Principal and teachers of the School as well as its connivance at the repeated plotting of the Chiang Kaishek clique elements to seize the School cannot but lead one to the belief that the Indian local government is putting the School beyond any means of continued existence, thus achieving the aim of strangling the legitimate cultural and welfare undertaking of the Chinese nationals and facilitating, the activities of the Chiang Kai-shek clique elements. As is well-known, the Chung Hwa School in Kalimpong is a school run by the Chinese nationals in the locality with their contribution of funds. Over many years in the past, it has always been law-abiding and on amicable terms with the local people, and has made its due contributions to the education of the children of the Chinese nationals as well as to the friendship between the Chinese and Indian

peoples. The Indian local government should have carried out continuous unwarranted persecutions against the School and connived at the activities of the Chiang Kai-shek clique elements. The Embassy expresses its regret at this. It is requested that the Government in India immediately stop its persecutions against the Chung Hwa School, Kalimpong, and prevent the elements of the Chiang Kaishek clique from scheming against and sabotaging the School. *** Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 14 December 1961 As reported by the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay, about 10:50 a.m. on December 5, 1961, the personnel of the Consulate-General heard some slight explosion in the courtyard; when they immediately came out to see what was happening; they discovered that a coconut tree in the courtyard was on fire and the sofas lying under the tree also caught fire. They extinguished the fire promptly, so it did not spread. Judging from the circumstances at that time, it was obvious that somebody from outside the Consulate-General had thrown combustibles into the courtyard in an attempt to set fire. But the combustibles were blocked by the coconut tree which instantly caught fire and began to burn with the sofas below affected. After the fire was put out, a lot of half-burned combustibles such as old cotton and cloth rags soaked with something like oil were found under the coconut tree. After the incident, some officers from the police station and firemen in the locality went to the sport for examination. They took notes and collected some of the said combustible. On the afternoon of the same day, Mr. Wang Yen-chang, Consul of the Consulate-General, drew the attention of the State Government to this incident, and the State Government promised to make investigations. The Chinese Embassy deems it necessary to point out emphatically to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs that the Government of India bears the responsibility

for the protection of the security of the Chinese official organ in India. At a time when wanton anti-Chinese outbursts are being whipped up in India, the occurrence of this incident is of an extremely serious nature. The Embassy cannot but express its deep regret at it, and draws the serious attention of the Government of India to the matter. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 5 January 1962 Reference Chinese Embassy’s Memorandum dated 4th December, 1961, regarding the deportation of four Chinese nationals viz., Ling Chi-kang (shoe-maker), Yeh Tien-lin (primary school teacher), Fo Yin (Hair dresser) and Hu Tung-hai (beancurd-seller) from India on 21st November 1961. 2 - No Government can ignore the security and well being of its people, and permit aliens to work from within to subvert the state. From time to time the Government of India has had to expel aliens from the territories of the Indian Union for engaging themselves in anti-social activities (e.g., smuggling, trafficking in narcotics and other cognizable offences), for infringement of visa regulations and indulgence in activities, covert or overt, intended to subvert the security of the state. 3- The Embassy’s Memorandum takes a tendentious and distorted view of such cases and by its arrogant stand lends implied support to the anti-social and antisate activities of certain Chinese nationals in India. For some time Chinese propaganda organs have seized on these stray cases of deportation to launch a virulent campaign attempting to disparage the Government of India in the eyes of the world by circulating stories of persecution of ‘innocent’ Chinese nationals in India.

4- The Embassy’s Memorandum is doubly objectionable because it constitutes an act of open interference in the internal affairs of India and because it willfully distorts and misrepresents facts regarding the deportation of certain Chinese nationals from India on account of their indulgence in anti-state activities at the behest of a foreign power. It is clear that in this matter the Chinese Government’s intervention is neither disinterested nor impartial. 5- To expose the myth about the Indian Government’s persecution of Chinese residents in India it would suffice to state that out of a total Chinese population of over 12,000 in India, only eleven had to be physically deported across the border. It is relevant to point out that in all such cases the persons concerned defied notices served on them to leave the country by a specified date. Reluctantly, therefore, steps had to be taken to ensure their departure, but in each such case arrangements were made to ensure that the deportee was well provided not only with good food but with comfortable, and well heated accommodation on Indian territory. In addition, each deportee was given a number of items of warm clothing, boots etc. to make his journey home as comfortable as possible. A list of articles given to the four deportees is enclosed. Timely notice was also given tot he Chinese Embassy for the reception of the deportees on the Chinese side of the border. 6- In such matters, instead of casting aspersions the Chinese Government could well emulate the humane and generous standards of the Government in India. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 18 January 1962 On October 27, 1961, Mr. Ma Mu-ming of the Chinese Embassy called at the Ministry of External Affairs and lodged a compliant with Shri B.C. Mishra, Deputy

Secretary, about what Mr. Ma described as ‘noise’ made by a large number of Indians on 10th October, 1961 in front of the Chinese Consulate-General. Mr. Ma also alleged that the Indian had carried a straw effigy of a Chinese leader and some anti-Chinese posters. The compliant has been investigated and the facts are as follows: On 10th October, 1961 some peasants who came all the way from Igatpuri in Nasik District peacefully demonstrated in Bombay city against Chinese aggression on Indian soil. The procession stopped about 200 yards away from the Chinese Consulate-General in Bombay. No violence was committed, nor was there any threat of violence. The authorities in Bombay who watched over the procession were entirely satisfied about its peaceful character and apprehended no disturbance of the peace from it. On of the projectionists wrapped himself in straw but no effigy of a Chinese leader, as mistakenly alleged by Mr. Ma was carried. The right of freedom of speech and expression and of peaceful assembly without arms are guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The procession in question was in lawful exercise of the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. The only slogans raised by the processionists asked, as of right, the Chinese Government to vacate its aggression on Indian territory. The sentiment is national and common to all the people of India. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 18 January 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India, and with reference to the Embassy Note No. M/578/61, dated 2nd December, 1961, have the honour to state that the facts in regard to the demonstration in question are as follow:-

1. In Calcutta on the afternoon of November 25, 1961, a procession came out of Hazra Park and moved on to Lower Circular Road. At about 5 p.m. it stopped at a distance of about 125 yards from the Consulate-General. The Police were present at the scene to prevent any disturbance of the peace. The processionists held a meeting to condemn Chinese incursions into Indian territory, and dispersed peacefully at about 5.20 p.m. 2. In Bombay on the afternoon of November 25, 1961, some people went out in a procession towards the Chinese Consulate-General. They stopped at a distance of 100 yards from the Chinese ConsulateGeneral building. The police were on hand to keep the peace. The processionists were all along peaceful, and there was no untoward incident. Their leader made a speech in which he condemned Chinese aggression on India and criticised Government of India’s policy in regard to China. They dispersed peacefully at 5:10 p.m. 3. On November 27, 1961, a procession of people went through the streets of Bombay and stopped at a distance of about 200 yards from the Consulate-General. The processionists then held a meeting to protest against Chinese aggression on Indian territory. Speakers criticised Government of India’s weak policy towards China and demanded effective steps to oust the aggressors from Indian soil. One person tried to reach the gate of the Chinese Consulate-General to hand over a memorandum but he was stopped by the police. Some others tried to light a torch but the police seized and put out the torch. Persons who acted unlawfully were arrested by the policy. The Embassy’s account of this demonstration does not agree with the facts. Eight or nine persons did not rush as alleged to the gate of the Chairman Mao and Premier Chou. No one attempted to lock the Consulate gate. These are highly exaggerated accounts given by the Chinese Embassy which are not borne out by facts.

There are certain facts of life in India which the Chinese Embassy might well begin to appreciate. The rights of freedom of speech and expression and of peaceful assembly without arms are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution to every Indian citizen. These rights are cherished as part of India’s national heritage, and it is impermissible except under certain specified and exceptional circumstances to interfere with these rights of the people. The demonstrations in question were peaceful. No act of violence was committed or threatened by the demonstrators. The police watched over them to prevent any excesses. There was no intrusion into or damage to the Consulates-General, nor was there any impairment of their dignity. Besides, the incidents to which the Chinese note refers took place well outside the premises of the Chinese Consulates-General. In view of the facts stated above, Government of India is satisfied that the demonstrations in question were in lawful exercise of the fundamental rights of Indian citizens, and that there was no cause for Government to take action to prevent them. The Government of India take serious exception to the contents o the penultimate paragraph of the Chinese note. The fact of Chinese aggression on Indian territory forms the subject of protracted diplomatic exchanges and is not a matter of doubt in the public mind in India. Instances of recent Chinese incursions into Indian territory brought to the notice of the last session of Parliament have been admitted in its fashion by the Chinese Government. These do not, therefore, become ‘baseless charges’. The Government of India resents the imputation contained in the Embassy’s note that it unleashed ‘another new wave’ against China or that it permitted the people of India to whom the Embassy’s note ungraciously refers to as ‘ruffians’ to make trouble in front of the Chinese Consulate-General. The Indian people have reacted spontaneously and with dignity and restraint to Chinese incursions into Indian territory and the expressions of their just indignation against which the Embassy’s note protests are as natural as they are sincere.

The Government of India cannot accept any protest, far less an unseemly protest based on miscomprehension of the constitutional rights of the Indian people and misrepresentation of facts against the lawful exercise of the fundamental rights of Indian Citizens. The Ministry of External Affairs take this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 18 January 1962 Reference Chinese Embassy Memorandum dated the 14th December, 1961, about a fire on the premises of the Chinese Consulate-General, Bombay, which affected a coconut tree and an old sofa lying under the tree. The Embassy’s memo not only mis-states the facts but draws the wrong conclusions. The facts are as follows:On the morning of December 5, 1961, a servant in the neighbouring house (Shri Batlwalla’s) noticed a fire in the courtyard of the Consulate-General. This was reported to Shri Batliwalla, Managing Trustee of the Bhulabhai Desai Institute, who immediately telephone for the Fire Brigade. The first fire engine on reaching the spot was misguided by a Chinese employee of the Consulate-General to another location. When the second fire engine arrived, officials of the ConsulateGeneral refused to allow the fire brigade personnel to enter the premises. It was only at the insistence of Shri Batliwala that the fire-brigade personnel were ultimately allowed to enter the premises and put out the fire. It was a small fire which was easily extinguished. Damage caused by the fire was negligible. An old sofa lying under a coconut tree, at some distance from the Consulate-General building, was damaged by the fire. The sofa belonged to the Bhulabhai Trust which owns the building occupied by the Consulate-General.

According to preliminary investigations some Diwali sparklers and charred cotton were found near the scene of the fire. An interesting aspect of the case is the part played by the officials of the Chinese Consulate-General, who adopted an uncooperative and unhelpful attitude not only in the matter of putting out the fire but in regard to the efforts of the police to investigate into the cause of the fire. One fire engine was asked to go elsewhere, another was refused permission to enter the premises. An officer from the Control Room of the Fire Brigade who also arrived at the spot was not allowed to go in. Police officials who went there to investigate and collect evidence were refused permission to enter the premises. A Chinese official of the Consulate-General gave a statement to the police officer but declined to sign the statement. Although the police did eventually take charge of some material evidence found on the spot, other evidence was removed by the Consul-General who refused to hand them over to the police The Government of India deplores this unfortunate incident and the inconvenience it has caused to the Chinese Consulate-General. The Government of India must, however, draw attention to the extraordinary behaviour of the Consulate-General which refused co-operation to the fire-men who came to put out the fire and police officials who went there to make investigations. Needless to say there is a good deal of suspicion surrounding the ‘fire’ which broke out on the premises of the Chinese Consulate-General. The Stubborn efforts made by the Consulate-General, to deny firemen and the police access to the scene of fire did not make the task of protecting the Consulate-General easier. Furthermore, the removal of material evidence from the scene by the Consulate-General deepens suspicion. It is clear that while at the time of the fire the Consular-General behaved as though nothing of consequence had happened to warrant the admission of firemen and police into their premises, they used the incident later for political ends without hesitation. ***

Note given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 23 January 1962 The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India presents its compliments to the Ministry of External Affairs of India, and has the honour to state in the following: About 7:10 in the evening of January 17, 1962, over ten ruffians bringing with them dangerous weapons and hammers suddenly broke open the doors and raided the office of the China Review and the Lita Press in Calcutta, indulging in violence and making wanton disturbances; they stabbed Mr. Liu Kuo-jui, office worker of the China Review, and destroyed the printing machines, type-setting frames, radio sets (two), telephones, typewriters and other office equipment. It was only after the ruffians had fled that the Indian policemen came to the spot, and then they orally told the Review to stop publication. It must be pointed out that in the past two years the Indian Government expelled, without any justification, the publisher and the chief editor of the China Review from India, and took various unwarranted measures of persecution against its other members, such as ordering them to leave India within a specified period and putting them under arrest. This incident of wrecking the China Review by the ruffians is obviously another new calculated scheme following the unwarranted persecution of Chinese nationals and expelling the chief responsible members of the China Review by the Indian Government. This is a serious political incident. The Chinese Embassy expresses utmost regret at it. It is demanded that the Indian Government immediately take effective steps, severely punish the criminals, ensure the safety of the office of the China Review, and guarantee against recurrence of similar incidents in the future. The Embassy takes the opportunity to renew to the Ministry the assurances of its highest consideration. ***

Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 25 January 1962 As reported by the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay, about 9:40 in the evening of January 16, 1962, a window-pane of the Consulate’s Building, which faces the street, was hit at from outside and a hole was caused to it. It may be recalled that on December 5, 1961, there occurred the incident of setting fire on the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay, to which the Chinese Embassy has drawn the serious attention of the Indian Government. He window-pane was broken soon after the above-mentioned incident of setting fire took place and the Chinese Embassy took up the matter with the Indian Government. However, the Indian Government has again failed to prevent such kind of sabotage and disturbance. The Embassy expresses regret at this. The Embassy once again draws the attention of the Indian Government to this matter and requests that steps be taken to prevent recurrence of similar incidents. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 2 March 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Embassy’s note No. L/507/62, dated the 23rd January, 1962, regarding an incident which took place at the office of the China Review and Lita Press in Calcutta on the 17th January, 1962. The incident has been investigated. 2- On the 17th January, at 19:05 hours 15 Chinese nationals armed with some implements made their way into the office of the ‘China Review’ and Lita Press where they kept the inmates of the office and Press gagged and caused some damage to property in the premises. Slight injuries were caused to Mr. Ssu Tu-

jung, an employee of the Press. Ten minutes later, hearing calls for help, members of the public came to the rescue and the persons responsible for the disorder made good their escape. Three of them were arrested by the Calcutta Police as they were trying to get away. A fourth member of the group was arrested later. The Calcutta Police have since apprehended the remaining members of the group and a process has been started against the offenders under the law. 3- The Calcutta Police arrived at the scene of the disturbance as soon as word reached them. The Embassy will have noticed that ‘China Review’ in its issue dated the 19th January, 1962—two days after the incident—stated that the Police “reached the sport in time”. 4- The police made no demand, oral or otherwise, that ‘China Review’ should stop publication. The allegation to this effect made in the Embassy’s note is factually incorrect. In India, the functions of the Police officials are limited to maintenance of law and order. They do not issue political directives of any kind. The latter task is performed by appropriate organs of the Government. Moreover, contrary to what the Embassy has stated the Calcutta Police were prompt both in taking action to apprehend the offenders and in posting a guard at the office and press of the ‘China Review’ with a view to ensure its safety. 5 - As the Embassy is aware, for some years now, there have been groups of Chinese residents in Calcutta holding different political views. More recently, one such group has been seeking to impose its views on another, and to this end has been using ‘China Review’ to mount political attacks on its opponents. Tension between the groups was heightened by a series of slanderous items which appeared in the ‘China Review’ exposing private and family affairs of Chinese nationals of the opposite group to public ridicule and shame. It is this policy of the journal calculated to offend and intimidate the other Chinese group which appears to have set off the incident of 17th January, 1962.

6- It is a fact that ‘China Review’ published by a group of Chinese nationals in India has over a long time been carrying on a vigorous anti-Indian campaign and operating as a mouthpiece of Chinese official propaganda in India. As the Embassy is aware some members of the staff of the ‘China Review’ were expelled because they had been engaged in objectionable and subversive activities which threatened the security of the State. The expulsion orders in their case were not only necessary but were strictly within the internal jurisdiction of the Government of India. In this connection, the Embassy may wish to refer to the Ministry of External Affairs. Memorandum dated 5th January, 1962, wherein the reasons for expulsion of the subversive Chinese nationals have been stated in detail. The Government of India are constrained to observe that the Embassy’s attempt to link up this incident with the expulsion groups of the Chinese nationals in Calcutta, which resulted in violence on 17th January, 1962, has, as the facts show been instigated by the support give to one group against the other by the Chinese Missions in India. The Government of India hope that no support of any kind will, in future, be given by Chinese missions to any unlawful elements which promote a breach of law and order as in this case. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 6 March 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of India in China and, with reference to the memorandum from the Ministry of External Affairs of India to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India dated January 5, 1962, has the honour to state the following, which the Embassy is requested to transmit to the Government of India:

In order to cover up its political persecution of Chinese nationals, the Indian Government in its memorandum groundlessly accused Chinese nationals of indulging in activities intended to subvert the security of India and engaging themselves in anti-social activities. Moreover, the memorandum slandered the Chinese Embassy a lending implied support to the anti-Indian and anti-social activities of certain Chinese nationals and as openly interfering in the internal affairs of India. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China express its deep regret at this and strongly protests against these malicious slanders levelled by the Indian Government against the Chinese Embassy. Since 1960 the Indian Government has been persecuting Chinese nationals on framed-up charges and unjustifiably ordering them to leave India by a specified date. Recently, things have developed to more serious proportions. To date more than 100 Chinese nationals have been expelled or given notices by the Indian Government to leave India by a specified date. They have been subjected by the Indian authorities to rude treatments—unwarranted summons, detention, imprisonment, fine and even deportation under armed escort. In its memorandum the Indian Government falsely alleged that it expelled these Chinese nationals because they had been engaged in anti-social activities and in activities, covert or overt, intended to subvert the security of the state of India. Previously the Indian authorities had also repeatedly slandered the Chinese nationals as being engaged in so-called “anti-Indian activities” and “activities which are prejudicial to Indian national interests”. But what grounds are there for such charges and slanders by the Indian Government? The Chinese nationals expelled by the Indian authorities had all lived in India for a long period of time, had normal occupations and always abided by the laws and regulations of the Indian Government. For instance, Mr. Wu Tao-lung, who was engaged in journalism, and his family had resided in India for generations, Mr. Ling Chi-kang, a shoe-maker, and Mr. Wang Ching-shan, who lived by selling bean curd, had both lived in India for many years. They have all along been residing in India with legitimate status and have lived in amity with the local people. However, it was these innocent Chinese nationals who were one after

another arbitrarily arrested by the Indian authorities in 1961, imposed with the charge of so-called anti-Indian activities and deported under armed escort. In this connection the Chinese Government has more than once made inquiries to the Indian Government and asked it to give the concrete reasons for arresting or expelling the Chinese nationals, but the Indian Government has never been able to give any facts, it has refused to make any concrete explanation and only dodged the question by asserting that it was the policy of the Indian Government not to divulge the concrete reasons. In its memorandum the Indian Government still did nothing more than imposing on these Chinese nationals the charge of subverting the security of the state and failed to cite any facts. This cannot but arouse the suspicion that the above charge is a sheer fabrication. The Indian authorities not only unreasonably expelled Chinese nationals but also applied various extremely inhumane measures against the Chinese nationals involved. Take the case of Mr. Chang Ching, Mr. Liu Wei-tai, Mr. Hou Hsin-fu, Mr. Wo Tao-lung and others, who were arrested by the Indian authorities when they, after receiving the order to leave the country by a specified date, were appealing according to law for permission for continued residence. At the time of arrest, they were not allowed to pack their luggage, some of them were even taken to the airfield in pyjamas. In escorting them to the border, the Indian armed personnel covered their eyes with black cloth and shut them in cold rooms, in disregard of the piercing weather in the mountainous areas on the border, thus greatly hurting them both spiritually and physically. In the case of Mr. Chang Suifung, a Chinese national in Kalimpong within a specified time limit, and then recalled to Kalimpong to be tried; under various means of persecution by the Indian authorities, she finally fainted at the court. Later the Indian authorities sentenced her to imprisonment, thus separating her from her four young children and a sucking baby and throwing the family into a miserable state where husband and wife and parents and children were separated. Are these the “humane and generous standards” the Indian Government boasted of in its memorandum? At the same time the Indian Government has gone back upon its promise and allowed and permitted Chiang Kai-shek clique elements and Tibetan rebels to

carry out flagrant political activities in India against the People’s Republic of China. How can such practice of the Indian Government of giving totally different treatment to different people be explained if it is not out of ulterior motives? Judging from the above-said facts in three aspects, the Indian Government can in no way deny that it has subjected innocent and law-abiding Chinese nationals to political persecution. What is even more surprising and regrettable is the fact that Indian Government in its memorandum described the Chinese Embassy’s proper and normal representations with the Indian Government concerning the Indian authorities’ unwarranted persecution of Chinese nationals as open interference in the internal affairs of India and alleged that the Chinese Embassy lended implied support to the so-called anti-Indian and anti-social activities of certain Chinese. The consistent policy of the Chinese Government towards overseas Chinese is, in the spirit of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, to educate them to respect the laws and regulations of the country where they reside, refrain from taking part in local political activities, engage in economic and cultural work beneficial to the local national economy and people’s livelihood, and live in amity with the local people. The Chinese Embassy and Consulate-General in India have consistently and strictly executed this policy. As for protecting the proper rights and interests of its nationals abroad and making reasonable representations to the government of the host country when they suffer unwarranted persecution there, this is the legitimate right as well as bounden duty of the Embassy and Consulate-General of every country, as is internationally acknowledged. As a country which has large numbers of nationals residing abroad, India cannot be unaware of this point. However, the Indian Government actually considers the Chinese Embassy’s diplomatic representations concerning Chinese nationals as constituting an act of open interference in the internal affairs of India; this is not only a malicious slander against the Chinese Embassy but also an obvious attempt to deprive the Chinese Embassy and Consulates-General of their legitimate right to protect the proper rights and interest of their nationals. This is

something the Chinese Government absolutely cannot accept but must categorically repudiate. At present, the Indian Government’s acts of persecuting Chinese nationals continue to increase; this is completely against the wish of the peoples of China and India. Proceeding from the spirit of consistently upholding the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and safeguarding the friendship between the two peoples, the Chinese Government asks the Indian Government to treasure the friendship of the two peoples. Respect the proper rights and interests of Chinese nationals, and immediately take effective measures to stop persecution of Chinese nationals. The Chinese Government once again expresses its readiness, together with the Indian Government, to seek fair and reasonable solutions to problems concerning Chinese nationals in the spirit of friendly negotiation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 29 March 1962 Reference Chinese Embassy’s Memorandum dated 25th January 1962 regarding a broken window-pane in the premises of the Chinese Consulate-General in Bombay. When an investigation was held into the alleged incident, the Indian Police official who visited the Consulate-General was shown a small hole about 2” in diameter in one of the windows. It is significant that the matter of a broken window-pane which is the subject of the Chinese Embassy’s Memorandum was not promptly reported to the police at the time of its occurrence and that later when the police had started a process of investigation the officials of the Consulate General had adopted an uncooperative attitude by refusing to give information requested for by the police. These facts have rendered the task of

investigation difficult, and in consequence the investigation has yielded no positive result. However, it has been established that the damage in question was trivial and probably due to accidental causes. The Government of India, therefore, reject the allegation contained in the Chinese Embassy Memorandum that the broken window-pane of the Chinese Consulate General in Bombay was an act of “sabotage and disturbance”. On the above facts there can be no basis for any charge of negligence or deliberate harassment of the Chinese Consulate General in Bombay. There is no need to reaffirm that the Government of India have always taken and will continue to take all necessary steps to extend full protection to foreign missions in India. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 28 April 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the two notes addressed by the Ministry of External Affairs of India to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India dated January 18, 1962 concerning Indian ruffians’ provocative disturbance in front of the Chinese Consulates-General in Bombay and Calcutta, has the honour to state as follows: The Chinese Government completely disagrees with the reply of the Indian Government. That Indian ruffians created provocative disturbance in front of the Chinese Consulates-General and even wantonly insulted Chinese leaders not only was witnessed by staff-members of the Chinese Consulates-General, but was reported in Indian newspapers. Needless to point out, such activities constituted a serious provocation against China. The Indian Government in its notes tried to quibble with the pretexts of “the fundamental rights of Indian citizens”, “Indian national heritage” and “the peaceful character of the procession”. This shows that

the Indian Government openly connived at and shielded such acts hostile to China, which is regrettable. Should the Indian Government persist in this attitude, to what state the relations between China and India would be reduced? The Chinese Government cannot but be worried about the eventuality. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi 28 April 1962 Regarding the incident in which an attempt was made to set fire to the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay has in its memorandum of December 14, 1961 given a clear and correct account. The Ministry of External Affairs in its memorandum of January 18, 1962, however, not only failed to account for the cause of the fire, but on the contrary made a narration inconsistent with the facts with regard to what had happened at the time and even charged the Chinese Consulate-General with refusing cooperation tot he fire-men and police officials. Such an attitude cannot but make the Embassy feel disappointment and regret. The Chinese Consulate-General accorded full co-operation and assistance to the police officials who went there for investigation. They wee given facilities in conducting a detailed investigation on the spot. As for the question of a fire engine being misguided elsewhere, the fact is that, when the fire-men entered the courtyard of the Consulate-General, they blamed Mr. Batliwalla, secretary to the landlord, who informed the fire brigade of the incident by telephone, asking him why he had told them that it was Mr. Bhulabai Desai’s house, and not the Chinese Consulate-General that had caught fire, with the result that the fire engine mistakenly went elsewhere and failed to reach the Chinese ConsulateGeneral earlier. Mr. Batliwalla replied that he was not wrong in forming them that

way because the house which the Chinese Consulate-General occupies is that of Mr. Bhulabhai Desai. A member of the Consulate-General related the facts about the fire to a police official who went there for investigation but he found that in the statement recorded by the police official there were some discrepancies from what he had related. It is natural, therefore, that he could not sign on it. The grave nature of this incident of setting fire is far too obvious. It is entirely necessary for the Embassy to draw the serious attention of the Government of India to it. The Government of India has unshirkable responsibility for ensuring the security of the official organs of a foreign country in India. The Government of India, however, not only has failed to carry out serious and earnest investigations but on the contrary made such assertions as “it was a small fire”, and even went to the length of groundlessly accusing the Consulate-General of “using the incident for political ends”. This is indeed exceedingly surprising and regrettable. While nothing that the Government of India in its memorandum has deplored the incident, the Embassy once again requests the Government of India to see to it that the security of the Chinese official organs in India be effectively ensured. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 5 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Note dated 6-3-1962, have the honour to sate as follows: It is a matter of surprise and regret to the Government of India that the Government of China should continue to make baseless allegations regarding the treatment of Chinese nationals resident in India. It is particularly regrettable that the Chinese Government should have gone to the extend of making a false and malicious suggestion that their nationals are being persecuted on framed-up charges and are being unjustifiably ordered to leave India.

It is a perversion of the truth to describe the protective action taken against a few offending Chinese nationals resident in India as “persecution on framed-up charges”. The fact that the number of such Chinese nationals is small relative to the size of the Chinese population in India should indicate that there is no general discrimination against Chinese residents and that the Government of India are only proceeding against a limited few who over a period of time have been found to indulge in anti-social activities. As already pointed out in the Government of India’s memorandum dated 5th January 1962, every Chinese expelled from India has been guilty of a cognizable offence, e.g., smuggling or other criminal offences, infringement of visa regulations, or indulgence in activities, covert or overt, intended to subvert the security of the State. The suggestion in the Chinese note, that Chinese nationals have been subjected to rude treatment, unjustified summons, detention, imprisonment, etc. is false and groundless. Action taken against the Chinese nationals has been strictly limited to the law and legal pro0cedures obtaining in the country and adequate notice has invariably been given before taking action against the offending individuals concerned. The Chinese note has attempted to cite specific instances in support of its allegations regarding ‘unfair treatment’ to Chinese nationals. It will be seen from the following data that the allegations of arbitrary arrest etc. are entirely contrary to the facts: _________________________________________________________________ _ Name Date of expiry of residential Permit Mr. Wu Tao Lung Mr. Ling Chi-Kang Mr. Wang Ching-Shan _ 17.04.1960 10.04.1960 04.04.1960 Date of expiry of three months notice 23.10.1960 25.10.1960 08.03.1961 28.12.1960 25.11.1960 29.05.1961 Date of arrest

_________________________________________________________________

Note only had sufficient notice been given in these cases but even the arrest of the offending individuals had come after a further period of grace had been allowed to these persons to betake themselves from India. Besides, the utmost care had been taken to ensure that these offending, Chinese received the maximum facilities permissible under the law. Arrangements had been made to provide them with good food and comfortable accommodation on Indian territory and, in addition, they were given a number of items of warm clothing boots, etc. to make their journey home as comfortable as possible. The Chinese note refers to Mr. and Mrs. Chang Sui-fung. This couple had been served with orders on the 30th August 1960 to leave Kalimpong within a period of 15 days but as they did not comply with the order they were arrested on the 5th December 1960. The Court refused bail to Mr. Chang but allowed bail to Mrs. Chang on condition that she made arrangements to leave Kalimpong forthwith. Upon her refusal to do so, her bail application was rejected. But later, on the receipt of assurance son her behalf, she was released on bail on 17-12-1960. Mrs. Chang had been sentenced at her trial to two months simple imprisonment but in view of the special family considerations, the Government of India arranged to have the un-expired portion of the sentences on both Mr. and Mrs. Chang Sui-fung remitted and they were both permitted to leave the country. It will be seen from these facts that this Chinese couple had been released even before the expiry of their terms of imprisonment. Surely there was nothing inhumane about this. In this connection, the Government of India firmly reject the absurd suggestion made in the Chinese note about the “Chiang Kai-shek clique elements” having been permitted to carry on political activities against the People’s Republic of China The absurdity of this suggestion should be self-evident from the fact that the Government of India recognise and maintain diplomatic relations only with the People’s Republic of China, and have no relations with Taiwan. The Government of China do not seem to be aware that the Indian Constitution and the laws of the land guarantee maximum liberty and equal treatment to all persons without distinction provided they do not act against the laws of the

country. But where certain individuals, whether foreign or Indian, infringe the laws of the land they have necessarily to face the consequences that arise from their actions, and have only themselves to blame for it. Such enforcement of the law falls entirely within the internal jurisdiction of a country. The Ministry of External Affairs avails themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 15 May 1962 The Chinese Embassy cannot accept the reply given by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in its memorandum of March 29, 1962 regarding the incident in which a window-pane of the building of the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay, which faces the street, was broken through. This incident of the breaking of the window-pane occurred soon after the attempted setting fire to the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay. Its serious nature is thus obvious. The Government of India has the responsibility for ensuring the security of foreign official organs in India. What the Indian Ministry of External Affairs stated in its above –mentioned memorandum that “the damage in question was trivial” and “probably due to accidental causes” was intended to justify the act of endangering the security of the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay. The Government of India groundlessly charged the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay with failing to give co-operation in investigation. They Embassy is surprised at this extraordinary attitude of the Indian Government. The Embassy has recently received further report from the Chinese ConsulateGeneral at Bombay that, at about 8 o’clock in the evening of April 26, 1962, another window-pane of the Consulate-building facing the street was broken through from outside. I was further discovered that, before that incident, the

window-panes of three other rooms had also been broken with a hole on each of them. Besides, the glass cover of the gate light of the Consulate was smashed from outside on April 19. At about 7 o’clock in the evening of May 1, a piece of tile was thrown into the courtyard from outside the Consulate, almost hitting a member of the Consulate. All these incidents are of extremely serious nature. These incidents themselves serve to have refuted the untenable contention of the Ministry of External Affairs contained in its above-mentioned memorandum. It must be pointed out that the repeated occurrence of such incidents are by no means accidental. The Embassy expresses deep regret that the Government of India has failed to prevent such kind of sabotage and disturbance against the Chinese official organ, and requests that the Government of India pay serious attention to it and effectively ensure against recurrence of similar incidents in the future. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 17 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India and with reference to the Note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese People’s Republic, Peking, dated the 28th April 1962, have the honour to state as follows: The facts about the demonstrations which took place in Bombay and Calcutta in October/November 1961, have been communicated to the Embassy in the Ministry of External Affairs Notes dated 18th January 1962. It is, therefore, not necessary to restate that the demonstrations were peaceful, spontaneous and in lawful exercise of the fundamental rights of the Indian people. Nor is it necessary to reiterate that the Government of India found no cause to take action against the peaceful demonstrators who had posed no threat to law and order.

If the Chinese Government are as exercised over the future of Sino-Indian relations as their note would seem to indicate, they would have no doubt noted that the demonstrations in question were themselves the outcome of public indignation over the unlawful occupation of Indian territory by Chinese forces. It is this occupation of Indian territory that has caused a deterioration in SinoIndian relations. While it is a matter of no small regret to the Government of India that their relations with the Chinese People’s Republic have worsened in recent years, it is obvious that normal relations between the two countries can easily be restored if Chinese forces posted on Indian territory are withdrawn. Such action would lay a true and lasting foundation for friendly relations between the two countries and also create a favourable atmosphere for negotiations to settle the boundary problem. The Ministry of External Affairs take this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 17 May 1962 Reference Chinese Embassy Memorandum dated the 28th April 1962, about a fire in the premises of the Chinese Consulate General, Bombay. The facts about this incident were furnished to the Chinese Embassy in the Ministry of External Affairs Memorandum dated the 18th January 1962 in which the cause of the fire, as established on the basis of preliminary investigations, was also indicated. The same memorandum drew the attention of the Embassy to the obstructive and unhelpful attitude of certain officials of the Consulate-General which seriously hampered efforts of the local Police officials to investigate the case. The Government of India are satisfied that all the facts communicated by them to the Chinese Embassy are correct and incontrovertible. In the face of the

facts, they are constrained to reject the prejudicated version of the incident put forward by the Embassy. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 23 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the latter’s Memorandum dated 12th December 1961, have the honour to state as follows: 2- The Government of India have carried out a thorough investigation into the allegations made by the Embassy against the Indian local authorities in regard to the affairs of the Chung Hwa School in Kalimpong. The facts of the case are clear enough. On December 2, 1961, some members of the Chinese community in Kalimpong had come in person to the Chung Hwa School and had made a proposal that the school should henceforth be run jointly under the direction of the Board of Directors of the Chung Hwa School and the Chinese Refugee School. They contented that as the number of students in the Chung Hwa School had come down to a mere 30 and as there was no properly elected Board of Directors or a Headmaster to look after the Chung Hwa School, it would be in the best interests of the Chinese community as a whole for the two Schools to be placed under one management. These Chinese from the Chinese Refugee School claimed part-ownership of the building on the ground that some of them had been among the original sponsors of the Chung Hwa School and had contributed towards the construction of the building. This request made by the representatives of the Chinese Refugee School was summarily rejected by a lady teacher, Mrs. Yang Lan Ying of the two rival parties. At this moment an official of the Foreigners Registration Office in Kalimpong who had received information about the disturbance arrived on the spot and prevented the situation from taking an ugly

turn. The disputants were advised by the Indian officials to decide the matter amicably by mutual negotiation and not by any unilateral action. 3- It is evident from the foregoing that the action taken by the Indian authorities in this instance was correct and proper. It is a matter of regret to the Government of India that the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China should have seized this incident for levelling a number of totally unwarranted accusations and allegations against the Indian authorities charging them amongst other things, with “connivance”, “planned persecution”, etc. The Ministry of External Affairs while totally and individually rejecting these incomprehensible charges cannot but point out a few examples of the erroneous and coloured statements contained in the Embassy’s note under reference:a) It is not a fact as stated in the Embassy’s note that the Indian local authorities have interfered in the functioning of the Chung Hwa School. On the contrary, the local authorities had warned the members of the Chinese Refugee School against attempting to take forcible possession of Chung Hwa School building and had thereby protected the interests of the Chung Hwa School. b) The expulsion of some Chinese nationals related to the Chung Hwa School had taken place only after an investigation had more than established their anti-social and anti-Indian activities. It is slanderous to impute any other motives to explain these expulsions which constitute an internal act of the Indian Government. c) The curious accusation of connivance with “the Chiang Kai-shek clique” deserves to be ignored, except that the Embassy has repeated it so often. The incongruity of the charge should be evident to the Embassy from the fact that India maintains diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China alone and has no such relations with Taiwan. d) The Embassy makes much out of the expulsion of some Chinese from India for their anti-social and anti-Indian activities. But other foreigners too have been similarly expelled from time to time when their behaviour warranted

it. In those cases the Embassies concerned had invariably shown a proper appreciation of the sovereign jurisdiction of the Indian Government in the matter. The Government of India take strong exception to this charge contained in the Embassy’s Memorandum which goes against all notions of accepted diplomatic behaviour and seeks to interfere in the purely internal affairs of India. 4 -In the Chinese Embassy’s Memorandum dated 12th December 1961, there is no mention of the Chinese Consulate General, Calcutta, letter dated 11th December 1961, to the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, regarding the taking over by the Consulate General of the Chung Hwa School. It has now been ascertained that without waiting for authorisation from the competent authorities, irregular and objectionable steps have been taken by the Chinese Trade Agency in Kalimpong in closing down the Chung Hwa Schoo. It should be obvious that the Consulate General of China in Calcutta, can, in no way, authorise the Trade Agent in Kalimpong to take over the premises of the Chung Hwa School. Such action falls well outside the province of a Trade Agency and reveals a lack of respect for the local laws and regulations. This illegal action of the Chinese Trade Agent is further compounded by the fact that on the 14th December, 1961 they had also surreptitiously removed furniture etc. from the school and taken the same to the Chinese Trade Agency premises. In this the Trade Agency has grossly exceeded its functions both under the 1954 Agreement as also under recognized principles of Customary International Law. It is not the function of a Trade Agency to take charge of private property on anybody’s behalf and in so doing it will not be entitled to the privileges and immunities shown under Article I of the 1954 Agreement. 5- In view of the above irregularities and illegalities, the Government of India call upon the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China to take immediate action on the following:-

a) The premises together with the keys of the building of the Chung Hwa School should be handed over to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalimpong, within 10 days of the receipt of this note. b) Any equipment removed from the premises of the Chung Hwa School should be restored to the premises in the presence of the S.D.O. within the same period of time. c) The Chinese Trade Agency in Kalimpong should be instructed in clear terms not to transgress the limits laid down in the 1954 Agreement and act in defiance of the law of the land. The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affair, New Delhi, 28 May 1962 The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India presents its compliments to the Ministry of External Affairs of the Republic of India, and has the honour to state as follows: About 6:45 on the afternoon of May 25, 1962, more than forty Indians shouted anti-Chinese slogans in front of the Embassy, insulting Premier Chou En-lai and the Chinese people. They viciously attacked China and burnt the Embassy’s bulletins and other Chinese publications. They did not disperse till 7 p.m. It must be pointed out that the Government of India has time and again connived with a few elements hostile to China in making noises in front of the Embassy, and, what is even more serious, in insulting a Chinese leader. For this the Government of India cannot evade its due responsibility. The Embassy hereby lodges a protest with the Government of India, and urges the Government of

India to adopt effective measures to prevent recurrence of similar incidents in the future. The Embassy takes this opportunity to renew to the Ministry the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 28 May 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and with reference to the note of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India dated March 2, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: The Indian Ministry of External Affairs in its reply note of March 2 did not mention a single word to condemn the ruffians for their crime of unlawfully raiding the office of the “China Review” and the Lita Press but, on the contrary, made groundless charges against the victimized “China Review”, even alleging that the violence was “instigated by the support given to one group against the other by the Chinese Missions in India”. This is not only an act of turning the facts upside down and shirking responsibility, but is a calculated attack against the Chinese Missions. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China expresses its deep regret at this extremely unfair attitude of the Indian Government and resolutely rejects the unwarranted slanderous charges against the Chinese Missions. Both the depositions made by some of the criminals before the Court in Calcutta and the police report show that the incident was a premeditated and organised act of violence. The criminals, with such implements of violence as chopper, axe and iron rods in hand, smashed up the “China Review” office and wounded a member of the Press. The hearings at the Indian Court have established the guilt the these ruffians. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs however, in disregard of

the facts, turned around and slandered the wronged party, so as to absolve the criminals of their crimes. This unusual practice can only be regarded as proceeding from ulterior motives. This smashing up of the “China Review” office by the ruffians is by no means fortuitous. This is another case of political persecution following the unwarranted persecution of Chinese nationals and expulsion of the leading members of the “China Review” by the Indian Government. Therefore, the Chinese Government hereby once again asks the Indian Government to respect the legitimate rights and interests of the Chinese nationals, to ensure the safety of the “China Review” and to assure that no similar incidents will recur in the future. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 2 June 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the note delivered by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the Chinese Embassy in India on May 23, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: 1- In its memorandum of December 12, 1961 the Chinese Embassy in India proved with indisputable facts that the Indian local authorities had systematically persecuted the Chung Hwa School in Kalimpong and connived at the scheming activities of Chiang Kai-shek elements. As a result of this persecution, the Chug Hwa School was compelled virtually to close down. The Indian Government’s arbitrary arguments and denial are futile.

2- The Chung Hwa School in Kalimpong is a school run by Chinese nationals in the locality with pooled funds. In the situation in which the School has been unable to continue functioning owing to persecution by the Indian local authorities, it is entirely proper and legitimate for the Chinese Consulate-General in Calcutta to take charge of the property of the School at the request of its Board of Directors. The Chinese Consulate-General in Calcutta notified the West Bengal Government of India of this by letter dated December 11, 1961, enclosing a copy of the letter from the Head and Deputy Heads of the Board of Directors of the Chung Hwa School requesting the Consulate-General to take charge of the School’s property. To perform its trusteeship over the School’s property, the Consulate-General entrusted the Chinese Trade Agency in Kalimpong, which is in the locality to look after such purely technical matters as keeping the school building under lock, looking after the School property and paying taxes for the School. This is no way “taking over” the School, and has nothing to do with the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement. Furthermore, the Chinese Trade Agency wrote to the Sub-Divisional Officer at Kalimpong, India, on December 12, 1961, SubDivisional Officer in his reply dated December 15 stated that the matter had been noted, and a letter would follow concerning this. However, more than five months have passed, and no objection has been heard from the Indian side. Now on the eve of the withdrawal of the Trade Agency, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs suddenly sent in a note on May 23, arbitrarily alleging that the Chinese Trade Agency “falls well outside” its province, “close down” the Chung Hwa School, and “takes charge of private property”. These allegations are groundless and can only be regarded as deliberate distortion of the facts and malicious slanders against the Chinese Trade Agency. 3- Especially surprising is the fact that the Indian Government should attempt to deprive the Chinese Consulate-General of its right to take charge of the property o a school run by Chinese nationals. The Indian Government demanded that the Chinese side should hand over to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalimpong, India, the premises together with the keys of the building of the Chung Hwa School within

10 days of the receipt of the note from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. The Chinese Government absolutely cannot agree to, and lodges its protest against, this rude demand which scorns the internationally acknowledged consular functions and powers and infringes on the legitimate property of foreign nationals. 4- The Chinese Government hereby states that to take charge of the property of the Chung Hwa School is a proper duty of the Chinese Consulate-General, and hopes that the Indian Government will respect the legitimate rights of the Chinese Embassy and Consulates-General to protect the proper rights and interests of their nationals. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 15 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to acknowledge the latter’s Note No. M/552/62, dated the 28th May, 1962. On the evening of 25th May 1962 the Praja Socialist Party took out a procession as a protest against continued violations of Indian territory by Chinese forces. At about 6:45 P.M. the procession reached Lytton Road and was stopped by the police at a distance of over 50 yards from the gate of the Chinese Embassy. Elaborate police arrangements were made to ensure the fullest protection to the Embassy. The processionists asked for the vacation of Chinese aggression from Indian territory and burnt certain publications, circulated in India, which dared to

question the territorial integrity of India. The procession stayed on Lytton Road well outside the Chinese Embassy for a total of fifteen minutes. The Chinese Embassy should be aware by now that under the constitution and laws of India, it is not possible to prohibit demonstrations in this country so long as they remain peaceful. The Government of India reject the Chinese Embassy’s protest note dated the 28th May 1962, which by questioning as it does the fundamental rights of the citizens of India, shows a regrettable disregard for the laws and constitution of India. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 23 June 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents it compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and with reference to the note of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs delivered to the Chinese Embassy in India on May 17, 1962, has the honour to state the following: Concerning Indian ruffians’ provocative disturbance in front of the Chinese Consulates-General in Bombay and Calcutta and the insult flung at Chinese leaders, the Indian Government, in its note, tries to explain it away by slandering that China has allegedly occupied Indian territory. This helps nothing. There is a dispute between China and India over the boundary, which remains to be settled equitably and reasonably through peaceful negotiations between the two sides. However, the essence of the Sino-Indian boundary question, as pointed out by the Chinese Government is that the Indian Government has laid claims on large pieces of Chinese territory, incessantly encroached on and set by aggressive strong points and made armed provocations inside Chinese territory. Such being

the case, it is China which is hurt and feels indignant. Such being the case, it is China which is hurt and feels indignant. But the Chinese peoples. Proceeding from the overall consideration for Sino-Indian friendship and Asian-African solidarity, have long since held an attitude of self-restraint. The Indian Government’s repeated connivance at and shielding of the acts hostile to China and insulting Chinese leaders has further deteriorated the relations between the two countries. One may ask what India would think about this if it were put in the position of the Chinese Government. The Indian Government’s persistence in such a wrong attitude is not in the interest of the Chinese and Indian peoples and it lays bare the fact that the Indian Government’s persistence is making use of the boundary question to create tension and poison the Sino-Indian relations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking to the Embassy of India in China, 23 June 1962 Reference Memorandum of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs dated May 17, 1962. With regard to the case of ruffians attempting to set fire to the Chinese Consulate-General in Bombay, the reply of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs is entirely unsatisfactory. In its memorandum of January 18, 1962, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs did not make any account for the cause of the fire except the ambiguous assertion that some Diwali sparklers and charred cotton were found near the scene of the fire. It is only surprising that the Indian Government, which bears the responsibility for the protection of he security of official foreign missions in India, instead of undertaking serious investigations into the case, should have made fabricated charges against the Chinese ConsulateGeneral in Bombay whose security had been threatened. Viewing this together

with the fact that the window-panes of the same Consulate-General has been repeatedly broken through of late and the Indian Government has kept closing its eyes to the matter, the Chinese can not but express its anxiety for the security of the Chinese Consulate-General in Bombay. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 26 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to note No. 521, dated the 2nd June 1962 from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In their note dated the 23rd May 1962 the Government of India have already refuted the baseless allegations about Indian persecution and interference with the Chung Hwa School in Kalimpong. These are mischievous allegations and they do not confer legality on the seizure of the School building or removal of equipment therefrom by the Chinese Trade Agent to take charge of the property on his behalf is highly improper. The Chinese Consul-General has only aided and abetted the Chinese Trade Agent in performing an act in defiance of the duly constituted authorities of the Government of India. The attempt to justify the unwarranted action of the Chinese Trade Agency in Kalimpong as being the legitimate exercise of a Consular function betrays ignorance of well-recognised principles of customary international law. The arbitrary seizure of property cannot be considered to be in defence of the interests of its nationals by a foreign Mission. Even if one ignores the fact that the request of the so-called Board of Directors of the Chung Hwa School to the arbitrary and did not represent the wishes of the majority of the original sponsors of the school, the action taken to assume physical charge of this property is questionable under Indian laws and regulations.

It is not customary in India to proceed arbitrarily against any person or institution. The particular offence having been committed by agencies of a foreign Government, the local authorities concerned has to carry out a thorough inquiry before proceeding against the offenders. It was in deference to the status of the main offender viz. The Chinese Trade Agent that the Chinese Embassy was advised that the premises and property of the Chung Hwa School should be handed over to the Sub Divisional Officer, Kalimpong within 10 days of the receipt of notice. Since this property, arbitrarily seized, was not handed over as advised, the matter is now before the court. The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 4 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ note, dated May 28, 1962, regarding the incident which took place in Calcutta on the 17th January 1962. The Government of China have already been informed in the Ministry of External Affairs note, dated 2nd March 1962, that a case had been registered against the offenders before a court of law. The persons concerned have on the basis of the evidence been found guilty of certain infringements of the law by the court and sentenced. The judgment of the court specifically dealt with the offences committed in this particular incident. Courts in India are above politics and impartial. The activities of the Chinese missions in India and their using the China Review as a mouthpiece of their official propaganda and fomenting internecine feud among

groups of Chinese nationals resident in this country are matters which were never before the court and the court had no occasion to pronounce any opinions or findings on these activities. The Government of India hope that the Government of China will appreciate the impartiality with which laws are administered by the courts in India and not draw any unwarranted conclusions from the judgment of the court. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi to the Embassy of China in India, 10 July 1962 Reference note No. 640, dated the 23rd June 1962 from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts regarding the old and derelict sofa set lying under a coconut trees in the courtyard of the Chinese Consulate General which caught fire on the 5th December 1961 have already been given in the Ministry of External Affairs Memorandum, dated the 10th January 1962. There is nothing further to add except to reiterate that the members of the Chinese Consulate-General refused to cooperate and obstructed the investigation of the fire. About the broken window-panes, the local Government have given the facts to the Chinese Consulate-General in their letter No. C.A.P.-43729-E, dated the 21st May 1962. Little boys threw stones at the fruit of a mango tree and missed the target. The damage thus caused to the window panes was unintentional. However, the police apprehended the boys and admonished them. Apart from the mangoes, the boys had no other motive. Nevertheless, in view of the Chinese Government’s political suspicions, further steps have been taken by the Bombay police to patrol the vicinity of the Chinese Consulate-General at Bombay. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 10 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to note No. 439, dated the 23rd June 1962, from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts about the demonstrations which took place in Bombay and Calcutta in October/November 1961, have already been communicated in the Ministry of External Affairs notes of the 18th January 1962 and the 17th May 1962. There is nothing further to add to them. It is surprising that the Government of China, having illegally occupied by stages, since 1957, more, should attempt now to delude themselves that it is not they but the Government of India who have committed aggression. It is but natural that the people of India should express their feelings over these systematic Chinese violations of India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The Government of India cannot interfere with this normal exercise of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution so long as this is done in a non-violent and peaceful manner. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking to the Embassy of India in China, 3 December 1961 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following which the Embassy is requested to transmit to the Indian Government. The Agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India on Trade and intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India, which was

signed on April 29, 1954, came into effect on June 3, the same year upon ratification by both Parties. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Agreement, the Agreement shall remain in force for eight years, so it is due to expire and cease to be in force on June 3, 1962. With a view to consolidating and developing the traditional friendship between the peoples of China and India and promoting the economic and cultural interflow between the two countries, the Chinese Government proposes that the Chinese an Indian Governments hold negotiations so as to conclude, in accordance with the Five Principles of mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence, a new agreement on trade in intercourse, to replace the original Agreement. The Chinese Government is looking forward to the reply of the Indian Government to this proposal. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 15 December 1961 The Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India and has the honour to state that it has received a proposal from the Government of the People’s Republic of China through the Indian Embassy in Peking to hold negotiations between the two Government’s to conclude, in accordance with the Five Principles of mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equal and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence, a new

agreement on trade and intercourse to replace the 1954 Agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibetan region of China and India, which will expire and cease to be in force on 3rd June, 1962. 2 -As the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China is aware, Government of India took the initiative to enter into negotiations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China in 1954 with a view to reaching an agreement on the revised pattern of economic and cultural relations between India and Tibet so as to establish a climate of friendship and co-operation between India and China and to ensure and indeed to facilitate friendly and co-operative relations between India and China and to promote peace and rapid economic and cultural development not only in the two countries but also in South East Asia. It was with this end in view that the Five Principles of peaceful co-existence were enunciated and set out in the preamble to the Agreement. It was hoped that these Five Principles would not only regulate for years to come the relations between India and China but that the agreement would pave the way for a wider acceptance of these principles in inter-state relations more particularly in Asia. 3- The Government of India, ever since the signing of the 1954 Agreement, consistently pursued a policy of creating a zone of Asia free from cold-war conflicts and expected that the Government of the People’s Republic of China would also co-operate in this commendable objective. 4- Within a year or two of the signing of this Agreement, the Government of the People’s Republic of China not only began to curtail progressively the economic and cultural facilities provided for Indian traders and Indian pilgrims under the Agreement, but, what is more reprehensible, started to encroach, at first insidiously and later on openly, on territories which had clearly been accepted as Indian, and by 1958, began to make open claims, followed up by aggressive military activity, on several thousand square miles of Indian territory. The

Position today is that the Government of the People’s Republic of China have not only violated both in letter and spirit the Five Principles of co-existence set out in the preamble to the 1954 Agreement but have actually occupied by force over 12,000 square miles of Indian territory and continue to expand their illegal claims and pursue their aggressive military activities to forcibly occupy large areas of Indian territory. 5- The Government of India always desired friendly and co-operative relations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China. It was to this end that they negotiated the 1954 Agreement even though this involved relinquishment of important rights and privileges in Tibet that the Government of India had inherited from the past. The Government of India willingly sacrificed these inherited rights and privileges with a view to laying a new and firm foundation of friendship and co-operation between India and China. The hopes and aspirations entertained by the Government of India while negotiating for and signing the 1954 Agreement have, however, been completely frustrated by the aggressive and expansionist policies followed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China during the last few years. 6- The Government of India are still desirous of having friendly and co-operative relations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China but they cannot see how, in the context of what has been stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, they can start negotiations for a new agreement in accordance with the Five Principles. The first essential for the starting of such negotiations is the reversal of the aggressive policies followed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China during the last few years and the restoration of climate which assures the strict observance of the Five Principles both in letter and spirit. The Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 3 March, 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state its view again on the question of negotiations for an agreement on trade and intercourse between China and India, which the Embassy is requested to transmit to the Indian Government. The Chinese Government has read the note of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs of December 15, 1961 in reply to the Chinese Government’s note of December 3, 1961 in which the Chinese Government proposed that the Governments of China and India hold negotiations so as to conclude, in accordance with the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, a new agreement on trade and intercourse to replace the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet Region of China and India, which will expire on June 3, 1962 and cease to be in force. It is wholly from the good desire of safeguarding the friendship between the two countries that the Chinese Government put forward this proposal. Contrary to expectation, however, the Indian Government in its note not only rejected this friendly proposal, but lacking elementary courtesy, made willful and ill-intentioned charges and slanders against China. The Chinese Government can only express its disappointment and regret at this extraordinary reaction. The question of an agreement on trade and intercourse between China and India and that of the Sino-Indian boundary are two different matters. There is no reason why the boundary dispute between the two countries should hinder the two sides from conducting negotiations for an agreement on trade and intercourse. That is why the Chinese Government, in putting forward the proposal for holding negotiations on the question of an agreement on trade and intercourse, did not link it with the Sino-Indian boundary question. In its note, however, the Indian Government insisted on linking the Chinese Government’s proposal with the Sin-Indian boundary question. This can only complicate the

matter. Since the Indian note has referred to the boundary question, the Chinese Government cannot but point out that it is India that has occupied big tracts of China’s territory and laid claims to even bigger ones, and not the other way round. Even Puling-Sumdo, which is explicitly listed in the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement on Trade and Intercourse as one of the markets for trade in western Tibet opened by the Chinese Government, was occupied by the Indian side shortly after the signing of the Agreement. Nevertheless, the Chinese Government, in proposing that the Chinese and Indian Governments hold negotiations to conclude a new agreement on trade and intercourse, has not put forward any pre-condition for the Indian Government to fulfill. The Indian Government in its note not only charge the Chinese Government with violation of the Five Principles, but stated that “the first essential” for start negotiations is “the reversal of the aggressive policies followed by China during the last few years and the restoration of a climate which assures the strict observance of the Five Principles both in letter and spirit” this charge is totally groundless. On the contrary, it is the Indian side that in fact has repeatedly violated the Five Principles and the 1954 Agreement. Apart from the boundary question, the following facts may be cited. At the time of the armed rebellion of the handful of reactionary traitor in Tibet, the Indian Government interfered in China’s internal affairs by openly expressing its sympathy for the Tibetan rebels and conniving at their anti-Chinese political activities. Going back on its own pledge, the Indian Government even today allows the Tibetan rebels to operate in India in the virtual capacity of an exile government. Owing to various restrictions imposed by the Indian Government, the Trade Agency in Kalimpong, India , set up by the Chinese Government in accordance with the 1954 Agreement, has been placed in a situation where it is hardly able to perform its functions. These are undeniable facts. Now the Indian Government reverses right and wrong by slandering China as following aggressive policies, and preposterously asks China to reverse such non-existent policies as the first essential for starting negotiations for an agreement on trade and intercourse. Should the Indian Government persist in this attitude, the Chinese Government, regrettably, can only derive from this

the conclusion that the Indian Government harbours the intention of rendering it impossible to hold negotiations for an agreement on trade and intercourse between the two countries. The Chinese Government, in proposing that the Chinese and Indian Governments hold negotiations to conclude a new agreement on trade and intercourse, is not seeking any interests of China alone, but proceeds from the long-term and allround interests of the two peoples. Therefore, the Chinese Government reaffirms its proposal made in its note of December 3, 1961 and hopes that the Indian Government will reconsider the matter. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 11 April 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to acknowledge receipt of the Chinese Government’s note of 3rd March on the subject of a new agreement on trade and intercourse between India and the Tibet region of China. 2- The Chinese Government have repeated their proposal for negotiations for a new agreement to replace the present agreement which is due to expire on 3rd June. They have suggested that an agreement will help “to safeguard friendship between the two countries” and that trade and intercourse should not be linked with the border question as this may lead to complications. They have alleged that it is not China, but India, which has “repeatedly violated the Five Principles and the Agreement”. This baseless allegation has been made before an has been

refuted in notes sent earlier, but the Government of India are taking this opportunity to restate their position in this matter in some detail. 3- From the very start, after Indian became independent, the Government of India have consistently followed a policy of friendly relations with China. For some years after liberations, China’s attitude towards the independent neighbouring countries of Asia did not show proper understanding of the new forces at work in independent Asia The Government of India, however, persisted in their efforts to cultivate friendly relations with China and, in 1952, took the initiative to enter into negotiations with the Chinese Government. The purpose of these negotiations was to reach a settlement which would clear the way for friendly and co-operative relations. These negotiations resulted in the Agreement of 1954 and the enunciation of the Five Principles. 4- The Agreement of 1954 was obviously intended to settle all outstanding issues which had been inherited from the past. It laid down regulations for trade and intercourse with the Tibet region across the common border. It also, for the first time in history, laid down the Five Principles as a code governing relations between two friendly Governments. Each side gave a solemn undertaking that it would respect the other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The Chinese side had full knowledge at the time of the negotiations of what constituted the territorial boundaries of India. If it had any doubt, what was the purpose of the undertaking which it gave to respect India’s territorial integrity? Surely, it is not open to a Government which enters into a solemn agreement on the basis of the Five Principles, first to give such an undertaking and then to claim part of the other’s territory as its own? 5- It cannot be said that the Chinese Government was in any doubt at the time of the 1954 Agreement about what India regarded to be the correct traditional boundary between the two countries. What Indian official maps clearly showed conformed to the territorial status quo of 1954 and earlier. The Government of

India had published these Indian official maps which were precise and the Chinese Government knew about them. The Government of India had also repeatedly drawn the attention of the Government of China to the precise Indian official maps and to the bewildering variety of erroneous alignments shown in the Chinese maps. The Government of China in reply always assured the Government of India that the old Chinese maps were products of the incorrect cartography of the Kuomintang regime and that they had no time to revise them. There was no ambiguity in so far as the Government of India have any reason to believe that there was any uncertainly on the part of the Government of China regarding the correctness of this alignment. There can be no doubt at all that the 1954 Agreement confirmed the territorial status quo as it existed at that time. Surely, no agreement like that of 1954 negotiated over a period of some months could have been arrived at with substantial doubts and mental reservations on the question of the border in the minds of one of the parties to the Agreement. 6- The entire frontier was a peaceful one at the time of the 1954 Agreement and continued to be so far a few years thereafter. There was no conflict or trouble along the frontier. It is only during the last few years that conflicts and troubles have arisen along the frontier. These have not arisen because of any action taken by India. The cause of the recent troubles and conflicts along this frontier is the action taken by the Chinese authorities along this frontier. These actions taken by the Chinese authorities along the frontier have undermined confidence on the Indian side and led to conflict and misgivings. 7- So far as trade and intercourse are concerned many restrictions have been placed on Indian traders, officials and pilgrims in contravention of the provisions of the 1954 Agreement. There has been a long exchange of notes on the subject and it is not necessary to repeat the factual details given in these notes. 8- A more serious matter is the violation by the Chinese Government of India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Since 1957, Chinese forces have begun a

process of intrusion and occupation of Indian territory in the Aksai Chin area. In September 1958, they captured an Indian patrol at Haji Langar and interfered for the first time with the lawful exercise of Indian jurisdiction in the area. In disregard of the protests of the Government of India, Chinese forces, by the end of 1959, spread further west and south of the Aksai Chin. They build roads from there to Kongka La and along the bed of the Qaraqash river which was being regularly patrolled by the Indian Border Police. In October 1959, an Indian police force on patrol duty was ambushed by the Chinese forces at Kongka La and suffering heavy casualties. Between 1960 and 1961, the Chinese forces advanced further into Indian territory. All these facts have been brought to the notice of the Chinese Government by the Government of India in a series of notes. In addition to unlawful occupation, the Chinese Government have made unlawful claims to large parts of Indian territory. 9- The Chinese allegation that it is not China, but India, which has violated the Five Principles is manifestly groundless. No territory has been occupied or claimed by the Government of India which is not actually part of India and which was not known to the Chinese Government at the time of 1953-54 negotiations to be part of India. The Chinese Government’s allegations that Puling Sumdo has, since 1954, been occupied by India illustrates the prevailing confusion in the minds of the Chinese authorities and their lack of knowledge of the correct delineation of the border in this region. The factual position is that Puling Sumdo lies to the north of the main watershed. It has been listed in the 1954 Agreement as one of the trade marts in western Tibet. It is part of Chinese territory and continued to be in Chinese occupation. It has not been occupied by the Government of India. 10- Another Chinese allegation is that by showing their sympathy for the Tibetans who had to leave the Tibet region in 1959, the Government of India interfered in the internal affairs of China. Tibetan refugees have been given asylum in India in accordance with international law and practice in this matter. The Chinese Government seem to lack a proper understanding of the international law and

practice on this subject. Tibetan refugees have received no encouragement from the Government of India to indulge in political activities. The Government of India took measures to disarm the refugees on their entry into India and applied various restrictions on their activities during their stay in India. The allegation that the Tibetans who have taken refuge in India have been allowed to form a government in exile is completely baseless. 11- The Chinese Government have also referred to restrictions imposed on the Chinese Trade Agency in Kalimpong. The Government of India have already explained to the Chinese Government that certain regulations have been framed, under Indian laws, to control the activities of foreigners for reasons of national security. They regret that the Chinese Trade Agency has been found on many occasions to be violating these regulations and abusing its privileged position. In any case, the regulations and abusing its privileged position. In any case, the regulations in Kalimpong are not nearly as harsh and all-pervasive as the calculated measures which have been taken in the Tibet region to paralyse the activities of the Indian Missions. 12- The facts mentioned above show that it is not India, but China, which has violated the Five Principles and the provisions of the Agreement. Armed incursions and occupation of Indian territory by Chinese forces, since 1954, have aggravated the situation. This has led to an undermining of confidence and has created deep resentment among the people of India. 13- Although the Chinese policy since the Agreement of 1954 and their aggressive activities on the border have caused serious disappointment, there is no change in the Government of India’s basic policy towards China. The Government of India are convinced that friendly and co-operative relations between India and China based on the Five Principles are in the interest, not only of the two countries, but also of peace in Asia and the world. In conformity with their policy, the Government of India would welcome any genuine effort to

restore friendly and cooperative relations between India and China. They cannot, therefore, have any objection in principle to negotiations for a new agreement to maintain and develop trade and intercourse between India and the Tibet region. These negotiations, however, can hardly be undertaken till confidence in the bona fines of the Chinese authorities that they will implement the agreement both in letter and spirit is restored. Nor can an agreement on trade and intercourse across the border be negotiated when the Chinese authorities continue to violate the territorial integrity of India along that border. 14 - The facts relating to the border are now available to the Chinese Government in the Report of the Officials which has been published in India. The Report which has not been published in China shows conclusively that the territory occupied, or claimed, by the Chinese Government is Indian territory. As these facts do not seem to have been considered by the Chinese Government the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs, during his visit to China, drew their attention to them. The Government of India will be glad if, in the light of these facts, the Chinese Government will take early steps to implement their undertaking to respect India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, withdraw their forces from Indian territory and restore the status quo along the border as it existed in 1954. This alone can restore confidence and create the requisite friendly atmosphere for negotiating a new agreement. 15- The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 11 May 1962

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to acknowledge receipt of the Indian Government’s note of April 11, 1962, on the subject of the agreement on trade and intercourse between China and India. 1- The Chinese Government express its regret at the fact that the Indian Government once again turned down the proposal for negotiating and concluding a new agreement on trade and intercourse to replace the 1954 Agreement on Trade and Intercourse Between the Tibet Region of China and India. The various excuses made by the Indian Government in its note are totally unreasonable. In order to distinguish between right and wrong, the Chinese Government wishes to take this opportunity to restate its position. 2- The Indian Government asserted that, as the 1954 Agreement laid down the Five Principles as a code governing relations between two friendly governments and as each side gave a solemn undertaking that it would respect the other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, it meant that the Chinese Government had accepted the Sino-Indian boundary line unilaterally claimed by India. In its note, the Indian Government pretentiously said. “The Chinese side had full knowledge at the time of the negotiations of what constituted the territorial boundaries of India. If it had any doubt, what was the purpose of the undertaking which it gave to respect India’s territorial integrity? Surely, it is not open to a government which enters into a solemn agreement on the basis of Five Principles, first to give such an undertaking and then to claim part of the other’s territory as its own”. But the first of the Five Principles is “mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty,” and does not stipulate that one party must accept the boundary claimed by the other party. If acceptance of the principle of “mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty” should be construed to mean the Chinese Government’s acceptance of the boundary line claimed by India, then, by the same logic, can it not be construed also as meaning the Indian Government’s acceptance of the boundary line maintained by China? Obviously,

such argumentation can only be regarded as unilateral bigotry and is purely a distortion of an international document. 3- The fact is that the 1954 Agreement settled only those questions relating to trade, cultural relations and friendly intercourse between China’s Tibet region and India; and did not even touch on the boundary question. As for maps, the fact is that only after the signing of the 1954 Agreement did the Indian Government bring up the question of maps with the Chinese Government, and only in 1958 did the Indian Government call the attention of the Chinese Government to the boundary alignment claimed by it and cite the Indian map published in 1956. How can it be said that at the time of the negotiation and signing of the 1954 Agreement the Chinese Government already accepted the boundary alignment which has come to be drawn on Indian maps only in recent years? This is absurd. 4- Then there is the question of Puling-Sumdo. It is a crystal clear fact that Puling-Sumdo has been invaded and occupied by India. On the Indian maps published in recent years, it is included in Indian territory and renamed Pulamsumda. To cover up the fact, the Indian Government arbitrarily alleged that Poling, which is situated deep within deep within Chinese territory, is PulingSumdo. To say that Puling-Sumdo continues to be held by China while in fact to have invaded and occupied China’s Puling-Sumdo—such practice to put it mildly, cannot but be considered unseemly. 5- The Indian note, reviewing the development of Sino-Indian relations in the past ten years and more, alleged that responsibility for the deterioration of SinoIndian relations lies with China and that, “from the very start, after India became independent, the Government of India have consistently followed a policy of friendly relations with China”. This allegation is groundless. It is true that, through the joint efforts of China and India. Sino-Indian relations were friendly. Our two countries early established diplomatic relations, jointly initiated the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and cooperated in international affairs in a

friendly way. Even now the Chinese side is still making efforts to restore such friendly relations. But there is no reason to deem that the Indian side too has always done so. If on respects the objective historical facts, one cannot but acknowledge that there has been a dark side to the Sino-Indian relations since their very beginning. 6- In 1950 the Chinese People’s Liberation Army advanced into Tibet. In a series of notes delivered to the Chinese Government between August and November in the same year, the Indian Government described China’s exercise of its sovereignty in its own territory Tibet as “invasion” of Tibet, as being “deplorable” and “with no justification whatsoever” and asserted that China’s action “has greatly added to the tensions of the world and to drift towards general war” and “affected these friendly relations (between India and China) and the interest of peace all over the world”. After that the Indian Government has all along allowed a batch of Tibetan fugitives to carry out disruptive and subversive activities against China’s Tibet in Kalimpong and other places in India. All this clearly constitutes interference in China’s internal affairs. 7- In 1959 the Indian Government described China’s exercise of its sovereignty in putting down the rebellion in Tibet as “armed intervention”, “oppressing and suppressing” and “autonomy” of Tibet and held that by doing so the Chinese Government has not kept “the assurances given to India”. The Indian Government connived at the political activities carried out in India by the Tibetan rebels, distributed traitorous statements for them, allowed them to stage demonstrations against the People’s Republic of China and even publish a socalled draft constitution for an “independent Tibet”. All this has gone far beyond the scope of giving political asylum and can in no way be justified by any international law or practice. Obviously the Indian Government is not reconciled to the fact that the Chinese Government is exercising its sovereignty in Tibet.

8- As soon a the Chinese Government put down the rebellion in Tibet in 1959, the Indian Government made comprehensive territorial claims on the Chinese Government and exerted pressure on China. In August and October 1959 respectively, Indian troops attacked with superior force Chinese frontier personnel at Migyitun in the eastern sector and at Kongka Pass in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, giving rise to the two unfortunate incidents of bloodshed. Thus began the period of speedy deterioration of Sino-Indian relations. Anybody who respects historical facts is clear about the long-term and immediate reasons for the sharpening of the Sino-Indian boundary question. But the Indian Government arbitrarily distorted the history, saying that it was only in 1957 that Chinese troops went to the Aksai Chin area in the western sector of the SinoIndian boundary question. Such clumsy tactics are not worthy of refutation. The Chinese Government has stated many times and now states again: The Aksai Chin are has always been China’s territory; it is the communication artery linking Sinkiang and the Ari district in Tibet of China and has always been under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Government; in 1950 the Chinese People’s Liberation Army entered Ari, Tibet, through this area from Sinkiang; from 1954 to 1957 China carried out in this area large-scale engineering work of road-building; both in law and in fact there is no room for dispute about China’s sovereignty over this area. The September 1958 incident of the detention of an Indian patrol referred to in the Indian Government’s note precisely proves that this area is China’s territory and has always been under China’s jurisdiction. If it had always been under India’s jurisdiction, how is it conceivable that the Sinkiang-Tibet road across Aksai Chin involving gigantic engineering work should have been completed without the knowledge of the Indian Government? 9– Since the talks between the Prime Ministers of the two countries and the meeting of Chinese and Indian officials in 1960, the Indian side has stepped up its invasion and occupation of Chinese territory in the western sector of the SinoIndian boundary and, taking advantage of the cessation of patrolling by Chinese frontier guards, has been pushing farther and farther into Chinese territory. At

the same time, the Indian authorities have place further restrictions on the normal functioning of China’s Trade Agency in Kalimpong, reducing it to virtual paralysis. Of late the Indian side has further penetrated into Chinese territory to establish new military posts, thus threatening the security of a Chinese outpost and increasingly aggravating the situation on the Sino-Indian border. In its previous notes, the Chinese Government has already set forth in detail the facts regarding the above two aspects and refuted the Indian Government’s groundless charges about alleged violations of the 1954 Agreement by the Chinese Government and no repetition will be made here. 10- The above-mentioned facts show that it is India, and not China, that has violated the 1954 Agreement and the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence. Although China is the wronged party both on the question of the implementation of the 1954 Agreement and on the question of the maintenance of the status quo of the boundary, the Chinese Government, however, has never set any preconditions in proposing re-negotiation for the conclusion of a new agreement on trade and intercourse. The Chinese Government had hoped that to negotiate and conclude such a new agreement would ease the tense relations between China and India, create the necessary friendly atmosphere and open the way to setting other questions between China and India. But the Indian Government in its notes, while saying that it did not object to China’s proposal, insisted on outrageous preconditions which demand China’s subjugation. This only shows that the Indian Government is not at all willing to negotiate and conclude a new agreement on trade and intercourse to replace the 1954 Agreement due to expire on June 3, 1962. 11- Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese Government has attached great importance to friendship with India and has made unremitting efforts to safeguard and consolidate this friendship. However, the liberated new China can in no circumstances allow itself to be plunged back to the position of the injured old China. China does not interfere in the internal affairs of any other

country, nor will it allow any country to interfere in its internal affairs. China does not encroach on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any other country, nor will it allow any country to encroach on its sovereignty and territorial integrity. China is willing to settle through negotiations its boundary questions left over by history will all its neighbouring countries concerned, but China will never accept any illegal territorial claims imposed upon it. This position of China’s is in full conformity with the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and has won the sympathy and understanding of many of China’s Asian neighbours. Although the Indian Government has violated the Five Principles and repeatedly rejected the friendly proposals of the Chinese Government, friendship between the peoples of China and India is a matter of thousands and tens of thousands of years and the Chinese Government will continue to make unremitting efforts to improve SinoIndian relations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Aide Memoire’ given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 1 June 1962 Reference the talk which the Director, China Division, had with the Charge d’Affaires of the Chinese Embassy at the Ministry of External Affairs on the morning of 30th May 1962, regarding the withdrawal of Indian Trade Agencies from Tibet consequent on the Termination of the 1954 Agreement of Trade and Intercourse between India and the Tibet region of China. As the Indian Trade Agencies have been at Gyantse, Yatung and Gartok for many years, it will be a big task to move them out with all their records and stores. However, the Government of India have tentatively decided to withdraw their Trade Agency at Gyantse by the 10th June 1962 and their Trade Agent at Yatung

by the 15th June 1962, depending on facilities made available to them to pack, crate and transport their records and stores. The Indian Agent, Gartok, will visit Western Tibet as soon as possible to wind up his mission there. His visit to Western Tibet for this purpose has already been agreed to by the Chinese Government. The actual visit can, however, take place only after the Pass (Lipulekh), by which he has to enter Western Tibet, is open. None of the Indian Trade Agents in the Tibet region will perform the duties of his office with effect from 3rd June 1962. The Government of India, however, request that their Trade Agents be given facilities to have privileged (diplomatic) communication with the Government of India until the date of their final withdrawal. Although the Trade Agent, Gartok, will not perform the duties of his office, the Government of India will appreciate if he is accorded the courtesies and privileges due to his status during this final tour and also assisted in his winding up mission by the Chinese Government. From the date the Indian Trade Agency is withdrawn from Yatung all properties and buildings of the Trade Agency will be in the charge of the Consul General for India at Lhasa. The Consul General for India at Lhasa will keep a small staff for the necessary upkeep and maintenance of the buildings and property which will hereafter serve as a resting place for officers and couriers proceeding to the Indian Consulate General at Lhasa and returning therefrom. Regarding properties, etc., of the Indian Trade Agencies at Gyantse and Gartok, a further communication will follow. In the case of Tibetan wives of staff members of the Indian Trade Agencies, it is requested that they may be allowed to accompany their husbands to India as it will cause needless hardship to break up these families. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 2 June 1962

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the note of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, dated November 16, 1961 on trade between China’s Tibet region and India and the part of its note dated July 15 of the same year on the same question (the other questions raised in that note have already been replied to by the Chinese Government in its note of March 21, 1962), has the honour to state as follows: In its previous notes, the Chinese Government has already proved with conclusive facts that it has always faithfully abided by the provisions of the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement on Trade and Intercourse Between the Tibet Region of China and India and of the Sino-Indian Trade Agreement, and made unremitting efforts to promote trade between China’s Tibet region and India. Since 1959 trade between the two sides has decreased rapidly and nearly stopped. The Indian Government should be held responsible for this state of affairs, the root cause of which is the Indian Government’s policy of embargo and restriction on China’s Tibet. In its notes, the Indian Government did its utmost to distort the facts and tried to shift the responsibility onto China; that was futile. It is not difficult for anyone with a fair attitude to see that all the unreasonable charges made by the Indian Government against China are wholly untenable. What the Indian Government takes interest in is not to develop traditional trade between China’s Tibet and India on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, but actually to interfere in China’s internal affairs in the name of developing traditional trade. For instance, the currency reform carried out by the Chinese Government in China’s Tibet is clearly China’s internal affair, in which no foreign country has the right to interfere, yet the Indian Government asserted that this is “a legitimate issue for discussion by the two governments”. Again the Indian Government insisted that Indian traders should be able to carry on trade in Tibet “without any official interference”, and to “bring back Tibetan goods freely to India” or “bring (them) back in bullion, silver dollars, coins and/or Indian currency” “whenever they wish to do so”. The Indian Government further held that it is “not surprising” for Indian traders to fail to fulfill commercial contracts.

It is clear that the Indian Government’s attitude is absolutely not one of respecting China’s sovereignty, but one of ignoring it. This is absolutely impermissible. The Indian Government asserted that its unreasonable stand has the relevant agreements as its basis. This is entirely a crude distortion of the agreements. It is clearly written in the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement on Trade and Intercourse Between the Tibet Region of China and India that the Agreement was entered into on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence. But does the Indian Government’s attitude in any way conform with the principles of mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, and equality and mutual benefit? Paragraph 14 of the notes exchanged on this Agreement further specifically provides that “traders of both countries may carry on normal trade in accordance with local regulations in places as provided in Article II of the Agreement”. Article II of the 1954 Sino-Indian Trade Agreement provides that “all commercial transactions between the two countries shall be carried out in accordance with the Import, Export and Foreign Exchange Regulations in force from time to time in their respective countries”. It can be seen from these provisions that the agreements stress that trade must be carried on and developed on the conditions of observing the laws and regulations of the country concerned, but not “without any official interference”, as the Indian Government asserted. As for paragraph 4 of Article VII of the Sino-Indian Trade Agreement , which reads “payments for border trade between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India, however, will be settled according to the customary practice”, it obviously refers to payments for petty trade between inhabitants of border districts as mentioned in Article V, paragraph 2 of the Agreement on Trade and Intercourse. The Chinese authorities have never interfered in such payments both when the Trade Agreement was in force and after it expired. It is absurd for the Indian Government now arbitrarily to misinterpret this provision about one specific question a stipulating that trade in China’s Tibet region shall not be altered in any aspects, and that the Chinese authorities may not make or revise their own laws and regulations.

The Indian Government charged the Chinese Government will undermining trade between Tibet and India, and violating the legitimate interests of Indian traders. This is entirely groundless. These Chinese Government has consistently devoted itself to developing trade between China’s Tibet region and India on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. Although for a short time the rebellion in Tibet in March 1959 somewhat affected local public order and trade between the two countries. The Tibet local authorities actively restored and developed trade between the two countries as soon as the rebellion was put down. The local authorities have never suspended the export of important traditional goods. The Indian Government’s charge that the Chinese authorities impose restrictions on the export of wool (including pashmina) to India, which forms the largest item of export, is inconsistent with the fact. On the contrary, the trade organs in Tibet repeatedly provided Indian traders with large quantities of wool for export. Also, the Tibet local authorities have never restricted or interfered with the petty barter trade on the border. In the supply of foreign exchange, the Tibet local authorities have always given consideration to the needs of the Indian traders. Take the case of M/s. Tibet Motor & Cycle Co., the Indian firm at Yatung referred to in the Indian Government’s note of November 16, 1961, the facts concerned are contrary to what was alleged by the Indian Government. Instead of getting only 5,220 yuan’s worth of foreign exchange, the said firm on winding up its business, with the help of the Tibet local authorities, got 38,300 rupees and bought 9,821 cattiest of wool and other local animal products, thus its application upon closure for some JMP 49,000 yuan’s worth of foreign exchange was granted. The Indian traders have never been obstructed from recovering their credits; in fact they have already recovered many credits. However, visiting rebel criminals who are serving prison terms is, of course, impermissible. The serious undermining of traditional trade between Tibet and India is solely of the Indian Government’s making. This fact can in no way be distorted. After the quelling of the rebellion in Tibet in March 1959 the Indian Government immediately brought pressure to bear on China in various ways, causing the rapid deterioration of the relations between the two countries. As one of the ways, the

Indian Government adopted measures of embargo and restriction on trade between Tibet and India. To begin with, starting from April 1959 the Indian Government stopped the traditional export of grain to Tibet. In the subsequent months it took a series of restrictive measures, including in the list of embargoed and restricted items important traditional exports and other goods, such as daily necessities and articles of daily use: gain, cooking oil, beans, sugar, tea, kerosene, fuel, farm implements and utensils, as well as important materials for construction, telecommunications, motor and other transport. At the same time, Indian troops placed the entire border under strict control, forbidding border inhabitants to cross it, thus making it impossible for them to carry on their traditional petty trade. Tibetan traders and border inhabitants were continually illegally detained and persecuted by the Indian authorities, instances of which have been cited by the Chinese Government in many earlier notes and need not be repeated here. It is precisely the above-mentioned measures of the Indian Government that have led to the strangling of the traditional trade between India and Tibet and the undermining of the foundation of the 1954 Agreement. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India the assurance of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 7 June 1962 The Ministry of Foreign of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the notes of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs of August 26 and November 10, 1961, has the honour to state as follows: The Chinese Government has on many occasions cited facts to show that the Chinese local authorities have all along rendered assistance to the official Indian

missions in Tibet in accordance with the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement and the local laws and regulations, never putting any special restriction on their normal activities. In its notes, however, the Indian Government, making no scruple of distorting the facts, levelled malicious and baseless charges against the Chinese authorities. In categorically rejecting those charges and expressing its regret, the Chinese Government wishes to clarify the relevant facts as follows: 1. Concerning the lease of land and construction of buildings by the Indian Trade Agency at Gartok. Since the independence of India, the Indian Trade Agent has all along followed the practice of the British Government in bringing his own tents with him to the Ari district, Tibet, China, every year. After the conclusion of the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement, as the local inhabitants generally lived in tents and there was no building to rent, the two parties agreed in October 1954 that the Indian side could lease a piece of land in Gartok and construct its premises by itself and the Chinese side would render its assistance so far as possible. In September 1955, the Indian Trade Agent asked for a lease of 40 acres of land at a rent of merely 50 rupees per year. In a place like Gartok where there were only 50 permanent inhabitants or so, such an area of land was obviously too big. It was only after consultations that the Indian Consulate-General in Lhasa agreed in May 1956 to reduce it to 10 acres. The Tibet Foreign Bureau submitted in July 1957 a draft lease for the land, but the Indian Consulate-General did not reply till January 1958. In its reply, it raised a number of objections and insisted that construction should be started before the lease was signed. It was only after further consultations that the two sides reached agreement on the draft lease in November 1958. In order to Chinese side advised the Indian Trade Agent to come to Lhasa to sign the lease in the beginning of 1959. But the Indian Trade Agent failed to do so and only came in October to Gartok to sign the lease. It may thus be seen that if the Indian side had taken a cooperative and positive attitude, the lease could have been signed earlier. The Indian side’s complaints against China are groundless.

In the matter of the construction of the Indian Trade Agency’s premises, the local authorities have done their best to render assistance too. In view of the utter scarcity of manpower and materials in the locality, the Foreign Bureau in Lhasa had suggested that the construction be carried out in two stages, that is, to construct temporary houses of wood and earth at first, and then, when local conditions permitted, permanent buildings. The Indian Consulate-General accepted this idea at that time, but the request it put forward later on again called for construction of permanent buildings. The Indian side asked the Chinese side to provide 1,800 cubic metres of stone, eight tons of cement, 100 unskilled workers, etc. All these requests could not possibly be satisfied under the local conditions. The Indian Trade Agent did not take up the matter of construction in 1960. However, on his arrival at Gartok in July 1961, he asserted in 1960. However, on his arrival at Gartok in July 1961, he asserted that he gained an impression in Delhi that the Chinese Government would undertake the construction of the projected Indian Trade Agency premises and therefore, he had not made any preparations for the construction except for bringing in an engineer with him. This assertion is untenable, as he was clearly aware that the principle agreed upon by the two sides was for the Indian side to construct its premises by itself and for the Chinese side to render assistance so far as possible. After the Indian side brought forward its blueprint for the construction on July 21, the local authorities promptly expressed their agreement on August 9. The construction work was further delayed only because the Indian side had not made any preparations for it beforehand. The Indian Government further made complaints against the Chinese local authorities because the Indian Trade Agent was asked to pay its debts on such things as mud bricks. But this only showed that the Indian Trade Agent was wanting in good faith and lacked cooperation with the local authorities. In 1956, at the request of the Indian Trade Agent himself, the local authorities hired civilian workers to make mud bricks, accumulate earth, carry gravel and dig water ditches for him. But the Indian Trade Agent withheld wages for the civilian workers for a long time. What is more surprising is that, in its notes, the Indian

Government should have asserted that the Indian Trade Agent had not placed any order and therefore, “could not accept the responsibilities for the payment”. The fact, however, is that the local authorities had repeatedly approached the Indian Trade Agent on this matter for years, and the latter never denied that he had placed that order, and, moreover, he paid these debts in the end. It should be pointed out that the wages owed for making the mud bricks amounted to 1,753 rupees, not 7,112 rupees as alleged in the notes of the Indian Government, the remaining 5,359 rupees being for the wages owed by the Indian side over a period for accumulating earth, carrying gravel and digging water ditches. The Indian side added the two sums together making it out as if they were the wages for making the mud bricks alone and charged that the “price demanded (by the local authorities) is too exorbitant.” This is a deliberate confusion of the facts. The allegation that the Chinese authorities insisted that payment should be made at Gartok is also unfounded, because the unsettled payment was in fact settled at Pulanchung. The non-cooperative attitude of the Indian Trade Agent caused many difficulties to the local authorities had to transport explosives for quarrying stones from distant Sinkiang. But after this was all done, the Indian Trade Agent refused to use the stones, thereby bringing unwarranted losses to the contracted agency. 2. Concerning the land to be leased and construction of buildings by the Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse. The terms of the land to be leased by the Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse, including the site taking up about 85 per cent of the total area of the land to be leased, were finalized through consultations in Lhasa in December 1960. The site covers the projected premises of the Trade Agency either already under construction or about to be constructed. As for from where in the vicinity will the remaining 15 per cent or so of land be provided, it was stipulated that the two sides would specifically decide upon this through that the two sides would specifically decide upon this through consultations at Gyantse. The Chinese local authorities, taking into consideration the convenience of the Indian side, proposed that the Indian side give up the plot of land on the river bank below the

flood line and that it be provided with another piece of land located somewhere else within the extents of the land to be leased. The facts are contrary to what the Indian Government stated in its notes. It was the Indian side that repeatedly changed its mind about this piece of land and put forth again and again new plans for adjustments, making it impossible to have the extents of the land to be leased completely fixed at an early date. For instance, in March 1961, the Sub-Bureau of Foreign Affairs put forth a plan for adjustment of the land to be leased before the sowing so as to make it easier for the Indian side to choose the land. The Indian Trade Agent then said he wanted the plot of land northeast by north, and not the one in the north. But in August, when the peasants had already grown crops on the plot of land in the north and the local authorities concerned had made preparations against floods, the new Indian Trade Agent changed the original plan and asked for the plot of land in the north instead of the one northeast by north, thereby turning the extents of the land to be leased into a problem once again. The allegation in its notes that the Trade Agency at Gyantse could not begin construction because the lease was not signed likewise cannot hold water. As early as 1958, the Chinese local authorities agreed that the Indian side might begin the reconstruction at the original site of the Trade Agency before the signing of the lease. As a matter of fact, the floor space completed by the Indian side in 1959 already covered about 900 square metres. Of the five buildings under construction, two were nearly completed and foundations were already laid for the other three. Besides, the buildings rented by the Indian Trade Agency were sufficient for their needs and the lease concerning the buildings was signed in November 1961. 3. Concerning the functioning of the Indian missions in Tibet, China. The Indian Government’s allegations in its notes that the Indian missions in Tibet had met with various difficulties in their movement and functioning are groundless. The local authorities in Tibet, China have consistently rendered facilities to foreign official missions in Tibet for their normal activities in accordance with the Agreement and the local laws and regulations and have

never discriminated against the Indian missions. Concerning the question of hiring employees in the locality by the Indian missions, the foreign offices had shown their readiness to help, but they did not interfere in the matter when the Indian missions by themselves hired employees in the locality. Concerning the transportation facilities for the Indian missions, the local authorities, although under difficult conditions, gave all assistance within their power; and in June 1960 they informed the Indian missions to submit their plans every month and, thereafter, arrangements were always made in accordance with the plans submitted by the Indian side. But the vehicles thus provided often either had no loads to carry, or were only loaded to half capacity, thus causing a waste in transportation facilities. It should be pointed out that the Indian missions in Tibet often lack proper respect for China’s laws and regulations and abuse the hospitality and their privileges, their practice and demands often went beyond and violated the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement. For instance, in spite of repeated representations by the Chinese side, the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung still went outside its competence and checked goods from India, and the primary school of the Trade Agency continued to admit illegally pupils of Chinese nationality. In disregard of the stipulations in the notes exchanged on the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement, the hospitals attached to the Indian Trade Agency Gyantse and Yatung always remained open to the public. Further more, the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung for a long time kept and used an illegal radio station. The Indian Trade Agencies openly interfered in matters purely within the scope of China’s sovereignty, such as the local currency reform, regulations governing foreign exchange, registration of foreign business and collection of revenue in China’s Tibet. The Indian Trade Agent at Yatung even went so far as to demand a “Joint trial” of Indian nationals who violated the law. After the rebellion launched by the reactionary clique of the upper social strata in Tibet, the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung has even again and again shown to the local inhabitants films depicting the rebel clique’s flight into India. All these actions are obviously improper.

After the quelling of the rebellion in Tibet, the Indian Government has placed various unwarranted restrictions on the Chinese Trade Agency at Kalimpong and paralyzed it. The movements of the personnel of the Trade Agency were restricted to the narrow municipal limits which is about two miles in length, and could not get in touch with any Indian civilians except through the agent of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs at Kalimpong. Beginning from November 1959, the Indian local authorities set up a network at Kalimpong, with forty to fifty armed men maintaining constant watch day and night. At the same time, the Indian side made all kinds of slanders and threats against the Chinese Trade Agency. That the Indian Government should under these circumstances again and again charge the Chinese side with placing so-called restrictions on the Indian missions in Tibet is what the Chinese Government cannot agree. 4. Conclusion It can be seen from the above that the charges made by the Indian Government against the Chinese side are unreasonable. The 12 EA—17 Chinese side always strictly adhered to the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement, while the Indian side repeatedly violated that Agreement refused to co-operate and tried its utmost to maintain its unlawful special position in China’s Tibet. In its note, it even laid a “sovereign” claim for Minsar, which is situated deep in the Ari District, Tibet, China. This is absurd, but it precisely reflects to what an extend the Indian Government has forgotten itself. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 11 July 1962

The Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China dated 11 May 1962 on the subject of the Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954. 2- It is a matter of deep regret to the Government of India that, instead of taking necessary steps to rectify the errors of the past few years and creating the right climate for negotiations of an agreement on Trade and Intercourse between India and the Tibet region of China, the Government of China continue to make baseless charges against the Government of India. Ceaseless reassertion of a wrong position cannot convert it into a right one. 3- It is not true that, by citing the undertaking in the Agreement of 1954 to respect each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, the Government of India are seeking to force China to accept a boundary alignment unilaterally claimed by India. The Government of India’s contention is that, in 1954, there was no difference of opinion between the two countries regarding the boundary alignment and that the present tension on the border is the result of subsequent Chinese aggressive activities carried out in violation of the Five Principles embodied in the 1954 Agreement. The precise extent of Indian territory was in 1954 well-recognised and the traditional boundary alignment between the two countries had been respected for many centuries by both sides. There was certainly no reason to believe, during the negotiations leading upto the Agreement of 1954, that the Government of China were contemplating laying extensive claims to well-known Indian territory. 4- All the official maps published in China till then had delineated the boundary alignment correctly. In 1893, the Chinese Minister Hung Ta-chen gave officially to the British Representative a map showing the traditional Sino-Indian alignment. The map issued by the Postal Department of China in 1917, republished in later years and used in China for official purposes right upto recent times, correctly

showed the traditional alignment throughout its length. The People’s Government of China, on coming to power, also respected this traditional alignment. In August 1950, the Government of China expressed their anxiety to stabilize the boundary between the two countries, and, in reply, the Government of India reiterated that the “recognized boundary between India and China should remain inviolate”. This exchange constituted a fresh formal reaffirmation of the traditional delimited alignment. Again, on 27 September 1951, Premier Chou En-lai informed the Ambassador of India that there was no territorial dispute or any controversy between India and China in respect of Tibet. 5- It is true that the 1954 Agreement did not touch on the boundary question. This was precisely because there was at that time no boundary question between India and Tibet region of China. This boundary dispute was created subsequently by unilateral and aggressive Chinese activities in subsequent years. The Agreement did, however, settle all the questions outstanding between the two countries. The Government of India made this clear at every stage of the negotiation the note dated 12th February 1960 of the Government of India to the Chinese Government and in the note given by the Indian side during the talks of the officials on 26 August 1960, that the Government of India do not deem it necessary to deal with it again. 6- The Chinese Government’s present contention that it was only in 1958 that the Government of India called the attention of the Chinese Government to the erroneous boundary alignment claimed by the latter and cited a map published in 1956 in a distortion of facts. Ever since July 1954 when, for the first time, the Government of China laid claim to a part of Indian territory, in Barahoti in Uttar Pradesh, the Government of India have been repeatedly drawing the attention of the Chinese authorities to the traditional boundary alignment. When, the same year, official maps published in the People’s Republic of China, showing an incorrect alignment, cam to the notice of the Government of India, the Prime Minister of India in October 1954, on his own initiative, drew the attention of His

Excellency Premier Chou En-lai. His Excellency Premier Chou En-lai then replied that current Chinese maps were based on old map and that the Government of the People’s Republic of China had no time to correct them. In 1956-57 the Prime Minister of India again raised the question of incorrect Chinese maps in personal discussions with Premier Chou En-lai. The Indian map, published in 1956, was only the latest of the series, stretching over a hundred years, showing the traditional Indian alignment. It is strange that the Government of China should seek to display ignorance of this large number of editions of official maps published by the Survey of India on different scales and in general circulation for so many years. Indeed, some of these maps had been officially handed over to the authorities in Tibet at various times. 7- The assertion in the Chinese note that Aksai Chin are of Ladakh has ever been a part of China and that in 1950 Chinese troops moved across it is also factually incorrect. The facts, of course, are that this area has always been a part of Ladakh and Kashmir and both, in law and in fact, as the Report of the officials conclusively proves, India’s sovereignty extends, and has extended for centuries, over his area. There is no evidence to show how that Chinese troops had used this area in 1950, and the Government China have not been able to bring forward any evidence to substantiate this. Indeed, far from any part of this area having even been under the administration of China, in 1875 China lost control of Sinkiang itself; and even after re-establishing her authority in that region in 1889. Chinese administration had not reached the Kuen Lun mountains. On the other hand, Indian patrols had been traversing this area throughout these years. To give only recent examples, in 1951 an expedition went from Leh to Lingzi Tang and Aksai Chin; in 1952, 1954 and 1956 reconnaissance parties went unto Lanak La via Hot Springs and the Kongka Pass; in 1957 a patrol reached the Qara Tagh Pass; and in 1958 patrols went up to the Sarigh Jilganang and the Amtogor Lake regions, to Haji Langar and to the Qara Tagh Pass. But it was only in 1958 that they came across Chinese personnel in this area.

8- What, in fact, happened was that, taking advantage of India’s friendship and the desolate nature of the region, the Chinese Government, since 1957, secretly occupied Indian territory and surreptitiously cleared a road across it. This grave betrayal of trust and surreptitious aggression cannot be regarded as evidence in favour of Chinese jurisdiction. Had the Government of China genuinely believed that they had a lawful claim to this area, they should have brought it to the notice of the Government of India and not violently and unilaterally changed the status quo in the area and created tension in the border areas. The Chinese action in this case is in violation not only of the accepted canons of international behaviours but also of the principle of mutual non-aggression cited in the Preamble to the Agreement of 1954. 9- As regards activity in the border areas since 1960, the previous notes of the Government of India have made clear that it is the Government of China who have advanced incessantly into Indian territory and set up at least six more military posts. The Government of India, on the other hand, while protesting against these aggressive activities and taking legitimate steps to defend their territory, have not sought to repel Chinese advances by force but have patiently sought to secure a voluntary withdrawal of Chinese forces from Indian territory. 10- It has been stated in the Chinese note that there has been a dark side to Sino-Indian relations since the very beginning. If this be so, it could only have been because the Government of China secretly nurtured undisclosed and unwarranted claims to indisputable Indian territory. The Government of India for their part have always been inspired with a deep feeling of friendship for the Government and the people of China. To this end, as the world knows, they not only gave up their extra-territorial rights and privileges in Tibet but sought constantly to secure for the People’s Government of China their legitimate position in world affairs. They urged the Government of China to adopt a peaceful approach in Tibet in 1950, “one of the principal conditions for the restoration of a peaceful atmosphere is the recognition of the position of the People’s Republic of

China and its recognition of the position of the People’s Republic of China and its association with the work of the United Nations. They feel that an incautious move at present, even in a matter which is within its own sphere, will be used by those who are unfriendly to China to prejudice China’s case in the United Nations and generally before neutral opinion”. The Government of China explicitly acknowledged at the time the legitimate interest of India in Tibet and the laudable motives which had inspired her friendly and disinterested advice to the Government of China on the subject. 11- The Chinese note has again referred to the two places of Puling Sumdo and Pulamsumda. It would appear that the Government of China are determined deliberately to confuse the issue by refusing to recognise that Puling Sumdo and Pulamsumda are two different places. Puling Sumdo, or Poling, lies on the northern side of the Sutlej-Ganges watershed and was mentioned in the Agreement of 1954, it became necessary for the Indian side to inform the Government of China of the exact location of one of their own places in Tibet, and the Indian delegation, therefore communicated in writing to the Chinese delegation that the co-ordinates of Puling Sumdo were 31° 19’ N and 79° 27’E. Pulamsumda, however, is a camping-ground in India. It lies on the Southern side of the Sutlej-Ganges Sumdo. The co-ordinates of Pulamsumda are 31° 18’ N and 79° 27’ E. So Puling Sumdo and Pulamsumdo have different names, are at a considerable distance from each other and have nothing in common. But the Government of China willfully and arbitrarily insist on confusing these two places. 12- The Government of China have further attempted to confuse the issue by alleging that Tibetan refugees have been allowed to carry out disruptive activities in India. The Government of India emphatically repudiate this allegation. The Dalai Lama and other refugees, who came to India after the revolt in Tibet in 1959, have been given political asylum on the clear understanding that they should not indulge in any political activities. Under the Constitution and laws of India, which provide civil liberties which obviously the Government of China do

not understand, meetings and demonstrations are permissible as long as they do not constitute a threat to law and order: and no action can be taken to prevent them. The Government of India, however, have used their influence to persuade all Tibetan refugees who have come to India to desist from activities against the Government of China. 13- The Government of China have seen fit to repeat the wild charges regarding the rebellion in Tibet in 1959 first made by their Ambassador in a discourteously worded statement on 16 May 1959, which the Government of India had then decided to ignore. The Prime Minister of India gave a correct narration of the facts and developments in Tibet in Parliament on 27 April 1959, and the Government of India stand by this position. Government of India have recognised Tibet as a region of China. But in recent history the autonomous status of Tibet has always been accepted. The People’s Government of China themselves recognises this special status of Tibet. It is incomprehensive to the Government of India how this recognition by the Government of China of the autonomous status of Tibet and an internal revolt in that region can be interpreted to mean that the Government of India are not reconciled to the exercise of sovereign power by China in Tibet. Government of India’s position in this matter has, unlike the Chinese position regarding the India-China boundary, all along been clear and consistent with no-mental reservations of any kind whatever. 14- The suggestion made in the Chinese note that after the rebellion in Tibet in 1959, the Government of India made comprehensive territorial claims and exerted pressure on China is not only false but palpably absurd. The factual position in this matter is given in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 above. It was, in fact, the Government of China who, in September 1959, for the first time put forward claims to over 50,000 square miles of India territory. There have also, in recent years, been ceaseless incursions into Indian territory, unlawful occupation of a large part of India and, on occasions, even the shedding of Indian blood. To suggest that the incidents at Longju in the Eastern Sector and in the Kongka Pass

in the Western Sector which were the results of Chinese cold-blooded aggressiveness, were the results of attacks by Indian troops is not merely a travesty a well-established facts but an unabashed perversion of them. 15- Again, it is Government of China who virtually nullified the operative clauses of the Agreement of 1954. They obstructed the propor functioning of the Indian Trade Agencies in Gyantse, Yatung and Gartok and impeded the construction of Trade Agency buildings. Indian traders and pilgrims, as has been made clear in the notes of the Government of India 15 July, 10 November and 16 November 1961, have also been subjected to harassment in various ways. The Government of India, however, have refused to adopt retaliatory measures. No special restrictions were placed on the Chinese Trade Agency at Kalimpong. 16- When, in sharp contrast to their avowed desire to renew the Agreement of 1954, the Government of China decided to withdraw their Trade Agencies in Kalimpong and Calcutta, the Government of India provided them with requisite facilities for the purpose. But the Government of China denied diplomatic communication facilities to the Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet and held out veiled threats when reasonable time for withdrawal was sought. This does not show any genuine desire to maintain normal trade and intercourse between the two countries. 17- The Government and the people of India have always sought peace and friendship with the Government and people of China. Even in face of sustained policy of dissimulation and encroachment into their territory culminating in the occupation of a large area of Indian territory, they have not renounced the methods of peace. In the same spirit, they once again call upon the Government of China to reverse their policy of aggression and respect the boundary between the two countries which has the sanction of law and of history. Only then can the climate of friendship and goodwill be restored, negotiations for a fresh treaty on trade and intercourse undertaken and peace in Asia strengthened.

The Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 17 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to Note No. 525, dated the 2nd June 1962 from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign of Foreign Affairs. The Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954 was intended in the main to preserve and protect the traditional character of the centuries old Indo-Tibetan trade and intercourse. That much is obviously undeniable as it is clearly borne out by the terms of the Agreement. It may be pointed out that even Premier Chou En-lai had recognised the special relations that historically developed between India and the Tibet region and expressed his anxiety to safeguard Indian interests in Tibet. However, the record of the operation of the 1954 Agreement shows that the Chinese Government have not only violated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence embodied in the preamble to the Agreement but have systematically and arbitrarily contravened each and every provision of the Agreement itself. The Chinese Note under reference has deliberately attempted to ignore the facts and numerous specific instances of the violation of the 1954 Agreement cited in the Government of India’s Note dated the 16th November 1961. The serious problems faced by Indian traders, pilgrims, border inhabitants and the Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet had been, since 1958, repeatedly brought to the notice of the Chinese Government, but not only had nothing been done to redress their legitimate grievances but further arbitrary measures were adopted to strangle the traditional trade and intercourse between India and Tibet and to undermine the foundations of the Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954. It is obvious, in retrospect, that the Chinese Government had from the beginning no intention of abiding by

the terms of the 1954 Agreement but had used the Agreement as a temporary expedient for tiding over the immediate problems facing them in Tibet. The Government of India, on the other hand, made important sacrifices and gave up considerable rights and interests which they had acquired in Tibet from the past in the hope that relations between India and China would thereafter be based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and develop in co-operation and harmony to the mutual benefit of the two countries and, thus, strengthen peace and stability in this region of Asia. These hopes have foundered. It is significant that at the negotiations which preceded the 1954 Agreement, the Government of India had proposed a long term agreement of at least 20 years but the Government of China wanted only a short term agreement and finally agreed, with considerable reluctance, to a 8-year agreement. Thus, the two sides entered into relations under the 1954 Agreement, with widely dissimilar motives. The Government of China, as and when expedient, took control of the trade, imposed new taxes and arbitrary levies, made monetary manipulates which spelt disaster for Indian traders, obstructed the recovery of debts and trade dues, denied remittance facilities and repatriation of Indian trade assets from Tibet. Barriers were put up against direct barter of goods between petty traders of the two sides and restrictions placed on the export of conventional Tibetan merchandise to India. Traders and pilgrims from India were frequently harassed and their movements severely circumscribed. Indian traders were denied the right to contact their traditional partners in Tibet. They were offered no storage facilities, nor always allowed to return with their unsold goods to India. Not being able to deny the imposition of these and other measures, in contravention of the spirit and letter of the Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954, which crippled the traditional trade and intercourse between India and Tibet, the Government of China have conveniently taken over under the plea of “internal sovereign jurisdiction”. It is absurd to suggest that the Government of India had not at any time respected “China’s sovereignty over Tibet”. Nor is it a fact that the Government of

India ever interfered in the “internal affairs of China”. What is more, these unwarranted allegations are extraneous to the problem of the non-fulfillment and violation of the obligations solemnly undertaken by the Government of China under the Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954. Sovereign States, of their own accord, undertaken certain obligations in an international engagement and bind themselves to carry them out. If such solemn engagements are allowed to be violated and abused by a contracting State “in the exercise of its sovereign internal jurisdiction”, there would surely be international chaos. The Sino-Indian Trade Agreement of the 14th October 1954 is not relevant to “trade and intercourse between India and the Tibet region of China”, (the latter being regulated by the provisions of the Sino-Indian Agreement signed on 29th April 1954) except in so far as it provides under Article VII(4) that “payments for Border Trade between the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China, however will be settled according to the customary practice”. Article II of the Sino-Indian Trade Agreement cited in the Chinese note is entirely irrelevant to the conduct of the customary and petty trade between India and the Tibet region of China. The latter is regulated by the “Agreement on Trade and Intercourse” of 1954, and provides for the conduct of normal trade in accordance with “local regulations” at the places mentioned in Article II thereof. This bears obvious reference to local Tibetan regulations which had traditionally existed in these places and which had always been observed by Indian customary and petty traders. The Chinese authorities, however, arbitrarily changed these local regulations more particularly since 1959, and destroyed the traditional pattern of trade which the 1954 ‘Trade and Intercourse Agreement’ sought to preserve and protect. As pointed out in the Government of India’s note dated the 16th November 1961, there had been a bumper crop of new laws and regulations, between 1959 and 1960 in Tibet, and these varied in application from one trade centre to another. The Chinese authorities refused to publish them or inform the Indian Trade Agents about them. Yet they expected ‘strict observance’ of these regulations from ‘petty border traders’ and others. There is no doubt that Indo-

Tibetan trade sharply declined after 1959 as a direct consequence of the harsh application of new and arbitrary regulations imposed by the Chinese authorities. It is, therefore, incongruous for the Chinese note to argue that the decline of the Indo-Tibetan trade followed certain partial controls exercised by the Government of India over the trade. Such limited controls as were introduced by the Government of India related to the export of certain “non-traditional” goods to Tibet, e.g., diesel oil, petroleum products, motor parts, etc. which did not form part of India’s traditional commerce with Tibet. Besides, at a time when India herself was in short supply, there was a sudden increase in the import of these goods into Tibet for an obviously aggressive purpose. It has been claimed in the Chinese note that Indian traders have “recovered many credits from their Tibetan debtors”. This is not borne out by facts. Vast sums of money are still owing to Indian traders in the form of trade debts or capital assets. These have to be realised and repatriated to India. Full particulars of these assets will furnished to the Chinese Government to enable them to meet these claims. As regards Messrs. Tibet Motors & Cycle Company, some exchange was provided to the firm, but only after the Government of India had protested in their note dated the 16th November 1961. The Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954 has now run its course. During its currency it was systematically whittled down with the result that the centuries old trade and cultural ties between India and Tibet have been disrupted. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 23 July 1962

The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government’s note dated 7th June, 1962. Although the matters raised in the Chinese note are no longer live issues because of the expiry of the Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954, the facts are being re-stated below so that the Government of China may be fully aware of the ways in which their authorities constantly and deliberately obstructed the implementation of the provisions of the 1954 Agreement. 1. Concerning the lease of land and construction of buildings by the Indian Trade Agency, Gartok. The facts refuting the baseless claims contained in the Chinese note have already been furnished in the Indian Government’s notes dated 26th August and 10th November 1961. The Chinese note refers to the practice that obtained in the past when the Indian Trade Agent used to bring his own tents for camping at Gartok. What is relevant here, surely, is not the pre-1954 practice but the understanding reached in the notes exchanged between the Representatives of the two Governments at Peking on 29th April 1954, and appended to the main 1954 Agreement. Item (4) had provided that “The Government of China will render every possible assistance for housing the Indian Trade Agency at Gartok.” Item (12) gave the further assurance that “The three Trade Agencies of each Party may function throughout the year”. That the Indian Trade Agency at Gartok should have been, even eight years later, without any permanent accommodation is sufficient evidence of the obstructive and unco-operative attitude of the Chinese authorities. 2. Concerning the land to be leased and the construction of buildings by the Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse. The notes exchanged between the two Governments clearly stipulate at Item (4) that “All buildings within the compound walls of the Trade Agencies of the Government of India at Yatung and Gyantse in Tibet Region of China may be

retained by the Government of India. The Government of India may continue to lease the land within its Agency compound walls from the Chinese side.” The lease relating to the Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse was valid up to 1971. Yet, shortly after the Agency buildings at Gyantse had been wished away by floods in 1954, the Chinese Government insisted on the signing of a new lease deed. After agreeing in principle in May 1956, that construction may commence pending execution of the lease deed, the Chinese authorities continuously altered the location as well as the area of the side, thereby effectively preventing any progress in the work. The systematic way in which impediments were placed by the Chinese side has been dealt with in the Indian Government’s notes dated 26th October 1959, 19th February 1960, and 10th November 1961. Despite patient efforts and a keen desire to accommodate the Chinese fully, the Indian Trade Agent found it impossible till the end of 1961 to sign the lease, let alone begin construction. Thereafter too no cooperation was extended by the Chinese. Their attitude in the matter seems to be clear from the remark fortuitously made in the Chinese note under reference that “the buildings rented by the Indian Trade Agency were sufficient for their needs............”. 3. Concerning functioning of the Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet, China. Chinese authorities, from the beginning appeared to have no interest in implementing the provisions of the 1954 Agreement. The Trade Agencies in Gartok and Gyantse had no proper accommodation provided to them while the Trade Agencies in Yatung was quite frequently denied permission to carry out necessary repairs or alterations to their buildings. The personnel of the Trade Agencies were restricted in their movements and were prevented from having contacts with local inhabitants. Transport facilities were restricted and courier facilities interfered with. Firing practice had been sometimes carried out in the vicinity of the Trade Agency at Gyantse presumably in an effort to intimidate the staff. Medical facilities had been denied in at least one instance to members of one of the Trade Agencies.

As regards the wireless communications set at Yatung, it is surprising that the Chinese note should term it ‘illegal’. The notes exchanged between the two Governments in connection with the 1954 Agreement explicitly provided vide Item (4) that the properties “within the compound walls of the Trade Agencies of the Government of India at Yatung and Gyantse in Tibet Region of China may be retained by the Government of India”. Under Articles (1), (2) and (3) of the Agreement the Government of India had voluntarily agreed to relinquish certain extra-territorial privileges as well as some properties in Tibet. Military escorts at Yatung and Gyantse were accordingly withdrawn and the Postal, Telegraph and Public Telephone Service, hitherto operated by the Government of India of India, together with their equipment were handed over at a reasonable price to the Government of China, in addition to 12 Rest Houses which the Government of India had been maintaining in Tibet. The official wireless communications set at the Indian Trade Agency, Yatung, however, had been covered under the terms of Item (4). The Chinese Government had been fully cognizant of the existence of this set which had been with the Agency for a long time. There was nothing unusual about it and the Chinese Government had never objected to it. The other allegations in the Chinese note regarding the school and hospital attached to the Trade Agency at Yatung are merely repetitions of previous allegations that have been fully answered by the Indian Government in para. 4 of their note dated 26th October, 1959. As regards the final allegation that the Indian Trade Agent at Yatung showed to local inhabitants pictures of the “rebel clique’s flight into India”, this is nothing short of distortion of facts. Film shows held in the premises of the Trade Agencies are purely private ones. It is erroneous to suggest that the there had been any violation of accepted conventions in this connection. In sharp contrast to the exemplary behaviour of the Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet, the activities of the Chinese Trade Agency in Kalimpong have been a record of interference in the internal affairs of India and of repeated violations of local regulations. Kalimpong is on the border and special security measures are

necessary for border areas. Even there, the restrictions placed on the movements of personnel of the Chinese Trade Agency in Kalimpong were the absolute minimum required and considerably less than those placed on the personnel of Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet. Far from the Chinese Trade Agency being ‘surrounded’ by ‘armed men maintaining a constant watch’, the Chinese Trade Personnel in Kalimpong have been guilty of various illegal actions including the discharging of air-rifles indiscriminately from the Trade Agency premises, in the course of which an innocent passer-by was wounded. The Indian Government’s protest dated 21st May, 1962 in this connection has not so far been answered. The Chinese Trade Agency in Kalimpong had also been responsible for arbitrarily seizing the premises of the Chung Hwa school in total disregard of local regulations and due process of law. This matter is now before the Court. 4. Conclusion. From the above detailed facts it will be seen there is no basis for the charges of the Chinese Government. Their claim that they have adhered to the 1954 Agreement cannot be sustained on the basis of the experience of the Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet, nor by the systematic aggression that has been mounted by China on the Sino-Indian frontier. By their actions, the Chinese Government have amply shown their complete disregard both of the letter and the spirit of the Agreement as well as for the Five Principles of peaceful co-existence enunciated in the preamble to the Agreement. The Ministry of External Affairs renews to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Aide Memories given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 25 July 1962

In the course of discussions on the withdrawal of Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet, the Chinese Embassy was informed of the Government of India’s intention to retain their property and buildings in Yatung under the charge of the Indian Consul-General at Lhasa. In this Ministry’s Aide Memoire, dated the 1st June 1962 it was further stated that the Indian Consul-General at Lhasa would maintain a small staff for the upkeep of the property and buildings which would be used as a resting place for Indian officials and diplomatic couriers proceedings to and returning from Lhasa. 2. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese People’s Republic informed the

Indian Embassy in Peking on the 2nd June 1962 that they were agreeable to the intention of the buildings of the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung by the Government of India under the charge of their Consul-General in Lhasa. The request that Indian staff might remain in Yatung to look after the property was, however not accepted to. The Indian Trade Agent at Yatung accordingly appointed Tibetan staff consisting of 5 persons to maintain the buildings left behind by him. 3. The Government of India are extremely surprised that, despite the

understanding reached earlier, the Chinese authorities have persistently refused to permit Indian officials and couriers to make use of the former Agency building in Yatung as a resting place on their way to or from Lhasa. It has been further reported that some members of the staff deputed to look after the buildings have since been asked to leave the Agency by the local authorities. 4. The buildings of the Indian Trade Agency in Yatung have belonged to the

Government of India for several years and continue to be their property, to be used by them in accordance with their local requirements. The Government of India regret the arbitrary action taken by the Chinese local authorities and wish to emphasise that the fact of legal ownership which is undisputed carries with it the legal right to utilise the building as and when required.

5.

The Government of India emphatically protest against the action of the local

Chinese authorities in removing forcibly the staff employed to maintain buildings. The Government of India would request the Chinese Embassy to move the Government of China to take immediate steps to ensure that the legitimate rights of Indian officials to maintain and use their property in Yatung are restored with immediate effect. *** Note given the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 2 November 1961 With regard to the case in which the No. 8/61 issue of the India News published by the Indian Embassy in China carried a resolution slandering China adopted by the All-India Congress Committee, an Indian political party, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has learnt of the verbal note handed over in person on July 5, 1961 by Mr. S. Sinha, Director of the China Division of the Indian Ministry for External Affairs, to Mr. Fu Hao, Counsellor of the Chinese Embassy in India. It must be pointed out that the attempt made in that Indian verbal note to justify the appearance of the said material in the bulletin of the Indian Embassy in China is futile. The resolution of the Indian National Congress, which slanderously charged China with “maintaining her violations” of Indian territory, constitutes an obvious, malicious attack on the Chinese Government. Whatever explanation the verbal note may give, the publishing of such material in the bulletin of the Indian Embassy in China can only be regarded as improper. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has no intention of making any comment on the account given in the verbal note of the relations between the Indian National Congress and the existing Indian regime. Party politics of a country is purely the internal affairs of that country. Its diplomatic agencies representing only the government; they do not represent any political party, whether in power or not. Therefore, the fact that

the Indian Embassy in China published in its bulletin a resolution of a political party slandering China can only be regarded as abuse of the hospitality and courtesy extended by the Chinese Government. In attempting to explain away the appearance of the above-mentioned resolution in the bulletin of the Indian Embassy in China, the verbal note asserts that the bulletin only reproduces speeches by the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Indian Government and statements made by non-officials in India and press comments from Indian papers on China are never reproduced in the bulletin. Actually it has thus landed in a self-contradictory position and cannot make its argument hold water. In passing, it may be further pointed out that the Indian the Indian Embassy in China omitted the words “Indian National Congress” in publishing the abovementioned resolution in the Chinese edition of the said issue of the bulletin, and vaguely called it a “committee” resolution. This is evidently not due to accidental negligence. However, ambiguity in wording cannot make this material official in nature. While the Indian Government prohibits the Chinese Embassy in India to publish in its bulletin unofficial materials critical of the Indian Government, the Indian Embassy in China has published an unofficial resolution slandering China and the verbal note tries hard to defend this action; this is most unseemly. As for the distribution condition of the bulletin of the Indian Embassy in China as referred to in the verbal note, it must be pointed out that no complaint should be made against China. The Chinese Government has always rendered facilities for the normal propaganda activities of the foreign embassies in China and never interfered with them. It has never placed any restrictions on the distribution list of the bulletin of the Indian Embassy in China. Moreover, the verbal note made groundless malicious attacks on the Chinese Embassy in India and China’s news agency, and attempted to interfere with the freedom of the press in China. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs categorically rejects these charges and expresses its deep regret at the unreasonable attitude of the Indian Government. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 9 December 1961 Reference Note Verbal handed over to the Press Attach of the Indian Embassy in Peking on November 2, 1961, by the Information Department of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, regarding the publication in “India News” of the AICC Resolution on National integrity. 2. The above note of the Chinese Government by resort to a system of logic

unknown in international intercourse has bypassed the facts of the case regarding the publication of the AICC Resolution on National Integrity in “India News” of 1st June, 1961. 3. The facts will, therefore, bear reiteration. The AICC Resolution on National

Integrity was released by Hsin Hua News Agency of May 31, 1961, in a form which had no resemblance to the original. This garbled and disfigured version was featured in the “People’s Daily” and other Chinese papers of June 1, 1961, under the banner headline “NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS PARTY TURNS BLACK INTO WHITE”. Thus, this so-called slanderous attack on China was given wide publicity in the Chinese press although after it had been duly subjected to the most grievous distortion which from the over-exercised logic of the Chinese Government would seem to be sole prerogative of the Chinese press. In view of this indecent misrepresentation, the Indian Embassy issued without any comment on the last page of its bulletin of 1st June, 1961, the unadulterated version of the resolution. It is part of the functions of the Embassy to protect its national interests from such misrepresentation without resort to unfair means. This is precisely what the Indian Embassy did, but in so doing it exposed itself to the charge of “abusing the hospitality and courtesy” of the Chinese Government. The latter, apart from being an unfair charge, is a meaningless exercise in semantics. Instances of discourtesy and unhost like deportment in respect of the Embassy and its personnel have already been

brought to the notice of the Chinese Government. It would be purposeless to repeat them inasmuch as they are well-known. 4. As to the charge that the Indian Embassy omitted the words “Indian

National Congress” in publishing the resolution in the Chinese edition of its bulletin, this, if true, is ascribable to the lack of competent Chinese translators in the Embassy. 5. The Chinese note significantly does not deny the very limited circulation of

“India News” although the Chinese Government absolves itself of all responsibility for this. It establishes, the fact that circumstances in China are inimical to the circulation of “India News”. “India News”, as the present exchange of notes will show, cannot even put out facts as a corrective to malicious anti-Indian propaganda without attracting the wrath of the Chinese Government. 6. As to the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi, its propaganda activities have

shown over a long period that it resorts to criticism of the Government of India and its policies amounting to interference in the internal affairs of India. *** Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India, to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 2 December, 1961 The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China has received a memorandum dated October 7, 1961 from the Ministry of External Affairs of India in reply to the protest lodged by the Embassy against the various unwarranted restrictions imposed by the Government of India on the personnel of the Chinese Trade Agency at Kalimpong. The Embassy has to say with regret that the reply given by the Ministry is satisfactory and that the reasons stated in its memorandum are obviously untenable.

The Embassy has on many occasions made representations regarding the unwarranted restriction imposed by the local authorities of India on the normal activities of the personnel of the Chinese Trade Agency at Kalimpong. The Ministry of External Affairs, however, asserted that “this is purely a question of conforming to the laws and regulations of the local Government”. Such assertion is extraordinary and is a forced argument which is aimed at covering up its unwarranted restrictions on an official organ from a foreign country. It must be pointed out that there does not exist at all any question of the personnel of the Trade Agency not conforming to the laws and regulations, while these regulations only serve to discriminate against and deliberately restrict the personnel of the Trade Agency thus making it impossible for the Agency to carry out its normal functions, and in this connection the Embassy naturally has the right to express its views. It is utterly unjustifiable that the Ministry should repeat, in its memorandum, the allegation that a particular official of the Chinese Government deliberately directed an Indian driver to act against the law and public security, to which the Embassy has long ago given a clear and definite reply. The Ministry should be aware that all the Indian official organs in China have all along enjoyed the same treatment as all the other foreign official organs in China, and have never been subjected to any discrimination. His Excellency Indian Prime Minister Nehru also admitted this in answering questions in the Lok Sabha on November 20, this year. He said, “I do not know that any special restriction applies to us”. It is stipulated in the 1954 Agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet Region of China and India that the Trade Agencies of both Parties shall be accorded the same status and same treatment. It is in violation of the spirit of Agreement for the Government of India to impose various unwarranted restrictions on the Chinese Trade Agency at Kalimpong. The Embassy demands that the Government of India remove the various unwarranted restrictions against the personnel of the Chinese Trade Agency at Kalimpong and accord due and normal treatment to the Chinese official organs in India.

Note given by the Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Kalimpong, to the Trade Agency of China at Kalimpong, 30 March, 1962. The Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India at Kalimpong presents his compliments to the Trade Agency of the People’s Republic of China at Kalimpong and has the honour to state with regret that the staff of the Trade Agency are in the habit of shooting birds in their premises with Air Rifles have no regard to the safety of the police personnel on duty, stationed near the area. On several occasions in the past slugs fired from the Air Rifles by the staff of the Chinese Trade Agency have fallen upon the tents or upon the ground near Indian policemen on duty causing their apprehension or danger, inconvenience and annoyance. On the 22nd March, 1962 at about 09.30 hours the Chinese Trade Agency staff caused an accident when an Indian policeman Dilbahadur Rai was hit at his right thigh by a pellet discharged from an Air Rifle from inside the Chinese Trade Agency, which accident occurred just outside Gate No. 1 (Main Gate). The policeman picked up the pellet and had to be treated in the hospital for minor injury. The Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India at Kalimpong cannot but has take a serious view of this, albeit happened during the absence of Mr. Hsu Jen, Acting Trade Agent, in New Delhi, and accordingly urges upon the Trade Agency of the People’s Republic of China at Kalimpong not to indulge in such indiscriminate shooting, having no regard to the safety of the Indian personnel on duty near the area. To shoot human beings with Air Rifles surreptitiously is not a praiseworthy act judged by any code and can only but create complications in our cordial friendly relations and the Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India at Kalimpong accordingly requests upon the Trade Agency of the People’s Republic of China at Kalimpong to desist from such dangerous practice. 2. The Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India at Kalimpong takes this opportunity to renew to the Trade Agency of the People’s Republic of China at Kalimpong the assurances of its highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Trade Agency of China at Kalimpong, to the Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Kalimpong, 2 May 1962 The Trade Agency of the People’s Republic of China at Kalimpong presents its compliments to the Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, at Kalimpong, and with reference to the Agent’s note No. 153C, dated, 30th March, 1962, has the honour to reply as follows: With regard to the alleged accident of 22nd March, 1962, it has been found on enquiry that none of the staff of the Trade Agency used any air gun to shoot at any birds that day. It has to be pointed out with regret that the allegations such as “shoot human beings surreptitiously” made in the aforesaid note are baseless slanders. The Trade Agency avails itself of this opportunity to express to the Agent the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Agent of this Ministry of External Affairs, Kalimpong to the Trade Agency of China at Kalimpong, 15 May 1962. The Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India at Kalimpong presents his compliments to the Trade Agency of the People’s Republic of China at Kalimpong and with reference to the Trade Agency’s note No. (62)5-051 dated the 2nd May 1962 has the honour to state as follows: 2. The incident of shooting by air rifle on the 22nd March, 1962 from inside

the Trade Agency premises and injuring an Indian policeman Dil Bahadur Rai on duty, pointed out in note No. 153 C, dated 30-3-1962 of the Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India at Kalimpong, has simply been denied by the Trade Agency of the People’s Republic of China at Kalimpong in their note on 2nd May after over a month. But the undisputable facts remain that the Indian

Policeman on duty was injured, that the pellets came from the direction of the premises of the Chinese Trade Agency and that on previous occasion also, pallets discharged from the air rifles fired from the Chinese Trade Agency premises fell upon the tents or upon the ground near Indian policemen on duty. The Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India at Kalimpong feels, therefore, bound for the cogent reasons stated above to treat the plea of denial of knowledge and responsibility by the Chinese Trade Agency as entirely unsatisfactory and untenable. The Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India at Kalimpong also takes this opportunity to warn that if there be any further shooting from the Trade Agency premises to the direction of the Police quarters, the entire responsibility will devolve upon the Trade Agent and he will be held personally responsible. 3. The Agent of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India at

Kalimpong takes this opportunity to renew to the Trade Agency of the People’s Republic of China at Kalimpong the assurances of his highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 21 May 1962 Reference Chinese Memorandum dated 2nd December, 1961. Answers to the Embassy’s arguments will be found in the Ministry of External Affairs’ note dated 7th October 1961. It is a matter of regret that the Embassy has again referred to in disrespectful terms to the laws and regulations of India there would be no impediment to its normal functioning although it cannot function, as it has been doing, in an abnormal way. In addition to the numerous earlier violations of local laws and regulations, members of the Chinese Trade Agency in Kalimpong have sometime been found discharging air rifles from the Trade Agency premises with intent to cause injury, in the direction of the police

lines located below the Agency. On the 22nd March 1962 about 0930 hours a slug from an air rifle discharged from the Trade Agency premises hit an Indian police man, Dil Bahadur Rai, injuring him on the right thigh for which he had to treated in hospital. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalimpong, protested about this to the Chinese Trade Agent vide note No. 153-C dated 30th March 1962. Instead of expressing regret and promptly stopping this dangerous and unlawful activity, the Chinese Agent in his reply of May 2, 1962, merely denied that any of his staff had used an air gun to “shoot at birds on that day”. The Trade Agent is making a habit of these facile denials which do not absolve him his personal responsibility for these willful infringements of the law. The Embassy’s Memorandum has sought to make a comparison between the restrictions placed on Indian Missions in China, and more particularly in the Tibet Region of China, and those in force at Kalimpong. Whereas Indian Mission in China, and more particularly in the Tibet Region have for a long time been placed under numerous restrictive orders which have severely curtailed their movements and contacts, the regulations in the Indian frontier district of Kalimpong are of recent origin and have instituted on grounds of national security. It is absurd for the Chinese Embassy to refer to the Indian regulations in question as ‘unwarranted restrictions’ and even compare these regulations with those obtaining the People’s Republic of China where is very little freedom for Indian Missions. If the restrictive orders in force in China were to be introduced in India, the Chinese Embassy would be in relatively better position to appreciate the freedom they are not enjoying in this country. The Embassy has observed that ‘Indian Missions in China have all along enjoyed the same treatment as all other foreign official organs in China’ which is a questionable statement and has no relation to facts. On the contrary, there is open discrimination against the Indian Missions, more particularly in the Tibet. The Government of India are glad that the Embassy has invoked the provision under Article 1(2) of the Agreement between India and China on Trade and Intercourse between India and the Tibet Region of China which reads as follows:-

“The Trade Agencies of both Parties shall be accorded the same status and some treatment”. The meaning of this provision is that Chinese Trade Agencies in India should be given the same treatment as is accorded to Indian Trade Agencies in the Tibet Region. There is still an appreciable lack of parity in treatment as between the Trade Agencies in the two countries and the Chinese Trade Agencies in India continue to enjoy more privileges and greater freedom than their opposite numbers in the Tibet Region. If the Embassy has any concern for the provision made in the Agreement of 1954 which they have cited, they should ensure forthwith parity in treatment for the Indian Trade Agencies in the Tibet Region. There is some misapprehension in the Chinese Embassy’s Memorandum that the regulations enforced in Kalimpong are meant only for the Chinese Trade Agency located there. But this is an entirely unwarranted presumption. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 5 January, 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India and have the honour to state that the two Indian pilgrims, Shri Ram Prakash and Shri Narain Gir, holders of Pilgrims Certificate No. 27 and 28, dated June 29, 1961, and July 7, 1961, respectively, issued at Dharohula, entered Western Tibet through Lipulekh Pass in the first half of July 1961. They reached Taklakot on the main pilgrim route without any mishap. At Taklakot, they were put through a course of interrogation by the Chinese authorities about the presence of Indian civil and military dispositions along the route they had traversed. From Taklakot, they were misdirected by the Chinese to a place called Batherai. At a point where they had to cross the Tsangpo river, one of the pilgrims Shri Narain Gir lost his belongings. He was being carried away by the river and was saved by his companion Shri Ram

Prakash. While they were still within proximity of Kailash and Mansarover, they were arrested by the Chinese and taken to Shigatse in an army truck under armed escort. At Shigatse, they were subjected to continuous interrogation about Indian army dispositions on the border. Their interrogators also suggested to them that they (the pilgrims) had gone to Tibet to collect intelligence. It was not until September 25, 1961, that they were brought to the border (near Nathula) and asked to cross into Indian territory. Thus, they were kept under illegal detention for a period of almost two months. 2. It is clear that the two innocent pilgrims holding valid pilgrim’s permits and

proceeding along the pilgrim route were deliberately imposed upon, arrested and taken away to various places where they were kept secretly under detention and made to undergo rigorous interrogation. Apart from the entirely unjustifiable harassment and detention which they were made to suffer, they had undertaken a long and arduous journey through difficult country. 3. The conduct and action of the Chinese authorities in Tibet in respect of

these two pilgrims from India are in breach of the terms of the Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954 on Trade and Intercourse between India and the Tibet Region of China. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Indian Trade Agency, Yatung, to the Tibetan Bureau of Foreign Affairs, 20 January 1962 The Indian Trade Agency, Yatung presents its compliments to the Bureau of Foreign Affairs, Yatung, Tibet Region of China and has the honour to bring to its notice the orders of the local authorities to feel trees for timber in the forest at

the rear of the Agency area with a sense of impending danger which may result if this operation is carried through. It is also pointed out there that in pursuance of this order preliminary clearing of forests has started and local people unwittingly intruded into the Agency compound and started clearing branches of trees and small bushes on the hill side. With the indiscriminate deforestation of this forest there will be a constant danger from erosion of the hill side and falling of boulders thus causing damage to Government of India property and danger to the lives of the persons and cattle in the Agency premises. In order therefore to stop further intrusion within Agency compound, this Agency brought this matter to the notice of Yatung Bureau of Foreign Affairs on 4th December, 1961 verbally. Although this operation appear to have been stopped temporarily, the Bureau of Foreign Affairs will appreciate the apprehension of Indian Agency and will please consider the matter in this aspect and stop further destruction of this forest or else responsibility of loss of property and life resulting on account of this deforestation will lie with the Government of the People’s Republic of China. The Indian Trade Agency take this opportunity to renew to the Bureau of Foreign Affairs the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 2 March 1962 The Chinese Government has read the Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ memorandum to the Chinese Embassy in India dated September 6, 1961. It has been established through investigation that the charges made by the Indian Government in the memorandum against the Chinese Government are inconsistent with the facts and are, therefore, unacceptable. It is alleged in the memorandum that five Chinese workers were under “pressure” from the Chinese local authorities to stop working for the Indian Trade Agency at

Gyantse. This is entirely groundless. Of the five workers, the two seasonal gardeners and the two domestic helpers are upto now still working at the Indian Trade Agency. As for the watchman who stopped working for the Trade Agency in July 1961, he was hired by the Trade Agency on a temporary basis from the very beginning. What must be pointed out is that the Indian Trade Agency, in hiring these workers, did not in every case follow the local provisions governing the employment of local Chinese workers by foreign institutions in Tibet. Such provisions were brought to the notice of the Indian Consulate-General in Lhasa by the Foreign Bureau in Tibet, China, far back in August, 1960. Regarding the question of medical aid to Shri N.R. Sharma, a staff member of the Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse, the Indian charges are also groundless. It is alleged in the Indian memorandum that the Indian Trade Agency is not entitled to approach the local doctor directly. The fact, however, is that the Sub-office of the Foreign Bureau at Gyantse, China, had twice informed the Indian Trade Agency, in December 1960 and in February 1961, that the latter could directly approach the local hospital. In spite of this, when the Sub-office of the Foreign Bureau was requested by the Indian Trade Agency in the afternoon of July 28, 1961, to assist in obtaining medical aid for Shri Sharma, it immediately gave active assistance and informed the local hospital. Within twenty minutes after the notice informed the local hospital. Within twenty minutes after the notice of the Indian Trade Agency, two doctors arrived at the scene. The patient died before the doctors had time to diagnose the case. According to local hospital regulations, in the event that a patient dies before the case is diagnosed, the hospital cannot issue a certificate of diagnosis, and it is entirely unjustified for India to lodge a compliant in its memorandum against this. On August 3, when the Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse asked on behalf of one of its officials for an exit and re-entry visa valid for three months, it merely stated that the personal belongings of the late Shri Sharma would be taken out of the country, without indicating in any way that his ashes would have to be rushed to India, etc. Nevertheless, the Sub-office of the Foreign Bureau speedily issued the visa. The local authorities in Tibet have offered every possible assistance with regard to the case of Shri Sharma, for

which the Indian Trade Agent Mr. Pandit personally expressed his thanks to the Sub-office of the Foreign Bureau on August 16. It can thus be seen that the Chinese local authorities in Tibet have, in accordance with the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement, all along accorded necessary and possible assistance and facilities to the Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet. *** Note given by the Bureau of Foreign Affairs in Yatung, to the Indian Trade Agency in Yatung, 14 March 1962 The Yatung office of the Bureau of Foreign Affairs in Tibet presents its compliments to the Indian Trade Agency, Yatung and has the honour to reply to Agency’s letter of the 19th January 1962 as follows: The Yatung office of the Bureau of Foreign Affairs in Tibet notes with surprise the letter of the Indian Trade Agency, Yatung, dated the 19th January 1962. After investigation it shows that the assertion of the so-called “impending danger” to the Indian Trade Agency allegedly resulting from the “orders” of the Local Authorities to fell trees is utterly groundless. The local authorities has never issued any instructions regarding the felling of trees on the hill at the rear of the Agency area, to say nothing about causing any danger to the persons and property of the Agency. Moreover, the issue of such instruction or not is purely a matter for the consideration of the local authorities, which the Indian Trade Agency, proceeding from fictitious fact, has taken it up and used shocking terms in its letter. The Yatung office cannot but feel regret at this. The Yatung office of the Bureau of Foreign Affairs in Tibet avails itself of the opportunity to renew to the Indian Trade Agency the assurances of its highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 20 March 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the note delivered by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the Chinese Embassy in India on January 5, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: With regard to the case of the two Indian pilgrims mentioned in the note, the facts are found after investigation to be as follows: On August 5, 1961, a motor convoy in the Tibet region of China met with two foreigners asking for help in the vicinity of Saka, over three hundred kilometres east of Mavam Tso. Owing to language difficulties, they got to Shigatse together with the convoy. According to their declaration, one was called Ram Prakash, the other Narain Gir, both were Indians and had arrived at that place, having gone astray on pilgrimage. They had lost their pilgrim’s permits issued by the Chinese frontier checkpost, and had gone without food for two days when they met the motor convoy. In the light of their account, the local authorities took friendly care of them and arranged conveyance for them so that they could easily return to India. Upon leaving China, they time and again expressed thanks for the friendly treatment they had received and put that down in writing. When they left China, the Tibet Bureau of Foreign Affairs notified the Indian Consulate-General in Lhasa of this matter. In the spirit of Sino-Indian friendship, the local authorities in Tibet, China, not only abstained from inquiring into the case of the above-mentioned two Indian pilgrims going far from Kang Rimpoche and Mavam Tso and deep into nonpilgrimage areas, but gave them help and facilities in respect of means of life and transport. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs, however, in its note gave a story inconsistent with the facts and made unwarranted charges against the Chinese local authorities. The Chinese Government expresses its deep regret at this.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 24 March 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the notes of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs dated July 15 and November 10, 1961 regarding Indian check-posts harassment of Chinese border inhabitants and the question of Indian pilgrims coming to the Tibet region of China on pilgrimage, has the honour to state the following. With regard to the other questions referred to in the notes, reply will be given separately. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has noted with extreme regret the lack of seriousness of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in its attitude on the question of unreasonable harassment of Chinese border inhabitants and traders by Indian check-posts and outposts. The facts are entirely contrary to what has been said by the Indian side. Chinese border inhabitants and traders proceeding to India have been continuously subjected to harassment by the Indian side. According to incomplete statistics compiled by the local authorities in Tibet, China, in the case of Rudok County in the Ari District alone, within 1960 more than sixty persons, including Tsujen and Wangcha, were unwarrantedly detained by Indian check-posts and outposts, and quite a few of them were unlawfully interrogated and beaten. Then detention generally lasted from ten to twenty days, with the longest lasting as long as five months. In addition to the cases raised by the Tibet Bureau of Foreign Affairs, China, with the Indian Consulate General in Lhasa in 1961, the following cases can be cited by way of example. (1) Tutengtawa, Losangkungpao and

Chiangpasangteng of Rudok County set out on August 21, 1960 for trade in detained by the Indian outpost and were not released and allowed to return until January 1961. (2) From July 15, 1960, Tsaijentochiech of Jechio, Rodok Country, was detained for 48 days by armed Indian personnel at Dingroze. During the interrogation, the Indian personnel asked him for military information about China’s Tibet region. When he answered that he did not know, he was brutally beaten up by the Indian personnel; altogether he was beaten three times. (3) Tsujen, Wangcha, Jenching and Paimajentseng of Rudok County, who went to India in October 1960 for trade, were detained for 16 days by the Indian side when they reached was unwarrantedly slapped in the face four times. Indian check-posts and outposts required certificates of Chinese border inhabitants proceeding to India, for whom, as provided in the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement, no passports, visas or permits are needed On the other hand, they confiscated the certificates held by Chinese traders, porters and muleteam drivers, issued by the Chinese local authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. These unjustifiable acts of the Indian check-posts and outposts constitute an open disregard for and violation of the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement. In its note of July 15 the Indian Ministry of External Affairs attempted to prove that Chinese border inhabitants and traders were not harassed and detained by arguing that those Chinese border inhabitants and traders who had been harassed and unreasonably detained by the Indian local authorities at Chusul had not lodged any complaint with those authorities themselves. This is a most shabby argument and can only show the lack of tenable reason on the part of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. The local authorities in Tibet, China, have consistently rendered protection and facilities to Indian pilgrims in accordance with the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement. In 1959 and 1960, in view of the raids by remnant rebels in certain parts of the Ari District, Tibet region, and in regard for the safety of the life and property of the Indian pilgrims, the Chinese local authorities suggested that for the time being they should not come to Kang Rimpoche (Kailash) and Mavam Tso (Manasarovar) on pilgrimage. This was clearly notified to the Indian Consulate-

General in Lhasa by the Tibet Bureau of Foreign Affairs. When conditions had changed for the better in 1961, the Tibet local authorities notified the Indian side that pilgrims might now come. In order to safeguard the safety of the pilgrims, the Tibet local authorities suggested that they would better travel by Lipu Lekh Pass. The Indian side is clearly aware of the fact that Lipu Lekh Pass is specified in the Sino-Indian Agreement as one of the passes for pilgrims as well as of the above-mentioned situation, yet it repeatedly falsely accused the suggestions of the Chinese local authorities as being not in conformity with the Agreement. This is what the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs definitely cannot accept. Furthermore, the local authorities in Tibet, China, have arranged lodgings for pilgrims in more than ten places near the sacred spots so far as the local facilities allow. These lodgings have been arranged specially for pilgrims by the Chinese local authorities after the signing of the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement, and have always been taken care of by appointed persons. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ assertion in its note of November 10 to the effect that the lodgings “have little to recommend” etc. is totally inconsistent with the facts. The facts show indisputably that violations of the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement have come from the Indian side which has subjected Chinese border inhabitants and traders proceeding to India for border trade to all sorts of harassment and restrictions. No forced argument and counter-charge of the Indian side can negate these facts. On the other hand, the Chinese Government has always treasured the friendship between the Chinese and Indian peoples and, in safeguarding this friendship, has rendered all possible facilities to the Indian pilgrims. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 21 April 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China dated 20th March, 1962 have the honour to state as follows: The Chinese Government have, in their note, admitted the fact that the two Indian pilgrims Shri Ram Prakash and Shri Narain Gir, were first taken charge of by Chinese officials on 5th August 1961. It is also established that it was only on September 25, 1961, that the Bureau of Foreign Affairs in Lhasa chose to telephone the Consulate-General of India to inform them of the fate of these two pilgrims. Even then no details were given except that the pilgrims had been returned to India by way of Nathula. No reasons were also given for the long delay in communicating the facts to the Indian authorities. While it is true that the two pilgrims had been reasonably clothed and fed by the Chinese, freedom of movement had been denied to them and they had been physically prevented from contacting any of the Indian representatives at Lhasa, Gartok, Gyantse or Yatung. These actions of the Chinese authorities militate against fundamental principles of international law and constitute at the same time a violation of the letter as well as the spirit of the Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954. This delay in communicating the facts taken together with the statements made by the pilgrims, following their return to India, that they had been kept virtually under arrest at Shigatse and had been subjected to constant interrogation by the Chinese authorities, contradict the version of the incident given in the Chinese Government’s note under reply. The Government of India are surprised that, in the face of these facts, the Chinese Government continue to deny their responsibility in this matter and to allege that unwarranted charges are being made against them.

The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of the opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 16 May 1962 Reference Memorandum dated 28th February, 1962, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese People’s Republic to the Indian Embassy, Peking. The Chinese Memorandum contains certain inaccuracies which the Government of India are bound to point out. It is an undeniable fact that the two seasonal gardeners stopped working for the Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse on the 1st August 1961: The Trade Agent had written to the Local Foreign Bureau intimating this on the 11th August 1961. In response to a communication received from the Local Foreign Bureau on the 12th August, 1961 the addresses of these persons were forwarded to them by the Trade Agent on the 14th August, 1961. The gardeners resumed duty on the 18th September 1961. The Chinese Memorandum significantly fails to mention this period of absence or to furnish reasons for the same. Though it is a fact that the local employees working as domestic servants for officials of the Trade Agency continue to do so, there can be no doubt that they were under pressure not to continue in employment at the time this matter was represented to the Chinese Embassy. The case of a servant named Nyima who was asked to stop working for an official of the Indian Trade Agency was reported to the Local Foreign Bureau on the 3rd March 1962. It was only after this action had been taken that Nyima returned to work. The failure of the watchman to return to work cannot be ascribed either to his being a temporary employee or to the Trade Agency not having complied with regulations for the employment of local staff.

In the case of the late Shri N.R. Sharma, the position is that though the Indian Trade Agent had been advised by the Foreign Bureau that members of the Indian Mission could go to the hospital directly without fixing an appointment through the Local Foreign Bureau, the doctors had not been prepared to entertain patients without a letter of introduction from the Foreign Bureau. Moreover, in the present case, a visit to the patient’s home was necessary and the procedure in this regard had not been clearly specified. Prompt action might have helped to save Shri Sharma’s life but in spite of the Foreign Bureau having been approached and informed of the urgency of the situation, the doctor came only after a delay of one whole hour. It is incorrect to state that the doctor arrived after 20 minutes. It is not correct also to state that the Indian Trade Agent thanked the Local Foreign Bureau for their assistance, since on the contrary he had every reason to be dissatisfied with their unhelpful attitude. The Government of India regret that these cases of genuine difficulty experienced by their Missions in Tibet have not been thoroughly investigated, and that the Chinese Government have furnished no assurance of such co-operation and consideration as would be normally expected of them both under the terms of 1954 Agreement on Trade and Intercourse and according to accepted international practice. *** Note given by the Indian Trade Agency in Yatung to the Bureau of Foreign Affairs in Yatung, 22 May 1962 The Indian Trade Agency, Yatung, presents its compliments to the Bureau of Foreign Affairs, Yatung, Tibet Region of China and has the honour to acknowledge the latter’s note dated 14th March 1962. The Indian Trade Agency is reassured to note that the local authorities had never issued any instructions regarding the felling of trees in the forest at the rear of the Trade Agency. However, it was only because preliminary clearing of the forest

had started and local people had intruded into the Agency compound for clearing branches of trees and bushes on the hill side that the matter had been brought to the attention of the Bureau of Foreign Affairs. The Trade Agency is aware that such felling of trees at the rear of the Agency area would be technically an internal matter for the consideration of the local authorities but as there was serious likelihood that such destruction of the forest could cause erosion of the hill side and thereby endanger the lives of the persons residing in the Trade Agency premises, that the matter had been brought to the notice of the appropriate authorities. The Indian Trade Agency, Yatung, avails itself of the opportunity to renew to the Bureau of Foreign Affairs, the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 28 May 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, wit reference to the note of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the Chinese Embassy in India, dated April 21, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: Regarding the two Indian pilgrims going deep into non-pilgrimage areas more than three hundred kilometres from Kang Rimpoche and Mavam Tso, China already clearly stated in its note of March 20, 1962, that the local authorities in Tibet, China in the spirit of Sino-Indian friendship, did not press the matter with them and gave them help and facilities in respect of means of life and transport. Upon leaving China, they time and again expressed thanks for the friendly treatment they had received and put that down in writing. And when they left China, the Tibet Bureau of Foreign Affairs notified the Indian Consulate-General in Lhasa of this matter.

It must be pointed out that to deal with foreigners who have illegally entered Chinese territory without any permits is a matter entirely within China’s sovereignty in which no foreign government has any right whatsoever to interfere. Ignoring the fact that the Chinese local authorities have friendly treatment to the two Indian pilgrims who had gone deep into non-pilgrimage areas, the Indian Government time and again made slanders against the Chinese side. Such an attitude of repaying good with censures is indeed regrettable. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of the highest consideration. *** Memorandum given y the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 13 June 1962 Reference the memorandum dated May 16, 1962, from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the Chinese Embassy in India. With regard to employment of local Chinese workers by official Indian missions in the Tibet region of China, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs already pointed out in its note of December 12, 1960, to the Indian Embassy in China that whether the local people working for the Indian missions would continue their service was entirely their own business and they all along enjoyed complete freedom in this own business and they all along enjoyed complete freedom in this regard. While admitting the fact that the four Chinese workers did continue to work for the Indian Trade Agency, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, in its memorandum, repeated the charge that the Chinese workers were allegedly under “pressure” from the Chinese local authorities to stop working for the Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse, and complained that the Chinese Government had failed to furnish “reasons” for the period of absence of two of the Chinese workers. This charge and complaint become all the more unreasonable when considering the fact that

those Chinese workers were employed directly by the Indian Trade Agency which had not informed the office of the Foreign Bureau of the matter at all. As regards medical treatment for the late Shri N. R. Sharma of the Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs cited facts in its memorandum dated February 28, 1962, to show that the local authorities had done their best to render assistance. The allegation made in the memorandum of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs that the doctors arrived as late as one hour after being notified by the Indian Trade Agency is incorrect. Two doctors rushed to the scene within twenty minutes after being notified by the Indian Trade Agency at 6-50 P.M. that afternoon, but Shri Sharma died at 7-30 P.M. before the doctors had time to diagnose his case. The death of Shri Sharma is regrettable, but it is entirely unjustifiable to charge, on account of his death, the local authorities with not rendering assistance. The Indian Government has repeatedly made unreasonable charges against China in disregard of the facts; the Chinese Government cannot but express its deep regret at this. *** Aide Memoire given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 20 June 1962 Shri Kalu Singh, an India-based member of the staff of the Indian Trade Agency, Gyantse, had joined the Consulate-General of India, Lhasa, on official transfer on May 17, 1962. As the Chinese Embassy will note, this transfer had taken place well before the termination of the Sino-Indian Agreement on trade and intercourse on June 2, 1962. On the 17th June 1962, a full month after the transfer, the Foreign Bureau in Gyantse had informed the Indian Trade Agent that Shri Kalu Singh should leave Tibet within the same period as the withdrawal of the Indian Trade Agencies. This

information has now been conveyed by the Foreign Bureau in Lhasa to the Indian Consulate-General also. The attitude of the Chinese authorities in Tibet in this matter is not at all clear to the Government of India. The Government of India would, therefore, appreciate a clarification from the Government of China. *** Aide Memoire given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 20 June 1962 As the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China are aware the Government of India decided to withdraw their Trade Agency at Gyantse on 10th June 1962 and their Trade Agency at Yatung on 15th June 1962, and had requested the Government of China to make available necessary facilities to effect the withdrawal in accordance with this schedule. The Government of India had also requested that their trade Agencies at Gyantse and Yatung should continue to have privileged communication with the Government of India as well as courier facilities until the actual date of their withdrawal as this was necessary to facilitate administrative arrangements in connection with their withdrawal. However, the Government of China have denied these facilities to the Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet with effect from 3rd June 1962, and have made it almost impossible for the Trade Agencies to communicate with the Government of India. Despite the lack of normal facilities the Indian Trade Agents had taken steps to leave Yatung and Gyantse on the scheduled dates. It is a matter of regret, however, that the local authorities in Yatung and Gyantse have not only held back the cooperation expected of them but have used unfair means to harass and delay the departure of the Indian Trade Agencies. Both the Gyantse and Yatung, the Chinese authorities have raised a number of vexatious issues and have demanded that these be settled to their satisfaction before the departure of the Indian Trade Agencies from Tibet.

The Indian Trade Agent at Gyantse has been ordered by the local Foreign Bureau to settle the following issues before his withdrawal: i. He should pay 8928.02 Yuans as arrears of rent for the Agency buildings for the period prior to the signing of the lease-deed on the 28th November 1961 and 9276.00 Yuans as arrears of rent for the land of the Agency site. There is no reason why such issues should have been raised after the expiry of the 1954 Agreement and on the eve of the departure of the Indian Trade Agent. Nor have the Chinese authorities given sufficient details regarding the basis of those claims. The claims are arbitrary as they are not supported by any lease-deed, agreement or understanding between the two Governments. However, if the Chinese Government certify that these claims are legitimate and render proper account for them, Government of India will have the claims settled through their Consulate General in Lhasa or their Embassy in Peking. ii. He should demolish spurs constructed by the Indian Trade Agency for the protection of its property. As the Chinese Embassy are aware these were constructed in consultation with the Chinese authorities at Gyantse, Lhasa and Peking. Construction of the spurs was actually undertaken after the verbal consent of the Chinese authorities had been obtained. The Government of India had informed the local authorities through their Trade Agent at Gyantse in September 1961 that they may destroy these spurs if they were endangering the bridge and other public work in Gyantse but that they should accept the responsibility for the protection of Agency property once this had been done. In the circumstances, the insistence of the local authorities that they be shown documentary evidence to show that these approval had been obtained for the construction of these spurs is a most unreasonable and arbitrary demand at a time when the Trade Agent is engaged in winding up his mission. iii. He should physically transport all property belonging to the Government of India out of Gyantse. The Chinese Government are fully aware of the circumstances in which building material which was acquired by the Indian

Trade Agency is Gyantse could not be utilised and of the reasons for their inability to complete partly-built structures. These questions have formed the subject of correspondence between the Governments of China and India. The Indian Trade Agent cannot be compelled to demolish these structures or to remove accumulated building material from Gyantse. The disposal of these items of property belonging to the Government of India is a matter on which assistance should have been forthcoming from the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and there are procedures prescribed by international law and practice in such matters. It is extraordinary that the Chinese authorities in Tibet instead of helping in this matter are exercising arbitrary pressure on the Indian Trade Agent to dispose of the building material etc. even if there is no means of doing so. The Indian Trade Agent at Yatung has been ordered by the local authorities to accept responsibility for the suicide of a local employee and for the disappearance of other local employees of his Trade Agency. Such facts as are known to the Indian Trade Agent on these matters have been communicated verbally and in writing to the local Foreign Bureau. Reports available with the Government of India indicate that the case of suicide on 2nd June 1962 was caused by the entry of Chinese troops into the Agency premises. About the flight of some local employees from Yatung on 28th May, the Trade Agent had no prior knowledge of this. As soon as he came to know about it, he reported the matter to the local Foreign Bureau. In fact, he was embarrassed by the flight of these local Foreign Bureau. In fact, he was embarrassed by the flight of these local employees as he needed their help in his own winding up operations. A later attempt by some local employees of the Trade Agency to run away led to their arrest by the Chinese authorities on 4th June. The Indian Trade Agent has been so severely restricted in his activities in Yatung that he could not, even if he had wanted to, assist any local employee in running away from Yatung. There can be no doubt that local employees of the Indian Trade Agency have been running away out of fear of the local authorities.

Another matter which has been causing concern to our Trade Agents in Tibet is the insistence on the part of the local authorities that the Tibetan wives of Indian officials employed by the Agencies cannot accompany their husbands unless they observe all the formalities prescribed by Chinese Immigration Laws for this purpose. The uncertainty as to whether this decision of the Chinese authorities will mean the needless separation of families has created a sense of great uneasiness and despondency among the staff of the Trade Agencies. The Government of India reiterate their request for facilities to enable the Indian Trade Agents at Gyantse and Yatung to withdraw without further delay. They cannot but take a most serious view of the attempts so far made to harass their Trade Agents and to deny them courtesies due to their official position. Considering the gravity of the situation created by the Chinese authorities at Gyantse and Yatung, the Government of India must issue a clear warning that if there is any further attempt to hold up and harass the Indian Trade Agents in Tibet, there may be grave repercussions. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 22 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Government’s note No. 11/69, dated the 28th May, 1962. The Chinese note once again overlooks the fact that the two Indian pilgrims Shri Ram Prakash and Shri Narain Gir had lost their way in Tibet due to their having been misdirected by Chinese officials, whose duty it was to help and guide the wayfarers. No reason has been adduced in the Chinese note to explain the time which elapsed between the arrest of the pilgrims and the telephonic intimation of this fact to the Indian Consul General at Lhasa. For as long as fifty days these

innocent pilgrims were held in detention without facilities for consultation with their Consular Officer and tirelessly interrogated. It has been claimed in the Chinese note that “to deal with foreigners who have illegally entered Chinese territory without any permits is a matter entirely within Chinese sovereignty”. The validity of this assertion is questionable on two grounds. First on the ground of the fact. Viz., that the pilgrims were in possession of valid pilgrim passes. By a series of misadventures which had befallen them, they had lost all their possessions and very early their lives, when they were carried away by a strong current while crossing a flooded stream. Second, on the ground of law, viz., internal jurisdiction does not confer any right on the Government of China to arrest, detain and persecute the nationals of another State (in this case, India) who are in Chinese territory for a legitimate purpose recognised in the Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954 on Trade and Intercourse between India and the Tibet Region of China. The Government of India regret that in the face of facts, the Chinese Government should continue to justify their high-handed action. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 3 July 1962 Reference Memorandum dated 13th June 1962 from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Government of India’s Memorandum, dated 16th May 1962 gave facts about the difficulties experienced by the Indian missions in Tibet in respect of their local employees. Pressure had been exercised on these local employees not to serve the Indian missions. Specific instances of such occurrences were brought to the notice of the Chinese Government.

The Chinese Memorandum under references, however, takes the position that continuance in service with Indian missions is entirely a matter for the local employees themselves and that they enjoy complete freedom in this regard. The facts do not sustain this liberal view of life in China. Under regulations in force in China all local employees are to be recruited by foreign missions through the official agencies of the Government of China, and such employees of foreign missions continue to be responsible to the Government of China. In their note dated 24th August 1960, the Foreign Bureau in Lhasa had advised the Indian Consulate-General that Indian missions in Tibet should intimate their requirements of local staff as also all changes in such appointments to the local Foreign Bureaus. The Indian Consulate-General accepted this position in their note dated 7th January 1961 to the Foreign Bureau in Lhasa. There was instances where the Foreign Bureau did not agree to permit certain persons selected by the Indian Consulate-General in Lhasa to accept appointments offered to them. Although Indian missions in Tibet scrupulously complied with all local regulations they continued to experience serious hardship in obtaining the services of the local employees and in retaining the services of those already employed by them. From time to time such local employees have been withdrawn from the service of Indian missions on unspecified grounds. Since all such local employees are compulsorily registered with the local Foreign Bureau, there is no substance in the charge that the Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse failed to notify the local Foreign Bureau about the local employees serving with the Trade Agency. In the case of the death of Shri N.R. Sharma at Gyantse, the facts have already been cited in the Ministry’s Memoranda dated 6th September 1961 and 16th May 1962 and do not require any reiteration. It is obvious that had timely medical assistance been available Shri Sharma’s life might have been saved. In this case, the un-cooperative attitude of the local authorities at Gyantse was carried too far. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 26 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to refer to note No. 1148, dated the 21st March 1962 from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The allegation made in the Chinese note have been thoroughly investigated and found to be baseless. There have not been any cases of unwarranted detention of Chinese traders or confiscation of their traders’ certificates. Chinese border inhabitants who were not required under the 1954 Agreement to hold travel documents to visit neighbouring areas in India for trading purposes have always been permitted to do so. The allegation of undue detention and physical maltreatment of more than 60 Chinese traders from the Rudok area of Tibet has not been supported by any particulars and it has therefore not been possible to make any enquiries or investigations. The facts regarding the three specific instances mentioned in the Chinese note are as follows:The first case relates to 3 Tibetan traders who came to Chusul in August 1960 with 30 mounds of rock salt for sale. Though they claimed to be customary traders, they were unwilling to dispose off their merchandise at Chusul, even though offers to purchase it were made to them. Instead they insisted on visiting places at which no trade could be transacted. They were not detained by the Indian authorities at Chusul but were told that they were free to visit regular trade centres or to return to Tibet at any time. As the Chinese Embassy were informed in the Ministry’s note dated the 15th July 1961, the Government of India do not maintain a check-post at Dingroze. The question of detention of Chinese nationals at this place cannot therefore arise and the specific allegation in respect of Tsaijeutschich is thus baseless. The third case relates to certain traders who visited Chusul between October 24 and October 28, 1960. They were required to remain at the Indian border checkpost for a very brief period for completion of normal formalities. The allegation

that they were held up for 16 days and that they were harassed is baseless. It is also not true that Tsujen, a member of he group, was confined or beaten. The claim that adequate facilities have been provided by the Chinese authorities to Indian pilgrims visiting Kailash and Mansarovar is not borne out by facts. The arrangements for accommodation made for Indian pilgrims have remained unsatisfactory. Apart from the rest-house at Rakshahtal, which itself is in a deplorable condition, other places provided for the use of the Indian pilgrims are abandoned buildings unfit for human occupation. The Chinese authorities did nothing over the entire period of operation of the 1954 Agreement to implement their undertaking given in the Notes exchanged between the two Governments to provide reasonable accommodation for Indian pilgrims wherever possible. Indian pilgrims have also encountered numerous other difficulties e.g. they have not been permitted to purchase food grains or other consumer goods from the Chinese shops. Not only were no steps taken to afford protection to the lives and property of the Indian pilgrims but there were several cases of actual harassment. The case of Shri Ram Prakash and Shri Naraingir, who were needlessly detained by the Chinese authorities, subjected to severe humiliation and harassment and who were not permitted to complete their pilgrimage, forms the subject of the Ministry’s notes dated the 5th January, 1961, the 21st April, 1962 and the 2nd June, 1962. The record shows that the Chinese authorities have consistently acted against the letter and spirit of the 1954 Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between India and the Tibet Region of China which was intended to develop further the special relations already existing between the people of these areas from time immemorial. The various restrictive measures adopted by the Chinese authorities were clearly aimed at strangling the free intercourse between the Indian and Tibetan peoples. No attempt to shift the responsibility for these actions by making groundless allegations against the Indian authorities or by denying legitimate representations made by the Indian Government on behalf of their nationals will alter the deplorable fact of Chinese failure to implement the Sino-Indian Agreement of 1954.

The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 22 January 1962 On the 23rd March, 1961, Mr. Chen Lu-Chih, formerly Second Secretary in the Chinese Embassy, made a complaint to Shri V.V. Paranjpe, Under Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, to the effect that five postal packages containing copies of the magazine “China Reconstructs” were received by the Chinese Embassy on the 27th and 28th February, 1961, with the following special supplements removed, a notice to this effect signed by the Calcutta Customs authorities having been attached to each package: i. The text of Premier Chou’s interview with Mr. Felix Greene, a British correspondent. ii. Key to Chinese Phonetic Symbols. 2- The matter was further discussed by Mr. Ma Mu-Ming, First Secretary of the Embassy, with Shri B.C. Mishra, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, on the 5th May and Mr. Ying Shang Chih, First Secretary of the Embassy, handed over a Memorandum to Shri B.C. Mishra on the 6ht June, 1961. 3- At the discussions referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Embassy was informed of the breach of law which had led to the seizure of the offensive literature by the Customs Service. The Embassy’s Memorandum has been given fair and careful consideration both in the light of facts and customary international law, and the conclusions are as stated below:i. The postal packages in question were addressed to the Information Service of the Embassy and not the Embassy as has been erroneously stated in the

Embassy’s Memorandum. They were not only dispatched by ordinary mail but carried insufficient visible external marks to enable them to be classified as diplomatic mail. As such no immunity attached to these packages in international law. ii. The literature confiscated by the Calcutta Customs authorities contained proscribed propaganda in the English Language. It follows, therefore, that the bulk importation of this material could not have been intended strictly for the official cover for dissemination among the Indian public. The Customs and Postal Services of the Government of India would have failed in their duty had they not opened this ordinary mail when they had serious grounds for suspecting that it contained material other than diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use. The Embassy should be aware of the provisions under Section 19 of the Indian Sea Customs Act, 1878, which prohibits “the bringing into India of any book, periodical, pamphlet, leaflet or other documents containing any words, signs, or visible representation which directly or indirectly questions the frontier of India as declared by the Government of India or the territorial integrity of the country”. iii. The supplement containing the text of Premier Chou’s interview with Mr. Felix Greene is not only a manifesto on Chinese expansionism but an offensive attack on India’s territorial integrity. The fact that the literature in question was dispatched in violation of Indian law and that it was to be utilised by the Chinese Embassy for harmful propaganda within the territory of India constitute a serious dual breach of diplomatic privilege to which the Government of India take grave exception. 4- For the above reasons it is clear that the Government of India were well within their rights to open the five postal packages addressed to the information Service of the Chinese Embassy and to confiscate the objectionable material contained in them. There was no contravention of the Embassy’s diplomatic privilege but on exposure of a serious breach of diplomatic privilege on the part of the Information Office of the Embassy. The Government of India would draw the attention of the Chinese Embassy to the need to observe the laws of India and the limits, as

established by international law, within which diplomatic privilege in the matter of the dispatch of official mail can be availed of. The Government of India express their surprise that a protest should have been made on an issue on which the Chinese authorities have themselves committed a violation of Indian law and a breach of diplomatic privilege. *** Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 2 February 1962 On the evening of January 14, 1962, a camp fire gathering was organised by the Hostel of the Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi, in celebration of the Lodi Festival. It was attended by the Principal and students of the College. The Chinese scholars in that College were also notified to be present. At the gathering, an item on the programme entitled “Mr. Chou En Lai” was performed, the contents of which were slanderous against Chinese Premier Chou En Lai. The Chinese Embassy expresses deep regret at this act of slandering a Chinese state leader and hereby draws the attention of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the matter. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 12 March 1962 The incident mentioned in the Memorandum dated the 2nd February, 1962 received from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China has been investigated. On the 14th January, 1962, the students of the hostel of Kirori Mal College, a non-governmental and privately-run educational institution in New Delhi, arranged a campfire to celebrate the Lohri festival. Attendance at this

function was voluntary. It is not correct that the Chinese students residing in the Kirori Mal College Hostel were notified to be present. The programme for the occasion included recitation of a poem in Punjabi which said that Premier Chou En-lai’s professions of Sino-Indian friendship did not square with the forcible occupation of Indian territory by Chinese forces. These sentiments are national and entirely legitimate. *** Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 3rd April 1962 On the morning of March 10, 1962, several hundred Tibetan rebel bandits in Kalimpong held a meeting at the Tharpa Choling Monastery there to “observe” the third anniversary of the rebellion in Tibet, at which some Indians were present. After the meeting, they went in procession in the streets of Kalimpong. They carried the national flag of India side by side wit the flag of lion and sowncovered mountains, shouting slogans of “China quit Tibet” etc. Such activity is one of political nature, which constitutes an interference in China’s internal affairs. It must be pointed out that, in disregard of the repeated representations made by the Chinese side, the Indian Government has, in contravention of its earlier assurances, time and again permitted the Tibetan rebel bandits in India to carry out political activities against the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese Embassy expresses deep regret at this. *** Letter given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 5 April 1962

I have pleasure in forwarding herewith a letter dated March 23, 1962 from the All China Federation of Trade Unions addressed to His Excellency the Minister of External Affairs, Government of India. I shall be obliged if you kindly acknowledge receipt of the same. *** Enclosure to the letter dated 5 April 1962, of the Embassy of China in India We have the pleasure to invite two delegates from the All India Trade Union Congress to visit China in late April this year for a period of three weeks and pass May Day—the International Workers’ Day—together with the Chinese workers. We would be very grateful if Your Excellency would kindly convey this invitation to the All India Trade Union Congress. *** Enclosure to the letter dated 5 April 1962 of the Embassy of China in India With a view to promoting the friendly relations between the trade unions and workers of our two countries, we cordially invite two delegates from the All India Trade Union Congress to visit China in late April this year for a period of three weeks and pass May Day—the International Workers’ Day—together with the Chinese working people. It is hoped that the delegates can arrive in Peking before April 25th, 1962. *** Letter given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 7 April 1962 With reference to your letter No. M/530/62 dated he 5th April, 1962, forwarding a letter dated 23rd March, 1962 from the All China Federation of Trade Unions to the Minister of External Affairs, Government of India, I have been directed to say

that the Government of India regret that in the context of the occupation of Indian territory by Chinese forces and the consequent violation of India’s territorial integrity by China, it is not possible to grant facilities to any delegate from India to visit China to participate in the May Day Celebrations. *** Note given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 30 April 1962 The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India presents its compliments to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of the Republic of India, and has the honour to state in the following: An airplane, Fengshou No. 2, which Chairman Liu Shao-chi of the People’s Republic of China presents to His Majesty King Mahendra Bir Bikram Shah Deva of Nepal, will in the middle of May 1962 fly to Kathmandu from Kunming via Chittagong, Calcutta and Patna. The Government of the People’s Republic of China would request the Government of Republic of India to agree to the passing of the plane through the territory of India and kindly render assistance. Enclosed herewith is the information concerning the flight of the plane and the items regarding which assistance is requested from the authorities concerned of the Government of the Republic of India during the flight. The Embassy takes this opportunity to renew to the Ministry the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Enclosure to the note dated 30 April 1962 of the Embassy of China in India APPENDIX

I- Route and plan of flight: On May 14, the plane will take off from Kunming, land at Mandalay for refuelling and stay there overnight. On May 15, the plane will take off from Mandalay and, flying over Chittagong, land at Calcutta for refuelling and stay there overnight. On May 16, the plane will take off from Calcutta, land at Patna for refuelling and then fly to Kathmandu. Concrete timings of the flight will be given in advance from the take-off airport one day before the flight. Timings of flight will be postponed to a latter time in the scheduled order if the flight is made impossible owing to weather conditions or other reasons. II- Information concerning the plane: Type of plane: Fngshou No. 2 (single-engined biplane), holding a registration certificate issued by the China Civil Aviation Administration (registration number of the plane: 98001) and a certificate of air worthiness. Telephone call sign: NINE NOVEMBER KILO ALFA ZULU (communication in English language). Telegraph call sign: 9 NKAZ (communication in Q code). Identification markings of the plane: The plane is in silver colour. On both sides of the pilot’s cabin are painted flags of His Majesty King of Nepal. On both sides of the stern of the plane are painted the national flags of the Kingdom of Nepal. Cruising speed: 180 Kilometres per hour. Service ceiling: 4,000 metres Fuel for use: Soviet aviation fule—5-91/115 or 5-95/130, or Octane No. 100 aviation fuel. Crew of the plane: Captain Yuan Tio-yuan and five others. Besides them, an official of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China at Calcutta will go with the plane from Calcutta to Patna. III- Data and assistance requested from the authorities concerned of the Government of the Republic of India:

1. Data concerning the airfields at Calcutta and Patna and other alternate airfields including location, coordinates, elevation, length and width of runways, magnetic course, let-down procedure and weather minimum. 2. Data concerning communication and navigational aids of the airfields at Calcutta and Patna, and the alternate airfields, as well as those along the air route: The frequencies and call signs (including VHS and HF) of grounds to air radio stations (telegraph and telephone), control towers, approach controls and their working hours; the frequencies, call signs and locations of the radio beacons and direction-finding stations; the frequencies, call signs, working hour and types of wireless weather reports, as well as air traffic control regulations concerning flight along the above-mentioned air route. 3. Timely weather forecasts and actual weather conditions along the route and at the airfields. 4. The flight control centre of Calcutta is requested to transmit telegrams concerning flight conditions, takes-off and landings, and weather conditions. 5. Starting equipment is requested to be provided by the Calcutta and Patna airfields and other possible alternate airfields: A 2-kilowatt direct current electric generator with 24—28 vols. pressure, and a 30 ampere/hour battery or a battery group of 100 ampere/hour and 24 volts. 6. Kindly arrange 600—800 kilogram refuelling for the plane at every landing airfield. *** Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 5 May 1962 In spite of the fact that in its Memorandum No. C/103(5)CH/62, dated March 12, 1962, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs could not deny that on the occasion of a camp-fire at the hostel of the Kirori Mal College on January 14, 1962, an item on the programme slandering Chinese Premier Chou En-lai was performed, the

Ministry tried to justify this act of slandering a Chinese state leader by describing it as “national” and “legitimate” sentiments. The Chinese Embassy feels deep regret at this. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking to the Embassy of India in China, 8 May 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state as follows: Over the month ago, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions addressed a letter to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs inviting the All-India Trade Union Congress to send delegates to take part in the celebrations of the “May 1 International Labour Day” in China. It was wholly out of the good desire of upholding and promoting the friendship between the Chinese and Indian peoples that the All China Federation of Trade Unions extended this invitation. Unexpectedly, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in its note to the Chinese Embassy dated April 7, 1962 not only rejected this friendly invitation but wantonly slandered China. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs says in its note that “in the context of the occupation of Indian territory by Chinese forces and the consequent violation of India’s territorial integrity by China, it is not possible to grant facilities to any delegate from India to visit China to participate in the May Day celebrations.” Needless to say, the above attack on China is completely contrary to the fact and has long been refuted by the Chinese Government. The fact shows that it is precisely India itself and not China that has occupied the territory of the other party and thus violated the latter’s territorial integrity. Now the Indian Government has repaid the friendly invitation of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions with the above malicious attack; the Chinese Government is greatly surprised at such rude and impolite behaviour and

expressed its deep regret at it. This attitude of the Indian Government can only be considered as deliberately intended to utilise the boundary question to obstruct normal friendly intercourse between the two peoples and impair their friendship. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 9 May 1962 Reference Chinese Embassy Memorandum dated the 3rd April, 1962, regarding a meeting held by certain members of the Tibetan community in Kalimpong on the 10th March, 1962. The facts are as follows: A meeting was held at the Tharpa Choling Monastery by a section of the Tibetan population of Kalimpong on the 10th March, 1962, to pay their annual homage to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The participants of the meeting were all Tibetan refugees. There was no Indian present, and the statement to this effect in the Chinese Embassy Memorandum is incorrect. After the meeting, a procession was taken out. The processionists were peaceful. At no stage was there any threat to the peace. The Chinese Embassy must be aware that such peaceful demonstrations form part of the normal and accepted political life in India and that the authorities are not empowered to take any action to disperse them unless a threat to the law and order situation develops. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 9 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Embassy’s publication “China Today” which in its issue of 5th May 1962 has published what it calls “A Brief Account of the Contents of the Chinese and Indian Officials’ Report on the Boundary Question” and also the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs note dated April 30, 1962. The “Brief Account and the Contents of the Report of the Chinese and Indian Officials” presents a propagandist one-sided view of the Chinese case on the border question. It ignores the wealth of consistent and conclusive evidence produced by the Indian team at the officials’ talks, while inflating beyond all proportion the sketchy and contradictory evidence presented by the Chinese officials. As the Embassy is aware, there are established conventions about the right of foreign missions to carry on propaganda in the receiving State. The Government of India, by and large, endeavour to take a liberal view of such publications even when these are critical of them. But the ‘Brief Account of the Contents of the Chinese and Indian Officials’ Report’ as published in the Embassy’s bulletin “China Today”, questioning as it does the territorial integrity of India, flagrantly violates the law of the land and more particularly, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 of the Government of India. The Ministry of External Affairs lodged an emphatic protest with the Embassy for acting in defiance of the law of the land and abusing the hospitality of India, and express the hope that there will be no repetition of such defiance of Indian laws and abuse of privilege. The Ministry of External affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the Assurances of their highest consideration. ***

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 10 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and with reference to the latter’s note dated 30th April 1962, have the honour to state as follows: The Government of India are pleased t accord the clearance requested for the flight of the Chinese aircraft, Fengshou No. 2, in transit through India to Kathmandu. However, the clearance of the flight through Indian territory is subject to the condition that the aircraft will carry an experienced Indian navigator who will be in charge of navigation during its flight from Calcutta to Kathmandu via Patna. The Indian navigator will be provided by the Government of India for this purpose free of cost. The technical details required in connection with the landing of the aircraft in Calcutta are enclosed. Refuelling and other necessary ground facilities and services for the aircraft both at Calcutta and Patna will be made available as required on payment. Starting equipment for the aircraft will be available in Calcutta but not at Patna. Octane No. 100 fuel will be supplied by the authorised oil company at the respective airports and arrangements may be made by the Embassy in advance thereof. The Ministry of External Affairs avails themselves of the opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 14 May 1962 Reference the Chinese Embassy Memorandum dated 5th May, 1962. The facts about the camp-fire meeting of students of the Kirori Mal College Hostel on the

14th January, 1962, have been communicated to the Chinese Embassy in the Ministry of External Affairs Memorandum No. C/106(5)CH/62, dated the 12th March, 1962. There was no misrepresentation of facts or slander of a Chinese leader but a spontaneous expression of the students’ views on the existing state of Sino-Indian relations which the Government of India themselves have every reason to deplore. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 26 May 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs note No. 362, dated 8th May 1962. In the note, the Government of China have assumed an air of injured innocence and taken exception to the fact that the Government of India had, for good and obvious reasons, declined an invitation to dispatch delegates from the All-India Trade Union Congress to take part in the Chinese May Day celebrations. The contents of the note, and the subsequent action taken by the Government of China to release it to the world press, reveal that the note was written purely with a view to serve the ends of Chinese propaganda against India. The Government of India in their reply dated 7th April 1962 merely stated the circumstances in which they were obliged to decline the invitation. These circumstances are only too well known to the Government of China. The Government of China are fully aware that public opinion in India is greatly exercised over the continuing Chinese violations of India’s territorial sovereignty and integrity. A traditionally tranquil and friendly border has become tense and uneasy. As the Government of China are aware the Government of India have earnestly worked for close and friendly relations between the two countries. But, despite all

that the Government of India have done, these relations have deteriorated in recent years because of the aggressive policies pursued by the Government of China in the border areas since 1957. The Ministry of External Affairs renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 29 May 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the note of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the Chinese Embassy in India dated May 9, 1962 and its note verbal of December 9, 1961and the Memorandum of January 22, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: 1- The Indian Government, on the pretext of the Chinese Embassy in India “acting in defiance of the law of the land and abusing the hospitality of India”, recently ordered the confiscation of the news bulletin published by the Embassy which carried a Brief Account of the Contents of the Report of the Chinese and Indian Officials on the Boundary Question and the note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China to the Indian Embassy in China to the Indian Embassy in China dated April 30, 1962, and lodged a protest on May 9, 1962 with the Chinese Embassy in India. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs express its regret at such unreasonable behaviour of the Indian Government. It is in conformity with international practice for an Embassy to carry in its news bulletins official documents and statements of its own Government. The Indian Embassy in China has always done this, and so has the Chinese Embassy in India. Hence this right is reciprocal for both sides, and the question of “defiance of the law of the land and abusing the hospitality” does not arise at all. In its note to the

Chinese Embassy in India dated September 24, 1959, the Ministry of External Affairs of India declared that “The Government of India would ask once again that the Embassy should refrain from publishing in its bulletin any material of whatsoever kind critical of India’s policies unless they are official statements by the Government of China”. The Indian Government, however, has now gone to the length of ignoring its own declaration and confiscated the Embassy’s news bulletin carrying two official documents, that is, the note of the Report of the Chinese and Indian officials. This fact shows that it is totally lacking in good faith and has flagrantly violated the principles of international practice. The news bulletin published by the Indian Embassy in China has all along carried documents of the Indian Government and speeches of its officials which attacked the Chinese Government, including the one-sided and distorted so-called “summary” of the Report of the Chinese and Indian Officials made by the Indian side. The Government even distributed widely in China the publication carrying the so-called “Summary”. The Indian Government has never considered this practice unjustified. But the Indian Government came out to interfere rudely when the Chinese Embassy carried in its news bulletin a brief Account of the Contents of the Report of the Chinese and Indian Officials which is of the same official nature as the so-called “Summary” of the Officials’ Report published by India. The Chinese Government cannot understand why the Indian Government should think that its Embassy in China can do this while the Chinese Embassy in India cannot. Is it Indian laws and rules of conduct that it is free to attack others and others are not allowed to defend themselves? That is bigotry. One who adopts such an attitude towards China is certain to run his head against the wall. The Indian Government’s attempt of trying to use the allegation that the Brief Account of the Contents of the Report of the Chinese and Indian Officials questions India’s territorial integrity as a pretext for the rude attitude it has adopted is wholly untenable. As is well-known to the whole world, the Sino-Indian boundary question is a dispute between the two countries, and it was precisely because each side questions the views of the other on this question that the two sides have held meetings of officials to check the facts and explain their

respective stands. The Brief Account of the Contents of the Report of the Chinese and Indian Officials carried in the news bulletin of the Chinese Embassy is a correct representation of the facts of the Sino-Indian boundary question and the points of difference between the two sides. This is not to be compared with the “Summary” of the Officials’ Report published by India, which distorts the facts. If the Indian Government were not aware of its own lack of justification, there would have been no need for it to fear the readers of the news bulletin to know the truth of the facts and the position of the Chinese Government. The suppression on the news bulletin of the Chinese Embassy by the Indian Government precisely exposes a weakness of the Indian Government, and that is, the position of the Indian Government on the Sino-Indian boundary question is based on fabrications and arbitrary and does not stand up to a cross-checking with the facts and refutations. 2- The Indian Government’s confiscation of the news bulletin of the Chinese Embassy which carried the Brief Account of the Contents of the Report of the Chinese and Indian Officials on the Boundary Question and the note of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated April 30, 1962, is a breach of good faith and international practice. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs hereby lodges a protest with the Indian Government against this and categorically rejects the protest of the Indian Government against this and categorically rejects the protest of the Indian Government regarding the publication of the two aforesaid documents in the news bulletin of the Chinese Embassy in India. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs hopes that the Indian Government will extend its co-operation to prevent the recurrence in future of the above-mentioned unreasonable acts against the news bulletin of the Chinese Embassy. The Indian Government must be aware that if it is ignores the good-intentioned advice of the Chinese Government and continues incessantly to resort to such acts against China on the question of the news bulletin, it will be impossible not to arouse strong reactions in China. The Indian Government has repeatedly stressed that a principle followed by the Indian Embassy in China in publishing its news bulletin is to refrain from

reprinting any comments or quotations from newspapers or other unofficial sources which are critical of the Chinese Government. Basing itself on this understanding, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has all along taken an attitude of accommodation towards the news bulletin of the Indian Embassy in China. However, going back on the above promise, the No. 8/61 issue of the India News, the news bulletin of the Indian Embassy in China, carried a resolution of the All-India Congress Committee slandering the Chinese Government. It was quite natural for the Chinese Government to lodge a protest against it. It was not thought that the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in its note verbal to the Chinese Embassy in India dated December 9, 1961, should have made the vain attempt to explain away the improper behaviour of the India Embassy and dodge the crux of the issue by casing malicious slanders on the Chinese Government and the Chinese press. This unreasonable attitude taken by the Indian Government in trying to whitewash itself only shows that it is at the end of its tether in advancing its arguments and is not worthy of refutation. 3- The unjustifiable confiscation by the Indian Customs at Calcutta of the mail sent to the Chinese Embassy in India from Peking, as the Chinese Embassy in India has repeatedly pointed out to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, likewise runs counter to international practice. The confiscation by the Indian Customs at Calcutta of the mail sent to the Chinese Embassy in Afghanistan from Peking via Calcutta on February 28, 1961, against which the Chinese Foreign Ministry already made representations to the Indian Embassy in China on April 28, 1961, is all the more a violation of universally recognized international practice according to which mails in transit are exempted from examination. With regard to the former case even Mr. B.C. Mishra, Deputy Director of the northern division of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs admitted in his talk with Ying Shang-chih, First Secretary of the Chinese Embassy, held on June 5, 1961, that the action of the Indian Customs was wrong. However, in its memorandum delivered to the Chinese Embassy on January 22, 1962, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, in disregard of the facts, tried to explain away its action by

distorted accounts in an attempt to evade the responsibility of India, and even went so far as to cast wanton slanders on Premier Chou En-lai and the Chinese Embassy in India. The Chinese Government expresses its deep indignation at this. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 11 June 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following: On the afternoon of May 29, 1962, the Office of the Tibet Foreign Bureau at Yatung, Tibet, China, received from the then Indian Trade Agency at Yatung a written message to the effect that a number o employees of the Indian Trade Agency residing in the premises of the Agency and their families; totalling 23 persons (including 12 children), most of whom being Chinese nationals and a few being Nepalese, were found “missing” on the morning of the same day. On June 4, 1962, Mr. L.S. Jangpangi, the then Indian Trade Agent at Yatung, verbally informed the Yatung Office of the Tibet Foreign Bureau of the “missing” of more employees of the Agency and their families, but the number of persons “missing” and other details were not given. According to foreign press reports, however, quite a number of the allegedly “missing” persons have already arrived at Gangtok, Sikkim. As is known to all, it was on May 30, 1962, that the Indian Government notified the Chinese Government of its decision to withdraw the Indian trade agencies from Tibet. The Chinese Government is most surprised and finds it very strange that a sudden “missing” of large numbers of employees of the Indian Trade

Agency at Yatung and their families should have occurred one day before that notification was made and another such case should have followed six days later. Since the total number of persons “missing” involved in the two cases reaches as many as several scores, including not only adults but also many children, it is hardly conceivable that they could have left the Indian Trade Agency did not inform the Yatung Office of the Tibet Foreign Bureau till half a day after the “missing” of the first batch of persons made the local authorities unable to take necessary measures in tine. Despite the fact that they are neither merchants engaged in traditional trade, nor pilgrims, still less border inhabitants engaged in traditional trade, nor pilgrims, still less border inhabitants, and did not hold any exit permits of the local authorities in Tibet, China, these people were admitted into the territory of Sikkim by the Indian frontier guards. All this obviously shows that the employees of the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung and their families fled Tibet under no other circumstances than the planned and calculated instigation and direction of the Indian Trade Agency. That India has gone so far as to resort to such unscrupulous means to achieve its ulterior aims constitutes a downright conspiracy. The Indian Government can by no means shirk its responsibility in these cases. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest with the Indian Government and urges it to give a prompt account of those persons who have fled to Sikkim. Apart from the aforesaid, the Office of the Tibet Foreign Bureau at Yatung, Tibet, China, was informed at 20:00 hours, June 2, 1962, by the then Indian Trade Agency at Yatung that a Chinese employee of the Agency by the name of Mingmapingtso had “killed himself with a knife” in the premises of the Agency at 15:30 hours on the same day. It is strange that this employee who had worked 15 years for the Indian Trade Agency should have suddenly met an unaccountedfor death. The way in which the Indian Trade Agency handled this matter is also unusual: The Agency did not officially inform the local authorities till more than four hours after Mingmapingtso’s death; the scene where the deceased was left had been violated before investigation was undertaken by the Chinese local authorities; and the Indian Trade Agent refused to sign on the inspection record

of the scene made by the local authorities. The Chinese Government holds that the Indian side cannot shirk its responsibility in this case too. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 27 June 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Chinese Government’s note, dated 29th May 1962. The attention of the Government of China is drawn again to the Government of India’s note, dated the 9th May 1962 which gives a full and clear account of the reasons which led to the issue of an order under the relevant provisions of the law for the confiscation of all copies of the 5th May issue of ‘China Today’. That issue contained “A Brief Account of the Chinese and Indian Officials’ Report” which presented a one-sided propagandist view of the untenable Chinese case and ignored or mutilated beyond recognition the well established case of India. The so-called “Brief Account of the Chinese and Indian Officials’ Report”, of unknown authorship, questioned India’s territorial integrity and flagrantly violated the Criminal Law Amendment Act of India. Nothing that the Government of China have said in their note extenuates the offence committed by the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi. Under International Law, diplomatic missions are not authorised to offend against the laws of the receiving State. As to the facts about the Sino-Indian border problem, the Government of China should be aware that the Report of the Chinese and Indian officials was printed and published in full and released to the public in India as early as 14th February 1961. Thus, the Chinese case a presented by the Chinese officials has been

available to the public in India for more than a year now. Obviously, this does not show that the Government of India are afraid to let the people of India know about the Chinese case, the validity of which they can judge for themselves. This is in contrast to the virtual suppression of the Indian case in the People’s Republic of China. As to the other matters raised in the Chinese note, these have been adequately dealt with in the earlier notes of the Government of India. It is a matter of regret that these baseless allegations, already refuted, are being repeated by the Government of China merely to serve the ends of their antiIndian propaganda. The Ministry of External Affairs take this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 12 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliment to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and have the honour to request the Embassy to arrange for the repatriation to China, on humanitarian grounds, of Mr. Li Luk Seng, a Chinese national. Mr. Li Luk Seng worked for some time as a shoe-maker but suffered financial loss. He is now virtually a destitute. He has also been showing signs of being mentally unbalanced. At present, he is supporting himself on local charity. He is lodging in the Khak Shok Association at 314, Grant Road, Bombay. Mr. Li Luk Seng has lately become violent and has taken to annoying residents in the area at odd hours of the night. It is necessary that he receives proper care and treatment to help him back to normalcy. As Mr. Li Luk Seng has a wife and son who are living in China, it would be best if he could be repatriated to his homeland to rejoin his family. In the circumstances it is hoped that Embassy will arrange for Mr. Li Luk Sing’s urgent repatriation to China.

The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration. *** Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 26 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Chinese People’s Republic and with reference to note No. 592, dated the 11th June 1962 from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to state as follows:The Indian Trade Agent at Yatung communicated detailed facts regarding the incidents of suicide by a member of the Agency on the 2nd June 1962 and the disappearance of certain other members of the Agency staff on the 28th May and 3rd June 1962 to the local Foreign Bureau immediately after he had learnt about them. The case of 23 persons who disappeared on the night of the 28th May was reported to the Trade Agent on the 29th May. He furnished the facts of this case to the Foreign Bureau in writing immediately thereafter. Information regarding the second batch of persons who disappeared on the 3rd June was communicated to the Foreign Bureau verbally on the 4th June. It is incorrect to state that details regarding persons missing were not furnished. These facts were, at the request of the Foreign Bureau, repeated in writing on the 11th 15th and 16th June. In the case of suicide on the 3rd June, the Vice Director of Foreign Bureau, a Chinese Security Officer, two secretaries of the Foreign Bureau and two interpreters were present at that time within the compound of the Agency. They were immediately informed that Mr. Mingma Phintso had stabbed himself. He died at 1530 hours when the Trade Agent was with the Foreign Bureau. On his return at 1800 hours an urgent communication was immediately sent to the Foreign Bureau. The charge contained in the Chinese note that reports on these incidents were incomplete or unduly delayed is clearly baseless.

The Indian Trade Agent gave the local authorities all facilities to investigate these cases and he and his staff assisted them in every way. As mentioned earlier, the Vice Director of the Foreign Bureau, a Chinese Security Officer and other members of his staff remained at the Agency from 9.00 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. on 2nd June to investigate the disappearance of 23 members of the local staff. The Trade Agent met the Vice Director once more on the same afternoon. Discussion took place again on the 4th, 10th, 15th, 16th, and 18th between officials of the Trade Agency and the Foreign Bureau. He addressed two letters to the Foreign Bureau— on the 15th June and on the 16th June—in which he confirmed details furnished earlier to them and pointed out that he had no knowledge whatever of the intentions of these members of his staff who committed suicide or disappeared and indicated his inability, in these circumstances, to accept any responsibility for these actions. Despite his having taken prompt action to report their cases and having extended full co-operation to the local authorities, he was harassed and coerced for several days and the Foreign Bureau officials insisted that he should accept the responsibility for the suicide and disappearance of members of his staff. The Indian Trade Agent refused to sign an investigation report on the suicide of Mingma Phintso as he was not informed before that joint investigation was contemplated and the report itself was in Chinese. In its Aide Memoire dated the 20th June 1962 the Ministry of External Affairs had drawn the attention of the Chinese Embassy to the fact that the demand being made on the Indian Trade Agent to accept responsibility for actions of his local staff of which he could not possibly have had any previous knowledge was unreasonable. It was also pointed out that their attempt to run away could only have been due to fear of the local authorities. The Government of India have permitted such of these persons as came to India to remain in the country. Certain others who left the Indian Trade Agency were apprehended by the Chinese authorities. It is a fact that the Indian Government intimated their decision to withdraw their Trade Agencies from Tibet to the Chinese Government on the 30th May 1962. Members of the Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet were aware of this decision and

the Tibet staff who served the Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet for several years were also aware of this decision. The flight of some members of the Tibetan staff of the Indian Trade Agency can only have resulted from uncertainty about their future after the withdrawal of the Trade Agency. The Government of India reject the baseless allegations contained in the Chinese note that the Indian Trade Agent had planned and directed the escape of members of the staff of the Agency and protest against the undue harassment caused to the Indian Trade Agent by the Chinese authorities. The Ministry of External Affairs avails, itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Notes, Memoranda and letters Exchanged and Agreements signed between The Governments of India and China

WHITE PAPER VII

July- October 1962

Ministry of External Affairs Government of India

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 21 July 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following: According to reports from Chinese frontier guards in Sinkiang Indian troops which have intruded into Chip Chap valley in Sinkiang suddenly launched an armed attack on the Chinese frontier post at approximately 25° 20' N, 78° 05' E at about 19.00 hours on July 21, 1962. The said Indian troops began to advance on the Chinese post at 18.35 hours on the same day. From 19.00 hours they began to attack the Chinese post by continuous firing in disregard of the Chinese frontier guards' repeated advice by waving arms and shouting. As their lives were under direct threat the Chinese frontier guards were compelled to resort to self defence. According to the latest information the aforesaid Chinese post is still under the Indian troops' attack The Chinese Government hereby lodges the strongest protest with the Indian Government against this. The Chinese Government has repeatedly stated that China is not willing to fight with India and the Sino-Indian boundary question can be settled only through routine negotiations. It has all along exercised the greatest forbearance and self-restraint towards Indian armed intrusions and provocations on many occasions. However the Chinese Government can by no means sit idle while its frontier guards are being encircled and annihilated by aggressors. At this critical moment the Chinese Government demands that the Indian Government immediately order the Indian troops to stop attacking the aforesaid Chinese post and withdraw from the area lest the situation be further aggravated. If the Indian Government should ignore the warning of the Chinese Government and continue to persist in its own way India must bear full responsibility for all the consequences that may arise therefrom. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China avails

itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 23 July 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following: According to reports from frontier guards in Sinkiang, China, there occurred recently another two serious cases of Indian troops intruding into Chinese territory and firing provocatively at Chinese frontier guards: (1) A detachment of Indian troops crossed the boundary and approached the Chinese frontier post located at 35° 30' N, 78° 0T E at about 13.30 hours on July 16, 1962 and suddenly fired two shots at the said post around 14.00 hours on the same day. The Chinese guards did not return the fire. (2) Several dozens of Indian troops intruded recently into Chinese territory south of the Galwan River and reached a place at approximately 34" 34 5' N, 78° 35 5' E where they attempted to entrench themselves permanently. At 17.35 hours on July 19, 1962, the said Indian troops unwarrantedly fired provocatively at a Chinese patrol nearby. The Chinese patrol took no action against the provocation. If the Chinese frontier guards had not remained cool and exercised selfrestraint, the above two new cases of provocation would most probably have led to armed clashes. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a serious protest with the Indian Government against the two cases. It must be pointed out that in the past two months and more Indian troops who had intruded into Chinese territory along the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary had on a number of occasions made provocations against Chinese frontier guards by firing at them, Although the Chinese Government has repeatedly made representations and served warnings, the number of provocative firings by Indian troops has still increased, as described above, Things went further till July 21 when Indian troops made an armed attack on the Chinese post at

approximately 35° 20' N, 78° 05' E, and openly provoked an armed clash (reference the Chinese Government's note of July 22, 1962), thus pushing the situation to a new danger point. In order that further aggravation of the situation may be avoided, it is imperative that the Indian Government immediately order all the intruding Indian troops to stop advancing on Chinese frontier guards and to withdraw at once from Chinese territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 26 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the note presented to the Charge d'Affaires of India at Peking on July 21st in regard to the incident that took place in the Chip Chap Valley on duly 20th. 2. The Chinese Government appear to have been misinformed about the facts of the incidents which occurred on 20th July. Their note of 21st July is based on inaccurate reports from their local forces. Full and accurate details of the two incidents that occurred on duly 20th have been given by the Government of India in their note of 22nd July, 1962, presented to the Chinese Charge d'Affaires in New De7hi. The Government of India have nothing to add to the facts given in this note. 3, Tension has been increasing in the past few months on the northwestern frontier of India as a result of the recent establishment of a number of Chinese military posts and the increasing aggressive activities of the Chinese forces in that area. Details of Chinese posts recently established in Indian territory in the Ladakh region and instances of intensive and aggressive patrolling in this area have been given in the notes presented by this Government on 14th May, 6th June, 16th June, 6th, 10th, 12th and 14th July, 1962. These notes had also drawn the attention of the Chinese Government to the dangers of these aggressive activities. 4. The Government of India have in their various notes stressed the importance of avoiding clashes and of creating the appropriate climate for settlement of the differences regarding the alignment of the Sino-Indian border by peaceful negotiations. Not only has there been no positive

response from the Government of China to these suggestions but the local Chinese authorities have, during the last few months, established several new military posts in Indian territory and stepped up their aggressive patrolling activity in this region. 5. The Chinese Government have, in their note of 21st July, stated that China is not willing to fight with India and the Sino-Indian ; border question can be settled only through negotiations, The Government of India fully reciprocate this desire for settlement by peaceful negotiations. 6. The factual history of the activities of the local Chinese forces in the Ladakh region is however, not consistent with this desire for settlement by negotiations expressed by the Chinese Government. The local Chinese forces have even in the last few months established several new posts and resorted to aggressive patrolling in Indian areas which lie west of even the 1956 Chinese map claim line which Prime Minister Chou En-lai told Prime Minister of India "correctly shows the traditional boundary between the two countries in this sector". 7. The details of the correct international boundary in the Ladakh region have been given with Full supporting documentation by the Indian side in the meetings of the officials of the two sides whose report is now before the two Governments. Even if the Government of China are inclined to contest this boundary, the Government of India fail to understand why the Government of China do not res- train their forces from going beyond even their 1956 Chinese map claim line which is capable of easy and quick verification. It is true that the Government of India contest the validity of the 1956 Chinese map claim line but the Chinese local forces should not go their own claim line confirmed by Prime Minister Chou Enlai. 8. The Government of India are prepared, as soon as the current tensions have eased and the appropriate climate is created, to enter into further

discussions on the India-China boundary question on the basis of the report of the officials as contemplated during the meeting of Prime Minister Chou En-lai with the Prime Minister of India in 1960. The Government of India hope that the Government of China will give a positive response on the concrete suggestions made by the Government of India for relaxation of the current tensions and for creation of the right climate tor negotiations. 9. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself o£ this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 28 July 1082 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following: The Chinese Government protested on July 16, 1962, against the establishment of three strong points for aggressive purposes by Indian troops in the Pangong Lake area of Tibet, China. According to further reports, three more new aggressive strong points have been recently set up by Indian troops in the same area. One is situated on the northern bank of the Pangong Lake, about two kilometres north of the strongpoint set up by Indian troops near Sirijap not long ago, and only about 200 metres from a Chinese border post (approximately 33° 45 5' N, 78° 50 5' E). Another is situated on the southern bank of the Lake, at approximately 33° 40 5' N, 78° 44 E, as deep as about 4 kilometres inside Chinese territory. The third is situated at approximately 34° 03' N, 78° 44' E, only about one and a half kilometres from a Chinese border post. At the same time, Indian motor-boats have been more and more frequently intruding into the Chinese part of the Pangong Lake. What is particularly serious is that the Indian troops intruding into the Pangong Lake area have even engaged in provocative activities against the Chinese border post at approximately 33° 45 5' N, 78° 50 5' E. On July 21, 37 fully-armed Indian soldiers setting out from the aforesaid aggressive strong point newly set up on the northern bank of the Pangong Lake pressed forward all the way to a point only about 100 metres from the Chinese post. The Indian troops stopped advancing only after the Chinese border guards had repeatedly given out warnings. The Chinese border guards displayed the greatest self-restraint all through in spite of the serious threats they faced. The Chinese Government, however, is surprised to learn from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs' note of July 22, which it has just received, that the Indian Government not only

evaded the fact that the Indian troops had pressed on the Chinese post, but also slandered without any ground whatsoever that the Chinese border guards had fired at the Indian troops. This allegation can only be regarded us an attempt to cover up the Indian troops unwarranted provocative activities. The same Indian note also referred to the armed conflict which occurred in the Chip Chap River area on July 21 but the account given is completely contrary to the facts, of which the Chinese Government already made a correct narration in its note of July 22. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest against the new intrusions and provocations of Indian troops and categorically rejects the protest made in the note of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs dated July 22. The Chinese Government demands that the Indian Government immediately withdraw all its aggressive strongpoint and troops from the Pangong Lake area. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 28 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to state that on 27th July, 1962 at 10.00 hours a Chinese patrol opened fire on an Indian patrol from a distance of 300 yards at a position approximately E 78° 96 30' N 33° 5T. The Chinese patrol then withdrew immediately. In spite of grave provocation the Indian patrol did not return fire. The Government of India lodge a strong and emphatic protest against this grave provocation on the part of Chinese forces. The Indian Government has already in its Note of July 22nd called the attention of the Chinese Government to two earlier incidents of a similar nature and warned them of the dangers implicit fn the presence of Chinese forces in this area. But for the extreme self-restraint shown by the Indian patrol this incident might have resulted in an unfortunate clash. The Indian Government demands that immediate steps should be taken to end continuing Chinese military activity in this area. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself to this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 30 July 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to state that a further case of unprovoked firing by Chinese troops occurred at 1415 hours on 29th July when a group of 20 Chinese soldiers opened fire on an Indian party in the vicinity of Yula in the Pangong lake area. The Indian party, although provoked, did not return the fire. The Government of India have in the recent past drawn the attention of the Chinese Government to the mounting tension in this. area caused by the aggressive military activity and irresponsible behaviour of the Chinese local forces in the Ladakh region. If the Chinese Government do not restrain their local forces they will have to bear full responsibility for any untoward incident that might occur. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking to the Embassy of India in China, 30 July 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Repu6lic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has. the honour to state the following: The Chinese Government has learnt from reports from local authorities that the Indian side while intensifying its encroachment on Chinese territory on the western sector of the Sino-Indian border, successively sent out two groups of soldiers with radio sets to intrude into China's Wuje area on the middle sector of the Sino-Indian border at the end of May and in the second week of June, 1962, and that these soldiers having stationed themselves there, have built fortifications and illegally set up military strongpoints. At the same time Indian aircraft have repeatedly intruded into the air space over that ~area to drop supplies for the intruding Indian troops. As is well known the Wuje area has always been Chinese territory and under the selective jurisdiction of China. As a result of the intrusion of Indian troops in 1955, a situation of armed confrontation between China and India was once created in this area. Then, on the initiative of the Chinese side the two sides reached an agreement in 1956 that both sides should refrain from sending troops into the Wuje area so as to ease the tension and prevent border clashes. In, the summer of 1951 however the Indian side, flagrantly violating the agreement sent troops into the Wuje area and stationed them there. Against this the Chinese Government lodged a protest with the Indian Government in its note dated November 2, 1961. Now the Indian troops have again intruded into the Wuje area and aggravated the border tension. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest with the Indian Government against India's violation of the agreement and intrusion into Chinese territory, and demands that the Indian Government immediately withdraw the intruding Indian troops from the Wuje area.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India in China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Peking to the Embassy of India in China, 1 August 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Em6assy in China and has the honour to state the following: A detachment of Indian troops crossed the boundary and intruded into the Nyagzu area north of the Pangong Lake in Tibet, China, at a6out 12.30 hours on July 27, 1962. Having made a reconnaissance on a nearby Chinese border post for about half an hour from a place at approximately 33°5TN, 78 44 5'E they suddenly fired 16 rounds at the Chinese post. It was only because the Chinese side did its best to maintain an attitude of self-restraint that an untoward incident was averted. The Indian troops did not withdraw from Chinese territory till about 13.40 hours. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest with the Indian Government against this new deliberate provocation by the Indian side against Chinese border guards. The aforesaid incident is the fifth in 12 days since July 16, 1902, in which provocative firing was made by the Indian side against Chinese border guards on the western sector of the Sino-Indian border. Indian troops have recently set up 6 new strongpoints for aggressive purposes in Chinese territory in the area around the Pangong Lake and Nyagzu (vide the Chinese Government's Notes of July 16 and July 28). The intruding Indian troops moreover made reconnaissance and harassment on the Chinese posts there from time to time. The Chinese Government once again draws the attention of the Indian Government to the danger of the repeated intrusions and provocations. In order to avoid grave incidents, the intruding Indian troops must immediately stop making provocations to the Chinese side and withdraw completely from Chinese territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 3 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government’s Note dated 23rd July, 1902. The Chinese Note under reference has made three allegations, namely: (i) that a detachment of Indian troops crossed the boundary and

approached the Chinese frontier post at 35° 30' N, 78° 0T E at about 13.30 hours on 16th July 1962, and fired. two shots at the said post; (ii) that several dozens of Indian troops intruded into Chinese territory south of the Galwan river at 34° 345' N, i8° 35 5' E on l9th July 1982, at 17.35 hours and fired at a Chinese patrol; and (iii) that Indian troops made an armed attack on a Chinese post at 35° 20' N. 78° 05' E on July 21, 1962. The Government of India have carefully investigated all the three allegations and have found them to be without any basis whatsoever. As regards the first two allegations, it is significant that although they are said to have occurred on the 16th and 19th July respectively, neither of them finds any place in an earlier Chinese Note dated 21st July. The third allegation that Indian troops attacked a Chinese Post at 35° 20' N, 78° 05' E is a repetition of the charge made in the Chinese note of 21st July 1962, which has been shown to be baseless in the Indian Government's reply dated 26th July, 1962. The Government of India note in this connection that all the three areas referred to by the Chinese Government lie well within Indian territory. It is clear from this that such intrusions as have occurred, have in fact been committed by Chinese forces and not by Indian troops. The Indian border defence forces have, despite provocation by Chinese forces throughout shown considerable patience and self-restraint.

While rejecting the Chinese Note, the Government of India would once again press upon the Chinese Government the argent necessity of issuing immediate instructions to all Chinese forces to desist from provocative action to any kind and to withdraw from Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 4 August 1982 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following: It has been established by the Chinese Government on the basis. of carefully veri0ed reports from its frontier forces that since the middle of May 1962 there have occurred on the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian border new instances of Indian troops crossing the so-called McMahon Line and intruding into the Migyitun area in China's Tibet. (1.) (2.) On the morning of May 18, five fully-armed Indian military men On the morning of May 30, four Indian military men carrying intruded into Longju in the Migyitun area to conduct. reconnaissance. weapons intruded into Ruyu in the Migyitun area and conducted reconnaissance for a long time on the Chinese frontier forces stationed in the northern part of the Migyitun area. They again gave out word that Indian troops intended to come and stay in Longju. (3.) (4.) On the evening of June 4, five Indian military men carrying arms On the evening of June 11, six fully-armed Indian military men intruded into Ruyu. intruded into a place on the western bank of the Lo River northwest of Longju. (5.) (6.) On the morning of June 13, six Indian military men intruded' into On the morning of Tune 18, three Indian military men sneaked Lougju and Ruyu. surreptitiously to the mountain-sides north of Longju to make a reconnaissance. (7.) On the morning of June 22, five Indian military men carrying arms intruded into a place on the western bank of the Lo River northwest of Longju. The above-cited facts of the repeated intrusions by Indian troops into

Longju and other places have further exploded the falsehood of the assertion made in the Indian Government's note of May 28, 1962, that "Indian forces have not re-entered Longju since 26th August 1959." The Chinese Government hereby lodges another serious protest with the Indian Government against the repeated intrusions into Chinese territory by Indian troops. The Chinese Government notes with regret that in the note of May 2E, 1962 referred to above, the Indian Government not only refused to admit the fact that the Indian troops had intruded into Longju on April 2d, 1962, but made a counter-charge against the Chinese Government alleging that the fact of the Chinese Government protesting against the Indian Government is in itself a. demonstration that "the Chinese troops again trespassed into Longju", and on this basis it even went so far as to lodge a counter-protest with the Chinese side. Such a counter charge is nothing but an unreasonable absurdity and does not worth refuting at all. The Chinese Government categorically rejects this counter protest of India. The Chinese Government has also received the Indian Governments note of June 6 1962 in which it repeated the allegation that Chinese personnel had entered Ruyu in the second week of January 1962. As pointed out in the Chinese Government's note of May 15 1962, such allegation is completely baseless; the Chinese Government once again firmly refutes it. Both Longju and Ruyn are part of the Migyitun area in Tibet, have always been under the jurisdiction of the Tibet region China, and moreover lie to the north of the "McMahon Line". After the peaceful liberation of Tibet, there were units of the Chinese People's Liberation Army stationed in the Migyitun area and various administrative measures were adopted there by the Chinese authorities. It was only during the 1959 rebellion in Tibet that the Indian Government, taking advantage of the transferring of Chinese troops sent its army into Longju and occupied it. Later, the Indian side launched an attack on Chinese frontier guards, which resulted in the first bloody clash between the Chinese and the Indian sides. All these are

undeniable facts. In an attempt to justify its deliberate violation of the status quo of the boundary and expansion of its encroachment on Chinese territory, the Indian Government has racked its brains to cook up a story about the geographical location of Longju and Ruyu and their relation to Migyitun. The Indian Government arbitrarily asserts that Migyitun is not an area, but merely a small village, and that the so-called McMahon line just touches its southern edge. It is further asserted that Longlu has no relation at all with Migyitun, that it lies south of the co-called McMahon Line, and 2 miles from both Migyitun and the so-called McMahon Line. However, a fabrication is after all a fabrication and does not hold water at all. In the first instance, this Indian story is inconsistent with the original map showing the "McMahon Line" attached to the secret notes illegally exchanged. between the representatives of Britain and the local Government of Tibet during the 1914 Simla Conference, As shown on ?hat map· the "McMahon Line'' does not touch Migyitun, but lies south of it at quite a distance. In the second instance, the present Indian story contradicts its past assertions. As stated in Prime Minister Nehru's letter to· Premier Chou En-lai dated September 26, 1959, the alleged distance between Longju and Migyitun is not 2 miles but 1 1/2 miles. In his speech at the Indian Lok Sabha on April 3 1961, Prima Minister Nehru again had something different to say about the location of Lonqiu stating: "A little part of the village (Longju this side (of the McMahon Line) and a part of it on that side. All these contradictions fully reveal the fact that the Indian Government, in an attempt to usurp Longju has tried hard to posh the socalled ; McMahon Line further north, arbitrarily separated Longju from the Migyitun area and fabricated a non-existent distance which can be prolonged or shortened at will. But the truth cannot be covered up by such clumsy tactics. In its note, the Indian Government again harped on its hackneyed false counter-charge against China with regard to the armed clash in the Migyitun area in August 1959. This is also a painstaking but futile effort.

Regarding the cause and the full factual details of that unfortunate incident, the Chinese Government already gave a complete picture in its notes of August 27 and September 1, 1959. That incident, like the Kongka Pass incident which occurred two months later, took place 501ely because the Indian troops launched an unwarranted attack on the Chinese frontier guards, who were compelled to defend themselves in the circumstances. Immediately following the two incidents, the Chinese Government proposed on its own initiative that armed forces of the two sides each withdraw along the entire border 20 kilometres from the line up to which each such exercises actual control and stop patrolling. But these reasonable proposals aimed at ensuring tranquility along the border and easing the border situation were all rejected by India. Every fact shows that China, seeking a peaceful settlement of the boundary question, has all along stood for the maintenance of the status quo of the boundary and worked for the preservation of tranquility along the border while India's attitude is the very opposite. It is an indisputable fact that Longju and Ruyu, as a part of the Migyitun area, are Chinese territory and located north of the "McMahon Line". There is no doubt about it. This area had always been tranquil and peaceful and there had been no dispute between the two sides over it till the armed clash provoked by the Indian side in 1959. If the Indian Government is really sincere about a peaceful settlement of the boundary question, it should change its line of action, maintain the status quo of the boundary and tranquility along the border, and, in deeds and not merely in words, stop sending out armed personnel to intrude into any part of the Migyitun area. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China ;avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 4 August 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the note handed over to the Chinese Embassy in India by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government on July 26, 1962 has the honour to state the following: The incident which occurred in the Chip Chap valley on July 21, 1962 was unfortunate and regrettable. The Chinese Government has given in its note dated July 22, 1962 a correct account of the incident and pointed cut in its note of July 28 that the presentation given in the Indian Government's note of July 22 was inconsistent with the facts. The Chinese Government does not propose to reiterate the relevant facts. The Chinese Government cannot agree to the allegation in the Indian note that the present tension in the western sector of the Sino-Indian border was caused by the Chinese side. This allegation is extremely unjust. '1'he fact is that the Chinese side has never crossed its national border which has always been under China's control, and that the tension was created solely by the Indian side advancing into Chinese territory, establishing new posts, and making provocations. After the officials meetings of the two countries, Indian troops first stepped up their encroachment on the Demchok area in Tibet, and then since last spring they have successively intruded into such areas as he Chip Chap valley, the source of the Karakash River, and the Galwan River valley in Sinkiang, and the Pangong and Spanggur Lakes in Tibet. They have successively set up 27 military strongpoints on Chinese territory and more and more frequently resorted to armed threats against, Chinese frontier guards by unwarranted firings which have occurred on 12 occasions up to now. At the same time, Indian aircraft have repeatedly intruded into China's air space over Sinkiang and Tibet for reconnaissance, airdropping and harassment purposes making more than 300 sorties in the period from 1961 to the end of June 1962.

In the face of Indian intrusions and provocations, China all along maintained an attitude of self-restraint. In its notes delivered during this period, the Chinese Government while demanding that the Indian troops stop their intrusions and provocations and withdraw from Chinese territory has all along maintained that the boundary question should be settled peacefully through negotiations and that the status-quo of the boundary should not be altered by force. The Indian Government's suggestion of May 14, 1962 is in fact requiring China to make an onesided withdrawal from large tracts of its own territory. The Chine Government of course cannot give consideration to it, neither in the past nor in the future. Mention was made in the note under reference of the question regarding the Chinese map of 1956. During the officials meetings of the two countries, the Chinese side officially provided the Indian side with a map showing the Sino-Indian boundary. The delineation of the boundary in the western sector on the 1956 Chinese map affirmed by Premier Chou En-lai is the same as the delineation on that map. It is groundless to insist that there are discrepancies in the delineation of the boundary in the western sector in these two maps and to blame China for crossing the boundary line affirmed by Premier Chou En lai. The basic way to ease the tension is not for the Chinese side to withdraw whatever distance within its own territory, but for the Indian side to withdraw its troops and strongpoints from Chinese territory, and in the first place, to stop further encroaching on Chinese territory and desist from any armed provocations. The Chine se Government approves of the suggestion put forth by the Indian Government in its note for further discussions on the Sino-Indian boundary question on the basis of the report of the officials of the t\Vo countries. There need not and should not be any pre-conditions for such discussions. As a matter of fact, if only the Indian side stop advancing into Chine se territory, a relaxation of the border situation will be effected at once. Since neither the Chinese nor the Indian Government wants war,

and since both governments wish to settle the boundary question peacefully through negotiations, further discussions on the Sino-Indian boundary question on the basis of the report of the officials of the two countries should not be put off any longer. The Chine se Government proposes that such discussions be held as soon as possible, and that the level, date, place and other procedural matters for these discussions be immediately decided upon by consultations through diplomatic channels. The Chinese Government hopes that the Indian Government will give positive consideration to this proposal and kindly reply at an early date. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 5 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People s Republic of China and has the honour to refer to two Notes presented by the Chinese Government to the Indian Charge d' Affaires at Peking on August 1, 1962. The Government of India in their note of 28th July lodged a protest that a Chinese patrol had opened fire at 10 00 hrs on 27th July against an Indian patrol in the Chip Chap valley area approximately in the region referred to in the Chinese Note. The Chinese note presumably refers to the same incident. The allegation by the Chinese authorities that an Indian patrol resorted to firing at a Chinese post is not only baseless but appears to be an attempt to confuse issues and escape responsibility for the aggressive activity of the Chinese local forces against which a protest has been lodged in the Indian note of the 28th July. The Government of India have satisfied themselves that no Indian military post has been established in any part of Chinese territory. It is the Chinese local forces who have established Chinese military posts in Indian territory and caused serious tension by their continuing aggressive activities in the Ladakh region of India. The Government of India emphatically reject the Chinese allegation that Indian posts have been set up in areas that are 19 and 20 kilometres respectively inside Chinese territory. The Chinese allegation that on 27th July a detachment of Indian troops fired at a Chinese post in Nyagzu north of Pangong lake is absolutely without any foundation. No Indian party was in that area on that date. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 7 August 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following: Indian troops have recently established a new strongpoint for aggressive purposes in Tsamageje about two kilometers southeast of the village of Demchok in western Tibet, China and have built pill-boxes, dugouts, trenches and other defence works there The intruding Indian troops even gave out word that they would advance further inside Chinese territory. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest against this serious new encroachment by the Indian side on Chinese territory. The Chinese Government has pointed out in its note of March 20 1962, the various facts of Indian troops intruding into the Drmchok area and setting up strongpoints there in the latter half of last year. The Chinese Government notes with regret that the Indian Government in its note of May 21, 1962, while completely evading the facts merely repeated the assertions made in past Indian notes which had long been refuted by the Chinese Government, arbitrarily insisting that Demchok was within Indian territory. But the Demchok area has always been a part of Chinese territory and this was established by the strong evidence submitted by the Chinese side during the meeting of the officials of the two countries in 1960. Even the handbook "Tibet" compiled by the British Foreign Office in 1920 clearly recognized this fact. There is no need to cite others. It is extremely unjustifiable that the Indian Government has now again set on a new aggressive strongpoint in China's Demchok area in disregard of the Chinese Government's repeated protests and arbitrarily described what has always been Chinese territory as Indian. The Chinese Government hereby demands that the Indian Government immediately withdraw all its aggressive strongpoints and intruding Indian troops from the Demchok area.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 8 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's Note dated August 3, 1962. The facts in regard to the Indian border defence post at 78° 38' E 34° 39' 45" N in the Galwan Valley have already 6een stated in the Indian Government's note of 10th July 1962. This post is purely for defence purposes and is located in Indian territory. It does not pose any threat to any one. On the other hand, it is the Chinese forces who have intruded into Indian territory in this area in large numbers who continue to threaten the Indian post and who are sitting astride the lines of communication and supplies of the post. The Government of India emphatically protest against these aggressive questions of the Chinese forces who have intruded into Indian territory The Government of India hopes that the Chinese Government will. impress on their local forces the importance of avoiding provocative action of any kind and ask them to withdraw from their present positions back into Chinese territory. Ih regard to the Chinese allegation about an Indian post at 78° 35 5' E, 34° 34 5' N an Indian ration party is located at present near 78° 38 5' E 34° 34 5' N. This area like the area where the Indian post at 78° 38' E 34° 39' 45" N is situated, also falls well inside Indian territory. The disposition of Indian border defence forces in these areas is an internal matter within the sole competence of the Government of India. The Chinese note under reference also makes two baseless allegations namely that on July 31, 1962 and on August 1, 1962, Indian troops ~had fired one shot and seven shots respectively at Chinese frontier guards. There is no truth whatsoever in these allegations. On the contrary whenever an instance of this nature has arisen it has invariably been due Lo Chinese forces intruding into Indian territory and shooting at Indian border defence forces. The Government of India have protested about two

such incidents in their notes dated 29th July 1962 and 30th July 1962, addressed to the Chinese Government. On both occasions the Indian forces exercised great self-restraint and did not return the Chinese fire. In the light of the above facts the Government of India reject the Chinese note of 3rd August, 1962. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New-Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 8 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note of 3rd August 1962. The facts in regard to the villages of Longju and Roi have been fully stated in the Government of India notes dated 28th May 1962 and 6th June 1962 respectively. It will be apparent from these notes that there is no substance in the Chinese assertion that Longju and Roi are situated north of the McMahon line. Bath these villages are well inside the international boundary in this region and have always formed part of Indian territory. Longju is about 2 miles south of the international border and Roi a further half a mile south of Longju. There is absolutely no truth in the Chinese allegation that Indian military personnel have entered Longju on six separate occasions between 18th May 1962 and 22nd June 1962. After the forcible occupation of Longju in August 1959 by Chinese forces, the Indian Government had, in the interests of a peaceful settlement, expressed their willingness, vide their note dated 10th September 1959, not to send their personnel back to the area, provided the Chinese personnel also withdrew. The Chinese personnel had withdrawn from Longju sometime in 1961 but the Indian side has made no attempt to re-enter Longju. As regards the village of Roi, it too forms an indisputable part of Indian territory. This has been made clear in the Indian Government's note of 6th June 1962. Such intrusions as have taken place there have, indeed, been committed by the Chinese. In an attempt to confuse the issue, the Chinese note has made an out of context reference to a speech by the Prime Minister before the Indian Parliament and also quoted the Indian Prime Minister's letter to the Premier Chou En-lai, dated 26th September 1959, which stated that the, distance between Longju and the Tibetan village of Migyitin is one and a

half miles and pointed out that in the Indian Government's note dated 28th May 1962 this distance has been shown as "about 2 miles". The relevant portion of the annexure to the Prime Minister's letter, however, reads as follows: "The international boundary here runs just south of the village of Migyitin. Longju which is entirely distinct tram Migvitin lies 1 1/2 miles further south of the border. It cannot be a part of Migyitin which was a decaying village of 12 huts in 1913 and had further deteriorated to 6 huts and a monastic inn in 1935. The lands attached to Migyitin village were few and extended to a very short distance' from the village." It follows from this that the Chinese contention of Longju forming part of the Tibetan village of Migyitin is completely untenable. To suggest in this connection that the incident at Longju in August 1959 was due to Indian troops launching "an unwarranted attack on the Chinese frontier guards" is a complete travesty of facts. In every instance of a clash on the Sino-Indian border it has always been Indian border defence guards who have been attacked, without warning and On Indian territory, by Chinese troops who intruded into Indian territory. There is no doubt that the Chinese Government has been responsible, by its aggressive policy, for converting a peaceful border into a border of tension. In order, therefore, to restore tranquility once again on the border it is imperative that the Chinese forces withdraw from Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this Opportunity to renew to the Embassy o. the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 15 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in India and has the honour to state as follows: At about i930 hours on 14th August 1962 a party of Chinese troops took up position opposite an Indian post at Yula in the Pangong Lake region and commenced firing. The Indian post was compelled to return fire in self-defence. The Chinese party withdrew shortly thereafter. This is another instance of continuing Chinese aggressive activity in the Ladakh region of India. The Government of India will hold the Chine se Government responsible for any untoward incident that might occur as a result of this intensified military activity. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in India the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 16 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and with reference to the Chine se Government's note dated 28th July 1962, has the honour to state as follows: The Chinese note under reference merely repeats the baseless charges made in the' earlier note of 16th July 1962. These have already been shown to be without any foundation in the Indian Government's reply dated the 24th July 1962. In regard to the Indian posts said to have been established at 33° 45'5' N 78° 50.5' E 33° 40.5' N 78° 47' E and at 34° 03' N 78° 44' E although the co-ordinates give~ are not all correct, it is a fact that there are some Indian defence posts in this area. All these posts are located well inside Indian territory. As the Government of China are aware, the international boundary in this sector of the border cuts across the eastern part of Spanggur lake and follows the northern and eastern watershed of the Indus. The Government of India cannot entertain any representation from the Chinese Government regarding the disposition of Indian security forces inside Indian territory. Such attempts of interference in the internal affairs of India must cease. The Chinese Government have also repeated the allegations contained in their note dated 22nd July 1962, that Indian soldiers "engaged in provocative activities against the Chinese border at approximately 33° 45.5' N,78° 50.5' E". The facts in regard to this incident have already been conveyed to the' Chinese Government in the Indian Government's note of 22nd July 1962. An Indian party in this region was fired upon by Chinese intruding troops on 21st July. In spite of grave provocation the Indian forces exercised great self-restraint and did not return the fire. The Government of India must, in the light of the facts stated above, reject the Chinese Government's note dated 2Bth July 1962.

The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 17 August 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following: At about 16.30 hours on August 13, 1962 the Indian troops unlawfully entrenched at approximately 34°34.5'N, 78°35.5'E south of the Galwan River in Sinkiang, China, once again fired unwarrantedly at the Chinese frontier guards in the vicinity. They fired four separate shots, which all fell on the position of the Chinese frontier guards. After firing each shot, the provocative Indian soldiers made observation and pried on the position of the Chinese frontier guards. In the face of the Indian troops' provocations the Chinese frontier guards throughout maintained self-restraint and did not return fire. The above-mentioned incident is the Indian troops' fourth provocative firing at Chine se frontier guards since they intruded into the Galwan River valley last July. It bas indisputably overthrown the Indian denial of the previous provocative firings at Chinese frontier guards (reference the Chinese Government's notes of July 23 and August 3, 1962). Regarding this incident, the Chinese Government hereby lodges another strong protest with the Indian Government and urges the Indian Government to give serious thought to the danger involved in India's ceaseless military provocations as well as its responsibilities and to withdraw at once all the Indian troops which have invaded the Galwan River valley. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking to the Embassy of India in China, 18 August 1962. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and with reference to the Indian Government's note of. June 30, 1962, has the honour to state the following: The Chinese Government has noted that the Indian Government admits in the above-mentioned note that on May 29, 1962 Indian border guards pursued and fired at the Roma family, Tibetan in habitants who were on their way home, and that Roma himself was shot de ad by the Indian soldiers and Roma's sister-in-law Yekhu and two children she carried On her back were taken back to Taksing by the Indian side. To evade responsibility, however the Indian Government in its note had turned the facts upside down and fabricated a false story, which the Chinese Government hereby categorically refutes. The facts are most clear. The Roma family used to be peaceable inhabitants of the Lung Village in Lungtzu County, Tibet, China. In May 1959 they were taken to the Taksing area south of the "McMahon Line" under the compulsion of Tibetan rebels. Six members of the family, who made a narrow escape from the Indian soldiers' shooting, have now returned to their original abode in the Lung Village and reunited with the1r relatives and friends. The assertion in the Indian note that Roma and his family were "Indian tribesmen" or "fugitives" from India is wholly untenable. The Roma family were returning to the Lung Village of their own free will. But they met with obstructions and were pursued by Indian troops who crossed the so-called McMahon Line, fired a t them and killed and wounded four of them, including a woman and her children. Such atrocity committed by Indian soldiers against peace able Chinese inhabitants has shown up the falsity of the assertion in the Indian note that the Indian side has "never stood in the way" of any Tibetan inhabitants returning to their motherland. The Indian note furthermore

attempts to describe the whole incident as taking place south of the socalled McMahon Line. This is entirely contrary to the facto The place of the incident created by the Indian soldiers is definitely Natienmula, which is north of the "McMahon Line." This can be testified by all the survivors of the Roma family. It is all the more absurd for the Indian side to say that the incident started because someone had "stolen a rifle" and "fired at" Indian soldiers. It is utterly unbelievable that a rifle of the Indian army or police should have been stolen so easily or that the Roma family, burdened with old people and small children should be able to "fire at" six fully-armed Indian soldiers with one "stolen rifle" and "exchange fire" with them. In view of the above, the Indian Government cannot escape the serious responsibility it should bear for this incident in which Indian soldiers intruded into Chinese territory and shot dead a peaceable Chinese inhabitant. The Chinese Government reiterates its demands made in its note of June 18, 1962, and urges that the Indian Government immediately return the body of Roma and the kidnapped Yekhu and her children. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 18 August 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the Indian Government's note of August 15, 1962, has the honour to state the following: In its note the Indian Government alleged that at about 19.30 hours on August 14, 1962 a detachment of Chinese troops fired on an Indian post at Yula in the Pangong Lake area, and the Indian post fired back, Careful investigation conducted by the Chinese Government shows that the armed clash described in the Indian note is a sheer fabrication. On August 14 no Chinese frontier guards ever fired on the aggressive strongpoint set up by Indian troops in Yula, nor were they fired on in return by any Indian troops, The Chinese Government expresses great surprise and regret at this trumped-up charge made by India. At a time when the Governments of the two countries are exchanging views for holding discussions as soon as possible on the Sino-Indian boundary question, the Indian Government has invented an exchange of tire between the troops of the two sides in the Pangong Lake area in China. This cannot but be deemed as done with ulterior motives. The Chinese Government categorically rejects the trumped-up charge made by the Indian Government. It must be pointed out that the current tension in the Pangong Lake area, including Yula, is created solely because Indian troops have intruded into Chinese territory in this area, unlawfully set up strong points and made provocations there. In order to ease the situation, the intruding Indian troops must immediately withdraw from Chinese territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 18 August 1962. The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chine se Government's note of 7th August, 1962. It is unfortunate that the Chinese Government should continue to repeat their unwarranted territorial claims in respect of the Demchok area in Ladakh, ignoring the wealth of consistent and conclusive evidence brought out by the Indian side at the meetings of the officials of the two Governments. The traditional boundary alignment between the two countries in this sector has always been east of Demchok. This has been confirmed by impartial observers and travelers from the early eighteenth century onwards. They include Ippolito Desideri (1715-1716) and James Baille Frazer (1820). There is also an unbroken administrative record showing the exercise of Indian jurisdiction over this are a for many centuries. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the international frontier in this area runs five miles south-east of Demchok, which is well inside Indian territory. In an effort to boaster up a non-existent case, the Chine se note has made an irrelevant reference to a Handbook entitled "Tibet". The only document quoted by the Chinese side at the official’s talks, which contained a reference to a border point, clearly specified that the traditional alignment lay along the LHARI. This is very close to the traditional Indian alignment and far removed from the line now claimed by China. In such a context, for the Chinese Government to raise question about the disposition of Indian border defence posts in the Demchok area is an entirely unjustified interference in ah internal matter which is within the sole competence of the Government of India. Indian border posts within Indian territory are ii1tended purely for purposes of defence and stand in

sharp contrast to the numerous unlawful Chinese posts set up in recent years on Indian soil. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 21 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note dated the 18th August, 1962. The Government of India have already given the full facts about the incident concerning the Roma family in their note dated the 30th June 1962, and have nothing to add to them. The incident took place inside Indian territory and full details of the incident were reported by the local administration to the Government of India in the first week of June long before the Chinese note of 18th June. Though this was a purely internal matter within the sole jurisdiction of the Indian Government, the Ministry, in its note of 30th June, communicated these facts in order to remove the possibility of any misunderstanding on the Chinese side. It is most surprising that the facts given by the Government of India should be questioned by the Chinese Government who could not possibly have any knowledge of what actually transpired inside Indian territory. The Government of India regret that the Chinese Government should attempt to exploit the misfortune of the Roma family, which they alone had brought upon themselves, for making false and propagandist allegations against India. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi to the Embassy of China in India, 21 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents is compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to state as follows: While the Chinese Government have been leveling baseless charges against the Government of India, Chinese forces have systematically continued to violate India's territorial integrity. In recent weeks Chinese forces have set up no less than 18 new aggressive military posts deep inside Indian territory. These posts, particulars of which are given below, have been set up even subsequent to the establishment of the 9 previous posts which formed the subject matter of the Indian Government's note of protest dated the 12th July 1962: (a) Chip Chap region 1. Post at 78° 05' E 35° 20' N-ten miles east of Daulet Beg Oldi. 2. Post at 78° 04' E 35° 23' N-seven miles east of Daulet Beg Oldi. 3. Post at 78° 05" E 35° 23' N-near Daulet Beg Oldi. 4. Post at 78° 07' 30" E 35° 17' N. 5. Post at 78° 17' E 35° 18' N. 6. Post at 78° 15' 30" E 35° 10' N. 7. Post at 78° 12' 30" E 35° 22' 30" N. 8. Post at 78° 10' E 35° 22' N. 9. Post at 78° 07' 30" E 35° 27' 30" N. 10. Post at 78° 13' E 35° 19' N. (b) Galwan Valley region 11. Post at 78.0 38'5' E 34° 34.5' N. 12. Post at 78° 33'5' E 34° 40' N. (c) Pangong-Spanggur region 13. Post at 78° 44' 45" E 34° 03' 30" N about a 1000 yards east of the Indian defence post near Kongma. 14. Post at 78° 54' 45" E 33° 42' N.

15. Post at 78° 52' E 33° 44' 30" N about a 1000 yards northeast of the Indian defence post at Sirijap. 16. Post at 78° 47' E 33° 38' 30" N. (d) Qara Qash region 17. Post at 78° 26' 15" E 35° 03' N. 18. Post at 78° 25' 45" E 35° 02' N. Besides the above posts four camps have been established and five additional strong points set up by Chinese forces around the Indian post at 78° 38' E 34° 39' 45" N on the Galwan river thereby greatly aggravating the tension in the area. The Ministry lodges an emphatic protest against the establishment of these new Chinese posts, camps and strong points deep inside Indian territory. These constitute further serious violations of India's territorial integrity. Not only are Chinese forces now located in menacing proximity to existing Indian defence posts in the area but their provocative activities are increasing the tension in the area and. if not restrained, might well result in untoward incidents. The Government of India will hold the Chinese Government responsible for any such incidents. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of: China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi, to the Embassy of China In India, 22 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the note of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 4th August. 1962. The Chinese Note refers to two points: (i) the incident that occurred in the Chip Chap Valley on 21st July and other matters connected with the India-China boundary, in the Ladakh region of India; and (ii) the suggestions for further discussion on the India-China boundary question with a view to resolving the differences between the two governments. This Note deals with point (i). A Separate note being presented in connection with the second point. 2. It is surprising that the Chinese note, while referring to the incident that occurred in the Chip Chap Valley on 21st July, as "unfortunate and regrettable" continues without giving any reasons, to dispute the carefully verified factual details of the incident given in the Government of India's note of 22nd July. There is no doubt whatever that the Chinese local forces wantonly and without any provocation fired upon the Indian patrol and that the latter had after some time to return the tire in self-defence. 3. Allegations have been made in the Chinese note about Indian intrusions into Chinese territory by establishing military strong points and by over 300 sorties by Indian aircraft into Chinese air space. Demchock, Chip Chap Valley, the source of the Karakash river, the Galwan River valley and the Pangong and Spailggur lakes have been referred to in this connection. The Ministry of External Affairs must categorically state that these allegations are completely groundless. The areas referred to are well within Indian territory as stated in detail in the following paragraph. Indian posts established in these areas and routine flights of Indian

aircraft in connection with maintenance of supplies and services to the Indian posts in these areas are purely internal matters to be decided by the Government OD India in accordance with the requirements of security. 4. Mention has been made in previous correspondence of the boundary claims in the Ladakh region advanced by China in 1956 and in 1960. The Chinese note of 4th August also refers to earlier Indian notes in which the discrepancy between these varying claims was pointed out to the Government of China and attempts to explain away the differences between these claims. These varying Chinese claims were mentioned in the earlier Indian notes simply to illustrate the continuing aggressive activities of the Chinese authorities in making wider boundary claims from time to time and getting the Chinese forces to follow these up by further intrusions into Indian territory. These varying claims have no relevance other than the fact that they illustrate Chinese expansionist aims in the area and the confusion prevailing in the minds of the Chinese Government as to the international frontier in the Ladakh region. So f.ar as the Government of India's position on this matter is concerned, the Indian officials have, during the discussions between the Indian and the Chinese officials, established the discrepancies between the various Chinese claims as regards this border and produced a mass of evidence in support of the well established and recognised international boundary in this region. This in national boundary runs from the Karakoram Pass along the watershed between the Shyok (belonging to the Indus system) and the Yarkand, and runs through the Qara Tagh Pass (Lon. 780 20' ] East and Lat. 350 43' North) to cross the eastern bend of the Qara Qash river (north west of Haji Langer) and to ascend the main Kuenlun mountains. Thereafter the boundary runs through the Yangi Pass (Long. 79'0 25' East and Lat. 350 55' North) aIong the crest of the mountains separating the Yurungkash basin from those of the lakes in Aksai Chin. It leaves the main crest of the Kuen Lun mountains at a point approximately Long. 80° 21' East and descends in a South-westerly direction, separating the

basins of the Amtogor and Sarigh Jilganang lakes in India from those of Leighten and Tsoggar Lakes in Tibet, down to Lanak Pass (Long. 790 34' East and Lat. 340 24' North). 5. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration. .

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 22 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the concluding paragraph of the note of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 4th August 1962 which deals with the suggestions for further discussions on the Sino-Indian boundary question. The Chinese note states that "there need not and should not be any preconditions for such discussions" and yet the Chinese Foreign Minister in a broadcast on the Italian-Swiss Radio TV Network on 3rd August proclaimed on a publicity media that has wide coverage that "to wish that Chinese troops would withdraw from their own territory is impossible. That would be against the will of 650 million Chinese. No force in the world could oblige us to do something of this kind". The Chinese note itself states that the Chinese Government cannot give consideration to the suggestion -made in Government of India's note of 14th May 1962 regarding 'mutual withdrawals in this region "neither in the past nor in the future". These are pre-conditions which contradict the repeated Chinese statements that they want to settle the boundary question peacefully through further discussions. It is obvious that it is the Chinese who are laying down impossible pre-conditions and asking for acceptance of the Chinese claim regarding the boundary in this region before further discussions start. The statement in the Chinese note "that the Chinese side has never crossed its national border which has always been under Chinese control" is at complete variance with the facts of today and the history of Chinese aggressive activities in the Aksai Chin and Ladakh region since 1957. There was no Chinese presence of any sort in the Aksai Chin and the Ladakh region of India till 1957. The Chinese entered the uninhabited areas of Aksai Chin and' its neighbourhood clandestinely some time about

1957 and began to improve the Sinkiang-Tibet caravan route across Aksai Chin. Thereafter they started a series of aggressive moves into the Ladakh area of India, stationing garrisons of troops and indulging in aggressive forward patrolling which led to clashes between the Chinese forces and the Indian patrols in this area. This aggressive activity has been intensified since 1959. The series of notes sent by the Government of India since 1957 onwards on various Chinese intrusions into Indian territory in this region conclusively show that the presence of the Chinese forces and the present acute tension in this region of India are the result of the concerted and deliberate aggressive activities of the Chinese forces in altering the status quo of the boundary in this region by use of force during the last five years. To allege in the context of this factual history of the last five years that what the Chinese claim to be their national border has, in fact, all along been the national border between China and India in this region is not only factually incorrect but definitely misconceived because it pre-judges the very issue on which further discussions have been suggested. The Indian authorities all along showed considerable patience .and restraint in the face of these aggressive Chinese activities: They were compelled, however, in the face of continuing Chinese intrusions, to take necessary preventive action and had to establish some military posts in this area. The above paragraphs fully confirm the statement made in the Ministry's note dated 26th July that the factual history of the activities of the local Chinese forces in the Ladakh region is not consistent with the des ire for settlement by negotiations expressed by the Chinese Government. If the Government of China are genuinely desirous of resolving the differences between the two Governments on the boundary question by further discussions and negotiations, they must realise that these discussions cannot start unless the status quo of the boundary in this region which has been altered by force since 1957 is restored and the current tensions

are removed. There can be no pre-judging or acceptance of the Chinese claim. before discussions start. It will be dear from the factual position and the history of the last five years given above that an essential preliminary to the holding of further discussions on the basis of the report of the Officials of the two sides with a view to resolving differences between the two governments on the boundary question is a definition of measures that should be taken to restore the status quo of the boundary in this region which has been altered by force during the last five years and to remove the current tensions in this area so as to create the appropriate climate for purposeful discussions. The Government of India would be glad to receive a representative of the Government of China to discuss these essential preliminary measures. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the. Embassy of China in India, 23 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note of 18th August, 1962. The Government of India protested against the' firing by Chinese troops at an Indian post in the Pangong region to record a factual incident and to bring 1.0 the notice of the Chinese authorities that such irresponsible shooting might have had dangerous consequences and was in sharp contrast to the Chinese Government's own stand that they are desirous of peaceful negotiations to settle the Sino-Indian boundary issue. The Government of India categorically reject the allegation that this was a "trumped-up charge" and trust that the Chinese Government, motivated both by a desire to respect the truth and to remove tension in the area would restrain their troops from irresponsible shootings and withdraw them to the east of international frontier, into Chinese territory. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of 4ts highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 24 August 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following about cases in which armed Indian personnel crossed the China-Sikkim boundary and intruded into Chinese territory: 1. On June 4, 1962 four armed Indian personnel crossed the Natu La on the China-Sikkim boundary and intruded into the vicinity of Chumbitan in Tibet. 2. On June 15, 1962 three armed Indian personnel crossed the ChinaSikkim boundary at Tzelung La and intruded into Chinese territory. 3. In the fourth week of June 1962 five Indian soldiers intruded into Chinese territory north of Tagi La on the China-Sikkim boundary. They erected three cairns more than two kilometres north of the Tagi La and declared them to mark the points dividing China and Sikkim. The above-mentioned activities of armed Indian personnel be yond the China-Sikkim boundary constitute a serious violation of Chinese territory, against which the Chinese Government hereby lodges a protest with the Indian Government. The China-Sikkim boundary has long since been formally delimited and tranquility has always prevailed along it. It is deeply regrettable that the Indian side should have used the territory of Sikkim to carry out encroaching activities against Chinese territory and sovereignty. The Chinese Government solemnly calls the attention of the Indian Government to such activities and urges that India immediately stop similar activities. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 24 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour t0 state that since the protest lodged on 22nd August by the Ministry of External Affairs on the establishment of 18 new aggressive military posts, deep inside Indian territory, the Ministry has just learnt about a further post having been established by intruding Chinese forces on the 23rd August at a point 78° 45'00"E, 33° 39' 20"N. This post, apart from being well within Indian territory, is provocatively located in close proximity of the supply line to Indian posts in this area. The Chinese Government should ensure that this new intrusion is immediately removed. The Government of India will hold the Chine se authorities responsible for any untoward incident that might develop in the area as a result of the continuance of this post in close proximity to the line of supply of the Indian posts in the area. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by. the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 25 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note dated 17th August 1962. The Government of India have enquired fully into the allegation contained in the Chinese note that, on the 13th August 1962, at about 16-30 hours, Indian defence forces had fired on Chinese troops near a point at approximately 34° 34'5' N 78° 35.5' E and have found that the allegation is entirely baseless. Moreover, the area referred to is located deep inside Indian territory where Chinese forces could have no justification to be present. It is a matter of regret that the Chinese Government should repeat such baseless allegations which are obviously intended for purposes of antiIndian propaganda. Similar charges made in the past have also invariably been proved to be without any foundation. In. recent weeks, it is the Chinese intruders who have. on no less than five occasions opened fire on Indian defence forces stationed on Indian territory. Except on two occasions, on the 21st July 1962 and 14th August 1962, when Indian defence forces were forced in self defence to return the Chinese fire, on all the other occasions they exercised great selfrestraint and refrained from returning the fire. The Chinese Government have been informed about these incidents in the Government of India notes, dated 22nd July 1962, 28th July 1962, 30th July 1962 and 15th August 1962 and cannot disown their responsibility in regard to the same. If, therefore, the Chinese Government are earnest in their desire to reduce tension in the area, they should immediately put a stop to their aggressive activities on the border and peacefully withdraw their forces from Indian territory.

The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 27 August 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following with regard to the serious new cases, which happened in the last few days, of successive provocative firing at and armed encirclement of Chinese frontier guards by Indian troops which have intruded into Chinese territory on the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary. The Indian troops which have intruded into the Galwan River area in Sinkiang have encircled the Chinese frontier guards and cut off the rear route of a Chinese post there for more th an a month. They not only refuse to withdraw, but again fired repeatedly at the Chinese frontier guards of late after the four incidents of firing against which the Chinese Government has protested with the Indian Government (vide Chinese Foreign Ministry's note of August 17, 1962). At about 10.30 hours on August 21, 1962, the' intruding Indian troops fired two shots at the Chinese frontier guards. At about 20.10 hours on August 22, four Indian soldiers pressed forward to a place as close as about 200 metres from the positions of the Chinese frontier guards and fired another tw6 shots. At about 18'00 hours on August 25, the intruding Indian troops fired four more shots at the Chinese frontier guards. The latter exercised forbearance and self restraint throughout and did not return fire. Serious cases of intruding Indian troops closing il!\. on Chinese posts have also occurred in the Pangong Lake area in Tibet. At about 1400 hours on August 23, 1962, a batch of Indian soldiers in two motor-boats intruded into Chinese territorial waters in the Pangong Lake, where they sailed back and forth and fired nine shots at the southern bank of the Lake for reconnaissance purposes. At about 9'40 hours on August 24, a group of intruding Indian soldiers, numbering about 30, moved towards the Chinese post at approximately 33°39'N 78°44'E on the southern bank

of the Lake. At about 12.50 hours, the same group of Indian soldiers came as close as about 300 metres of the Chinese post, where they threw themselves down, facing the Chinese post and posing to shoot. Then several more groups of Indian soldiers closed in on the Chinese post from the west and the south. Having come to places as close as about 400 metres of the Chinese post, they constructed defence works and pitched more than 30 tents. These intruding Indian troops, together with those which had earlier pushed to the eastern side of the Chinese post, now form an encirclement of the Chinese post on three sides, and cut off its communication and supply line to the rear. The above-said provocations by Indian troops repeatedly firing at Chinese frontier guards and closing in on Chinese posts have seriously aggravated the tension on the border and endangering the safety of the Chinese frontier guards. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest with the Indian Government against this and demands that the Indian troops immediately stop suck dangerous acts and withdraw from Chinese territory. In the past two months, Indian troops have intruded into the Galwan River area in Sinkiang and encircled Chinese frontier guards there, and provoked an armed clash in the Chip Chap River area in Sinkiang; after a11 this they have now encircled a Chinese post in the Pangong Lake area in Tibet and cut off its rear route. These facts indisputably show that India, besides lacking the desire to ease the tension on the border, is doing its utmost to extend its aggression on Chinese territory and intensify its provocations against China, thereby creating more obstacles to a settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary dispute through negotiations. The Chinese Government reiterates that the Sino-Indian boundary question must be settled through negotiations and the Indian Government's attempt to realise its ambitious territorial claims by force and to coerce China into submission is bound to fail. If the Indian side should overdo it, the Chinese side will have to report to self-defence, and

the Indian side must bear responsibility for all the consequences arising therefrom. The Chinese Government MS just received the Indian Government's note of August 24, in which the above-said Chinese post encircled by Indian troops on three sides in the Pangong Lake area in Tibet was described as "located in close proximity of the supply line to Indian posts." The tactics of the Indian Government of turning the truth upside down and ma king false counter-charges can in no way cover up India's military provocations related above, nor can it absolve the Indian Government of its responsibility for aggravating the tension on the border. The Chinese Government categorically rejects this totally baseless and malicious charge made by the Indian Government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 27 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to state as follows: On 26th August 1962 at about midday, a party of Chinese troops attempted to ambush an Indian patrol on routine duties at a point approximately 33 miles south east of Daulat Beg Oldhi. The intruding Chinese troops were responsible for unprovoked tiring which led to the Indian patrol being forced to return the tire in self defence. This is yet another instance of the aggressiveness of Chinese local forces who are unlawfully in Indian territory and their interference with the supply line of Indian posts in the area. The Government of India lodge an emphatic protest against this unlawful provocative behaviour of Chinese local forces which may, unless they are immediately restrained, lead to untoward developments. The Government of India hopes that such unlawful intrusions by Chinese forces will be stopped immediately and they will be withdrawn from Indian territory in order to eliminate the recurrence of such dangerous incidents which are not in keeping with the professions of the Chinese Government that they desire a peaceful solution of the boundary question. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the .assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India 28 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Ministry's notes dated the 22nd August and 24th August 1962 wherein the Government of India have lodged protests regarding the setting up of new military posts by the Chinese forces on Indian territory in Ladakh. Subsequent to the above notes 4 more Chinese military posts have been established as follows: Pangong-Spanggur region (1) Post at 78° 45' 45" E, 33° 57' 15" N. (2) Post at 78° 45' 3D" E. 33° 57' 45" N. Qara Qash region (3) Post at 78. 24' 3D" E, 35. 06' 15" N. (4) Post a t 78 ° 28' 15" E, 35. 07' 45" N. The Government of India lodge an emphatic protest against the setting up of these military posts deep inside Indian territory and demand that they should be withdrawn along with the other Chinese posts from Indian territory. The new Chinese military posts have been established in the past few days and arc located extremely close to the existing Indian defence posts in the area. Apart from constituting further serious violations of India's territorial integrity they add substantially to the tension in the area and the possibility of fresh incidents. It is particularly regrettable that Chinese forces should persist in their aggressive actions at a time when the Chinese Government are repeatedly professing their desire to have negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the question.

The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 29 August 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the notes of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government dated July 28 and 30 and August 3 and 5, 1962, has the honour to state the following: Of late, Indian troops which have intruded into Chinese territory in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary have repeatedly fired provocatively at Chinese frontier guards, against which the Chinese Government has lodged a number of pro tests. In its notes of August 3 and 5, 1962, the Indian Government resorted to its l:sual practice of denying the indisputable facts cited by the Chinese Government, but this is entirely futile. The Indian Government even doubted the truth of, the two incidents of firing by Indian troops of July 16 and 19, 1962, to which the Chinese side referred, on the' ground that it was not until July 23 that the Chinese side lodged the protest. This is even less worthy of refutation. It is commonsense whether a protest is lodged a few days earlier or later does not at all affect the truth of the matter concerned in the pro test. In advancing a sophisticated argument on that ground the Indian side is in no way taking an attitude of dealing with things earnestly and seriously. It is particularly regrettable that the Indian Government, in its: notes. further falsely counter-charged the Chinese side. Now the Chinese Government will confine itself to refuting the three specific charges made by the Indian side: 1. In its note of July 28, 1962, the Indian Government charged that on July 27 a Chinese patrol opened fire at an Indian patrol at approximately 33° 57' N, 78° 46'5' E. This place mentioned by the Indian side is in the Nyagzu area in Tibet, China. It is strange however, that eight days later, in another note dated August 5, 1962, the Indian Government stated that "no Indian party Was in that area (Nyagzu) on July 27. This inconsistency

clearly shows that the charge the Indian side made in its former note is not in conformity with the facto The fact is that on July 27 an intruding Indian force fired 16 shots in the Nyagzu area at a Chinese post there (vide the Chinese Government's note No. 796, dated August 1, 1962). It seems that, after failing to abuse the Chinese' side, the Indian side tried to resort to quibbling, but in so doing unwittingly disproved its former charge. As paper cannot wrap up fire, a lie is bound to show up. 2. In its note of July 30, 1962, the Indian side charged that on July 29 Chinese troops opened fire at Indian troops in the vicinity of Yula in the Pangong Lake area. The Chinese Government has satisfied itself by careful checking that the Indian charge is a down~ right fabrication. It can be mentioned here that the Indian Government further trumped up the story of a clash at Yula between the Chinese and Indian sides. in its note of August 15, 1962, which the Chinese Government, basing itself on the facts. has already refuted by its note of August 18, 1962. The purpose of the Indian side in repeatedly preferring such framed-up charges is clearly to cover up its activities of unlawfully setting up a strongpoint and expanding its military intrusions in Yula, Tibet, and to further aggravate deliberately the tension in that area. 3. In its note of August 5, 1962, the Indian Government not only tried hard to deny the fact that Indian troops which had intruded into the Chip Chap River valley in Sinkiang, China, fired on a Chinese post there on July 27 (vide the Chinese Government's note No. 795, dated August 1, 1962), but falsely counter-charged the Chinese side with firing at the Indian troops on the same day, and asserted that India had already made this charge in its Note of July 28, 1962. But in fact the' Indian note of July 28 does not touch on the Chip Chap valley area at all. It seems that the Indian side has landed itself in a jumble in cooking up charges. It can be seen from the above that it is no one but India itself which has distorted the facts and reversed the right and wrong. As for the Indian side's usual practice of describing Chinese territory as Indian territory in an attempt to explain away the Indian troops intrusions and provocations,

and of even falsely counter-charging China with aggravating the border tension, the Chinese Government has refuted all these absurdities again and again and does not intend to repeat itself here. To ensure tranquility along the border and ease the tension, the Chinese Government urges the Indian Government to desist from making statements which reverse right and wrong, strictly restrain the Indian troops so that they stop all provocations against the Chinese side and order them to withdraw immediately from Chinese territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 31 August 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the notes of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government to the Chinese Embassy in India dated June 16, June 28, July 12 and August 22, 1962, has the honour to state the following: The places where the Chinese side has set up posts and built a road as mentioned in the Indian Government's notes are a11 indisputably inside Chinese territory on the western sector of the Sino-Indian border, that is, on the Chinese side East of the western sector of the traditional SinoIndian boundary affirmed by Premier Chnu En-lai. The areas where those places are located have always been under the administration of the Chinese Government. That the Chinese side has set up posts and built roads on its own territory is purely China's internal affairs in which the Indian side has no right to meddle at all. The Chinese Government categorically rejects the Indian Government's unwarranted charges and pro tests. As is well-known, the Chinese Government, always standing for the maintenance of the status quo of the boundary, has given strict instructions to its troops to refrain from going beyond the traditional and customary boundary line. In order to maintain tranquility on the border and avoid clashes, the Chinese side, starting from 1959, even one-sidedly stopped patrolling within 20 kilometres on its side of the boundary. But the Indian side, instead of making an appropriate response, took advantage of that to alter the status quo of the boundary by force again and again. Since last spring it has even intensified its intrusion into and nibble at Chinese territory. It was under these circumstances that the Chinese side had to declare in its note of April 30, 1962 the resumption of border patrolling first on the sector where the Indian side had been making repeated intrusions and harassment and to adopt certain

necessary defence measures. Those were the movements that in Prime Minister Nehru's words, "the Chinese had also to make" "due to movements on our (the Indian) side." It was completely legitimate and necessary for the Chinese side to do so. The Indian side tried to cover up its aggressive activities by slanderously accusing the Chinese troops of encroaching on Indian territory. This clumsy tactics has long been seen through and will not work at all. The Indian Government is advised to get down to the right path of easing the tension on the border in earnest, that is, to stop all intrusions and provocations of the Indian troops and withdraw them from Chinese territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity. to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 2 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to state that an Indian patrol proceeding in the area south of the Chip Chap river region on routine task was surprised at 0800 hours this morning the 2nd September and attacked by a large Chinese military force. Our patrol was compelled to return the fire in self-defence. At 1415 hours on the same day yet another Indian patrol was attacked at approximately the same location forcing it to return the tire. The Ministry lodges an emphatic pro test against this further intrusion of Chinese forces into Indian territory and their wanton and unprovoked attacks on small Indian patrols going about on their routine duties. The Ministry has already brought several instances of such aggressive activities of Chinese forces inside Indian territorial limits and these further instances make it obvious that these aggressive activities of the Chinese forces belie the professions of the Chinese authorities to settle the differences between the Governments of India and China on the border question by peaceful talks and discussions. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 3 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Ministry's note dated 2nd September, 1962, protesting against the intrusion of Chinese forces into Indian territory and attacking Indian patrols on two separate occasions. Both these incidents took place at approximately the same location, i.e., at 78° 17' 15" E 35° 08' 15" Nabout 15 miles west even of the claim line shown in the Chinese map of 1956 about which Premier Chou En-lai wrote to the Prime Minister of India in his letter dated the 17th December, 1959 that "it correctly shows the traditional border between the two countries in this sector". The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 4 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following: On July 18, 1962, fully armed Indian military men, four in Humber, again intruded into Ruyu and Longju of the Migyitun area in Tibet, China. They sneaked to the hillsides east of Longju and pried about the camping ground of the Chinese border defence forces in the Migyitun area for as long as three hours. These Indian troops did not leave the Longju are a till after two days' illegal stay there. This is the 9th illegal intrusion by Indian troops into the Longju area since last April. It gives the lie once again to the Indian Government's statement about its "willingness not to send their personnel back to the area." The Chinese Government hereby protests against the aforesaid serious violations of Chinese territory by the Indian side. Longju and Ruyu have always been part of Chinese territory, and both lie north of the so-called McMahon Line. This is an indisputable fact, which the Chinese Government has, in its note of August 3, 1962, established with conclusive arguments. The Indian Government, in its note of August 8, 1962J while still insisting that Longju and Ruyu lie south of the "McMahon Line", fails to explain the inconsistencies which were pointed out in the Chinese note of August 3 as existing in its various descriptions of the geographical location of Longju and Ruyu. The Indian note lays a pretentious charge against the Chinese side as if the Chinese side misrepresented Prime Minister Nehru's statements by "making an out of context reference" to them. But Prime Minister Nehru stated in his letter of September 26, 1959, as cited in the Indian note, that Longuju lies 1 ½ miles south of the "McMahon Line". Later, when speaking before the Indian Parliament on April 3, 1961, he further stated that Longju sits astride the "McMahon Line", and most of it lies north of the line. And now

the Indian side asserts that Longju is about two miles south of the "McMahon Line". Ii is entirely futile for the Indian side, being unable to explain these obvious inconsistencies, to charge baselessly the Chinese side with "making an out of context reference." In addition to its illegal occupation of large tracts of Chinese territory south of the "McMahon Line", the Indian side has repeatedly sent out troops to intrude into Longju and Ruyu north of the Line. This obviously represents a deliberate attempt to create new troubles and tensions. to maintain tranquility on the border, the Indian Government should, not merely in words but in deeds, stop sending out troops to intrude into Longju and the adjacent areas. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 4 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following: At about 12.30 hours on August 26, 1962, seven Indian soldiers, five of them mounted, who had intruded into the vicinity of the source of the Karakash River in Sinkiang, China, pressed forward from north to south up to a place in front of the positions of the Chinese post located at approximately 35° 3, 5' N,78° 22' E. 19noring the warnings of the Chinese frontier guards who waved their arms and shouted, the Indian soldiers unscrupulously opened fire. Then another batch of Indian troops, ten in number, approached from the south and seized the high ground southwest of the Chinese post. At about 6.50 hours on the morning of August 29, the intruding Indian troops again pressed forward to the vicinity of the Chinese post and fired 17 shots at the Chinese frontier guards. During these two incidents, the Chinese frontier guards maintained self-restraint through out and did not return fire. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong pro test with the Indian Government against the above mentioned provocations of the Indian troops. After the closing in on a Chinese post in the Pangong Lake area in Tibet on August 24, the Indian intruders have now advanced on and fired at another Chinese post, this time in the vicinity of the source of the Karakash River in Sinkiang. This shows once again that India is intensifying its intrusions into and provocations against China in a planned way, thereby aggravating further the border situation, and is not, as it has professed, willing to relax the border situation and peacefully settle the boundary question through negotiations. It is regrettable that the Indian Government has again adopted the method of a thief crying "stop thief" and distorted this incident in its note of August 27, 1962, alleging that the Chinese frontier guards "attempted

to ambush" an Indian patrol on routine duties and conducted "unprovoked firing", whereas the Indian troops were "forced to return the fire," and so on and so forth. All these allegations were sheer fabrications. One cannot help asking why the Indian troops should have proceeded to and patrolled at a place deep inside Chinese territory and "33 miles" away from its border post. Could it be the "routine duties" of the Indian patrol to invade the territory of others and press forward in a menacing manner to the border posts of others? This is absolutely impermissible. The Chinese Government categorically rejects the Indian Government's aforesaid false charge which turns the facts upside down and shifts the blame on other. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking to the Embassy of India in China, 5 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following: At about 12.10 hours on September 2, 1962, a transport team comprising 6 rear service personnel of the Chinese border defence forces, when proceeding on a mission to approximately 35° 8.5' N, 78° 14.5' E, south of the Chip Chap River area in Sinkiang. was ambushed by a large number of intruding Indian soldiers. The intruders unwarrantedly opened up tierce fire at the Chinese non-combatants with machine-guns and rifles. The transport team of the Chinese border defence forces was compelled to stop advancing and make retreat under the cover of the terrain features. The Indian soldiers continued to chase it with gunfire, shooting a total of nearly 200 rounds. The Chinese rear service personnel did not return fire throughout. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong pro test against the aforesaid grave incident in which Indian troops penetrated deep into Chinese territory and even came to a supply route in the rear of Chinese border defence forces to ambush their rear service personnel. It seriously urges the Indian Government to give careful consideration to the grave consequences that m'ay arise from such acts of playing with fire by the Indian side. One should be aware that whoever plays with fire will burn himself. It must be pointed out that the above-mentioned Indian action of ambushing and attacking Chinese rear service personnel with fierce tire marked a new peak in the Indian troops' recent series of intruding and provocative activities, including the continuous setting up of aggressive strongpoints, the firing of provocative shots and the encirclement of Chinese posts and patrols on Chinese territory. This incident once again revealed that what India is after is not to relax tension and settle the

boundary question through negotiations, as it claims, but deliberately to provoke new armed clashes, further aggravate the situation on the border and worsen the Sino-Indian relations. The note handed over in the midnight of September 2 to the Charge d'Affaires of the Chinese Embassy in India by the Director of China Division of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, turning the truth upside down, has described the incident as one in which Indian patrols were twice "surprised and attacked by a large Chinese military force" on the same day at a certain place south of the Chip Chap River region and were "compelled to return the fire." While pretentiously lodging a pro test in the note, the Indian side was unable to give the specific location where the incident occurred. Under the questioning of the Chinese Charge d'Affaires, the Director of the China Division of the India Ministry of External Affairs could only reply that he was not yet clear about it. Making a hasty accusation without ascertaining the most rudimentary facts, the Indian Government was resorting to too naked a method of fabrication and false counter-charge. The Chinese Government categorically rejects the Indian protest which has no factual basis. The Indian attempt of using that protest to cover up its deliberate scheme of creating an armed clash and shift on to China the responsibility for obstructing peaceful negotiations is bound to fail. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 6 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government’s note dated 27th August, 1962. The allegaliol1s made in the Chinese note are not only baseless but also indicate the lack of a proper understanding on the part of the Chinese Government of the Indo-Chinese boundary in that area. Indian forces have never established any strong points in Chinese territory. On the contrary, it is Chinese intruders who have, in recent years, unlawfully established numerous military posts deep inside Indian territory. This will also be evident from the fact that even the areas referred to in the present Chinese note are located well within Indian territory where Chinese forces could have no justification to be present. The Government of India have carefully investigated the allegations in respect of each of the two areas mentioned in the Chinese note under reference and the facts, as verified are stated below: (i) There is absolutely no truth in the allegation that Indian troops have "encircled the Chinese frontier guards and cut off the rear route of a Chinese post" in the Galwan Valley region. The fact is that Chinese forces had intruded into this sector of Indian territory in Ladakh, for the first time in July 1962. They had thereafter set up no less than 5 strong points around the Indian defence post at 78° 38' E 34° p9' 45" N and had begun to consolidate themselves in the area. In this process Chinese forces had established a post at 78° 33' 5" E 34° 40' N. They had also set up another post at 78° 38' 5" E 34° 34' 5" N, about 800 ,yards north of an Indian Ration Party in the vicinity so as to obstruct supplies from reaching the main Indian defence post at 78° 38' E, 34° 39' 45" N. In their notes dated 10th July 1962, 22nd August and 25th August, 1962 the Government of India have already drawn the attention of the Chinese Government to these aggressive Chinese actions.

As regards the allegations of shooting by Indian defence forces in this area on the 21st, 22nd and 25th August, 1962, these are entirely without foundation. There has been no shooting in this area by either side on the specified dates. (ii) The correct position relating to the Pangong Lake area has been given in the Indian Government's note, dated 24th August, 1962 in which a protest was lodged about a new Chinese post set up at 78°' 45' E 33° 39' 20" N on the southern bank of the Pangong Lake. Here again it is the Chinese who are attempting by a series of provocative moves to isolate an Indian defence post in the area. The Chinese post at 78° 45' E 33° 39' 20" N which has been established only in the last few days has obviously been set up to interfere with the main supply line leading to the above mentioned Indian defence post near Yula. There is no question in such a context of any "communication and supply lines to the rear of a Chinese post being cut off. The Chinese allegation stands exposed as a palpable attempt to conceal the aggressive activities carried on by Chinese intruders and will convince no one. The Government of India have been repeatedly drawing the attention of the Chinese Government to the provocations carried out by Chinese forces intruding into Indian territory. They have so far themselves refrained from taking any steps which could further aggravate the situation. However, if Chinese forces should persist in their illegal encroachments on Indian territory and continue to interfere with the supply lines of Indian defence posts, the responsibility for any consequences that might arise therefrom will rest solely on the Chinese Government. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 7 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Ministry's notes, dated 22nd August, 24th August and 28th August 1962 wherein the Government of India had lodged protests about the setting up of new military posts, deep inside Indian territory, by Chinese forces in Ladakh. It is most regrettable that even subsequent to the above protests, two more Chine se military posts should have been set up on Indian territory, as follows: Changchanmo valley region: (i) Post at 78° 46' E 34° 03' 30" N. Pangong-Spanggur region: (i) Post at 78° 54' E 33° 40' 45" N. These new Chinese posts not only constitute further serious violations of India's territorial integrity but also add to the possibility of fresh incidents arising in the area. The Government of India lodge an emphatic protest against the setting up of the above mentioned Chinese military posts and demand that they be withdrawn immediately, along with other Chinese posts, from Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi to the Embassy of China in India, 8 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's Note, dated the 4th September, 1962 and to state as follows: The Government of India had, in their protest note of the 27th August, given c1ear and detailed facts of the incident that occurred on the 26th August. That the intruding Chinese troops opened fire against an Indian patrol engaged on routine tasks in Indian territory has been fully and c1early established. The location at which the incident took place is 78º 23' 15" E 35º 05' 15" N and not 35º 3.5' N. 78º 22' E as stated in the Chinese note. The Government of India categorically reject the absurd c1aim in the belated Chinese note of the 4th September that the Indian patrol was inside Chine se territory. The Chinese Government are fully aware that the point at which the incident took place is not only well inside Indian territory but is about 100 miles west of the international frontier between India and China in this region. There can be no doubt of any sort on this point as the question of the location of the boundary in this region has been gone into in great detail by the officials of the two sides. Apart from the location, even on the facts of the incident, the details alleged in the Chinese note are inconsistent and illogical. No sensible persan would believe that an Indian patrol of seven pressed forward in a menacing manner against a large Chinese force which had intruded in Indian territory. The version of the incident given in the Chinese note must, therefore, be rejected as factually incorrect and baseless. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 10 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents Hs compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to state as follows: The Chinese note of 5th September refers to the incident regarding which the Ministry had handed over a protest note to the Chinese Embassy on the 2nd September. The facts given in the Indian note are clear. The note handed over to the Chinese Charge d'Affaires on 2nd September clearly stated that the incident took place in an area south of the Chip Chap region. When the Chinese Charge d'Affaires asked for the exact location where the incident occurred, he was told that the exact coordinates of the point would be communicated to him the next day. These were supplied in the note of 3rd September after careful verification. It was the Chinese Charge d'Affaires who stated in the talk with the Indian Director on 2nd September that the incident must have been caused by Indian troops moving forward into Chinese territory. The Director of China Division expressed surprise that the Charge d' Affaires should make such an allegation without full verification of the site where the incident had occurred. This would show that the Charge d'Affaires repeated the usual baseless allegation made in all Chinese notes that any incident taking place in the Ladakh region is in Chinese territory. The Government of India cannot understand why the Chinese authorities should, even after the exact coordinates of the site of the incident has been supplied in the Ministry's note of the 3rd September, reiterate the usual baseless allegation that the incident was caused by Indian troops penetrating deep into Chinese territory. Verification of the site on the basis of the coordinates given will show conclusively that the point at which the incident took place is deep within Indian territory. It is the Chinese forces who continue to penetrate deep into Indian territory and are causing tension in the area by their aggressive activities in Indian territory. In fact even on 5th September a group of Chinese soldiers

provocatively advanced towards Indian troops at the above mentioned location resulting in an exchange of fire. The presence of Chinese forces deep inside Indian territory, their aggressive forward patrolling and their repeated unprovoked firing against Indian posts and patrol in the area is fraught with danger and the Chinese authorities will themselves be solely responsible for any untoward incident that may take place. The Chinese report of the incident states that the transport team of the Chinese forces was compelled to stop advancing. Where was' it advancing and why so far from the Chinese border? Not only were the Chinese forces intruding into Indian territory but they opened tire on the Indian patrol who had to reply ID self defence. The facts are clear and straight forward and the Ministry must therefore reject the allegations in the belated Chinese note of 5th September. Indian forces have no des ire to "play with tire" or to cause any provocations but they are determined not to permit any aggression into Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 10 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note dated 24th August 1962. The Government of India have found after careful investigation that the allegation in the Chinese note about Indian armed personnel having crossed the Nathu La border on 4th June 1962, is completely baseless. The Indian Government are not aware of any places called Tzelung La and Tagi La on the Sikkim-Tibet border and have not been able to go into the details of the other allegations due to the absence of proper map coordinates of the places referred to. The Ministry would reiterate, for the information of the Chinese Government, that Indian defence personnel, unlike the Chinese forces on the border, are well aware of the limits of the International Boundary. They are under strict instructions not to cross the boundary and invariably follow these instructions. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 10 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following: The Indian side, persisting in its policy of realizing its territorial claims by armed force, has recently established on Chinese territory in the western se et or of the Sino-Indian border six more aggressive strongpoints, the locations of which are as follows: The first one is located at approximately 35°10'N, 78°13'E, which is as deep as around 13 kilometres inside Sinkiang. The second one is located at approximately 35° 9.5' N,78° 14' E, which is as deep as around 13 kilometers inside Sinkiang. The third one is located at approximately 35°24'N, 78°04'E, which is north of the Chip Chap River in Sinkiang. The fourth one is located at approximately 34° 23' N,78° 53. 5' E, which is northwest of the Kongka Pass and inside Sinkiang. The fifth one is located at approximately 33°39' 5'N, 78° 44'E on the southern bank of the Pan gong Lake in Tibet. It is only about 300 metres away from a Chinese post in the area. The sixth one is located at approximately 33°26'5'N, 78°50'E: south of the Spanggur Lake, lying across the boundary line between the Ari district of Tibet, China, and Ladakh, India. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a serious protest against the above new violations of China's territorial integrity and sovereignty by the Indian side. Since last spring, Indian troops have continually nibbled at and pressed forward in the border areas of China's Sinkiang and Tibet. The aggressive strongpoints established by India on Chinese territory in the western sector of the Sino-Indian border have now totaled up to 34 in number. From these strong points, Indian military personnel have further

incessantly carried out threats and provocations against Chinese frontier defence forces. The Chinese Government has lodged a number of protests with the Indian Government against this. In its reply notes of June 22, June 28, July 6 and July 14, 1962, the Indian Government did not deny that India had indeed established these strongpoints on Chinese territory, but it repeatedly engaged in prevarication, asserting that India was taking defensive measures the objectives of which were "peaceful," and falsely counter-charged China with continuously committing "aggression" since 1957. And in its note of July 6, it again repeated its absurd proposal which actually meant that China should unilaterally withdraw from large tracts of China's own territory. All this was refuted again and again by the Chinese Government in its previous notes. Facts are very clear. It was India which, having occupied much Chinese territory in the eastern and middle sectors of the Sino-Indian border, turned to press forward into Chinese territory in the western sector of the Sino-Indian border, establishing more aggressive strongpoints and nibbling at Chinese territory. The Indian press has boasted that this was a "unique triumph for an audacious Napoleonic planning"; and Prime Minister Nehru himself openly admitted in the Indian parliament that "our movements sometimes go behind the Chinese positions," and that "India had opened some new patrol posts endangering the Chinese posts." One must ask: How can this be called defensive measures? Can this be the "peaceful objectives" flaunted by the Indian Government? If the Indian Government really has any sincerity for peace, it should, in deeds, immediately stop its intrusions into and withdraw its aggressive strongpoints from Chinese territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India the assurance of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 12 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note dated 31st August, 1962. The Indian team of officials at the talks of the officials of the two Governments clearly established that there is no basis for the claim advanced then and again in the Chinese note under reply that the place where the Chinese side has set up posts and built a road are on the Chinese side of the international boundary in the Ladakh region nor for the claim that any part of Ladakh has, except since the Chinese aggression in recent years, been under the administration of the Chinese Government. Full details of the Chine se aggression in the Ladakh region since 1957 have been conveyed to the Government of China in numerous Indian notes on the subject. It is a matter of regret that the Chinese Government should persist in their attempts to justify their aggression into and forcible seizure of Indian territory in the Ladakh region since 1957 by unwarranted territorial claims. The Chinese note has referred to the status quo on the border. But it is the Chinese Government themselves who have unilaterally sought since 1957 to change the long existing status quo on the border by the use of force. Chinese forces have not only intruded deep inside Indian territory but there has been no halt in their incessant aggressive forward patrolling and setting up of new posts on Indian territory. It is in the context of these aggressive Chinese activities that Government of India had to take action to prevent further violations of India's territory. This is a purely defensive measure. It is the Chinese forces who continue their aggressive activities and who have in recent months deliberately maneuvered to encircle Indian defence

posts; to interfere with their line of supply and communications and to resort to unprovoked firing causing clashes and tension in the area. The various notes presented by the Ministry to the Embassy give full factual details of these irresponsible and aggressive activities of the Chinese forces. Government of India must, in view of the reasons given in the above paragraphs, reject the fallacious and untenable contentions in the Chinese note under reference. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 13 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, in regard to India's recent establishments of additional strong points for aggressive purposes within Chinese territory on the western sector of the Sino-Indian border and the numerous serious incidents of firing provocative shots at Chinese frontier guards, has the honour to state the following: 1. The intruding Indian troops have established four additional aggressive strong points in Chinese territory. The first one is located at approximately 35 ° 09'N, 78°16'E, which is to the south of the Chip Chap River area in Sinkioang and as deep as about 17 kilometres inside Chinese territory. The second one is located at approximately 35°06'N, 78°13'E, which is also south of the Chip Chap River area in Sinkiang, to the south west of the aforesaid aggressive strong point and Os deep as about 9 kilometres inside Chinese territory. The third one is located at approximately 34°59'N, 78°24' 5'E, which is to the west of the source of the Karakash River in Sinkiang and as deep as about 18 kilometres inside Chinese territory. The fourth one is located at approximately 33°39'N, 33°44'50"E, which is on the southern bank of the Pangong Lake in Tibet and behind a Chinese post in that area. 2. Intruding Indian troops provocatively fired on six more occasions at Chinese frontier guards. In the area south if the Chip Chap River Valley: At about 7 00 hours on the morning of August 29, a group of Indian soldiers sneaked to the vicinity of the Chinese post at approximately 35°10'N, 78°14'E and fired five shots in succession. The bullets flew over the heads of the Chinese guards. At about 1 20 hours on September 5, intruding Indian soldiers fired

another shot at the above-mentioned Chinese post. At about 17 00 hours on September 5, a batch of Indian soldiers fired 19 rounds with rifles and machineguns at four Chinese frontier guards from a place approximately 35°07'N, 78°13'E. At 17.10 hours on September 5, a batch of Indian soldiers fired two shots at a small group of Chinese frontier guards from approximately 35°8'5'N, 78°17'5'E. In the area north of the Chip Chap River: At about 11 30 hours on September 2, a group of Indian soldiers fired two shots at the Chinese post located at approximately 35 30 N, 78°07'E on the eastern bank of the Lungnak Lungspa River. Following that they even fired a mortar shell which exploded in front of the Chinese post. In the small hours of September 5, a group of intruding. Indian soldiers sneaked to the vicinity of the Chinese pest at approximately35°25'N 78°07'E firing two shots at 1 55 hours and then one shot each at 3 and 3 05 hours respectively. During all the aforesaid six incidents of provocative firings by Indian troops, the Chinese frontier guards exercised great restraint and fired not a single shot in return. The Chinese Government hereby strongly protests against the abovementioned series of fresh intrusions and provocative activities, by the Indian side. These facts demonstrate that the Indian side is intensifying more and more its aggressive activities on Chinese territory. Taking on1y the cases of provocative firings at Chinese frontier guards, apart from the daily increase of shooting incidents, (as many as four such incidents occurred on September 5 alone), even the use of artillery shelling has been started. The Indian Government should be aware that shooting and shelling are no child's play; and he who plays with fire will eventually be consumed by fire. If the Indian side should insist on threatening by armed force the Chinese border defence forces who are duty-bound to defend their territory and thereby arouse their resistance, it must bear the

responsibility for a11 the consequences arising therefrom. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 13 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China, and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government’s note dated 29th August, 1962. 2. The Indian Government's note dated 3rd August 1962 had refuted Chinese allegations of firing on the 16th and 19th July, 1962. This was done after detailed verification. The note also pointed out that although a protest had been lodged by the Chinese Government .about an incident near the Chip Chap river region on the 21st July, 1962 in their note dated 22nd July, 1962, these incidents which were .alleged to have taken place even earlier had curiously enough found no mention therein. This additional feature of the case was mentioned as it also supported the results of the detailed verification undertaken by the Indian authorities. This is, therefore, not a 'sophisticated" argument but an addition al argument which establishes that the Chinese allegations are baseless. It may also be mentioned that the Chinese note dated 22nd July, 1962, had been fully .answered in the Ministry's note dated 26th July, 1962. 3. The Chinese note has further referred to the Indian Government's notes dated 28th July, 1962 and 5th August, 1962 and claimed an imaginary contradiction in the information conveyed therein. The :actual area where the Chinese patrol opened fire at an Indian patrol and about which the Indian Government had protested in their note, dated 28th July, 1962, was approximately 78°46' 5"E 33°57'N whereas the Chinese note dated 1st August, 1962, referred to an area at 18°44' 5"E 33°57'N. These two points are separated by nearly 3 miles and the Indian Government's note dated 5th August, 1962 correctly stated that "No Indian party was in that area on 27th July”. 4. Referring to the Indian Government's note of 28th July, 1962, the Chinese Government have further tried to draw unwarranted conclusions from a typographical error in the place reference in the Indian

Government's note dated 5.th August, 1962. The map coordinates given in the Indian note dated 28th July, 1962, namely, 78°46' 5'E 33°57'N, however clearly indicated the actual place referred to and it is surprising that the Chinese note deliberately overlooks this detailed place reference and merely makes a play with words. 5. The Chinese Government have referred to the Indian note, dated 30th July, 1962, protesting against unprovoked firing by Chinese troops, and have denied that Chinese troops fired at Indian troops near Yula in the Pangong lake area. The Chinese note has further denied that any clash took place on 14th August, 1962 near Yub between the two sides. The Ministry would stress in this connection that the facts conveyed in the Indian Government's notes are carefully verified before being communicated to the Chinese Government. The Ministry cannot, therefore, accept the Chinese Government's routine denials made without serious and earnest consideration of duly verified facts given in the Indian posts. It is undeniable that whenever there have been incidents on the border, they have, been invariably caused by Chinese forces intruding into Indian territory and opening fire on Indian defence personnel. 6. The Government of India regret in particular the tone of the Chinese note which can only aggravate the situation which the Chinese have themselves created in Ladakh. 7. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 13 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the Indian Government's two notes of August 22 in reply to the Chinese Government's note of August 4, 1962, has the honour to state the following: 1. The Chinese Government regrets that the Indian Government, in its notes under reference refuses to hold further discussions on the boundary question as soon as possible on the basis of the report of the officials of the two countries. 2. In its notes, the Indian Government willfully slandered China with alleged aggressive activities in the western sector of the Sino-Indian border. In order to seek a pretext for refusing to discuss the boundary question with the Chinese Government, the Indian Government insisted in its note that "discussions cannot start unless the status quo of the boundary in this region which has been altered by force since 1957 is restored and the current tensions are removed.'" The Chinese Government has always held that pending a settlement of the boundary question through negotiations both sides should maintain the status quo of the boundary and should not change it by unilateral action. The Chinese Government has strictly adhered to this stand. It has never crossed the line of actual control in any of the sections of the Sino-Indian boundary, let alone carrying out any aggressive activities. This fact can in no way be altered by any slander. It is exactly the Indian Government itself that has carried out aggressive activities in the Sino-Indian border areas and changed the status quo of the boundary by armed force. Such aggressive activities of the Indian Government not only took place in the western sector of the Sino-Indian border, but extended also to its rnidd1e. and eastern sectors. If the status quo of the boundary, which

has been altered by force, must be restored before discussions on the boundary question can start, then it is the Indian troops that should withdraw from the Chinese territories which they have occupied' along all the sectors of the Sino-Indian boundary. The Chinese Government has on numerous occasions protested against the Indian Government's aggressive activities and repeatedly asked it to withdraw its troops from Chinese territory. Yet the Chinese Government is always willing to resolve through negotiations all the disputes: between the Chinese and Indian Governments on the boundary question, and has never put forth any preconditions for the negotiations. Now the Indian Government, while carrying out aggressive activities in the Sino-Indian border areas, has turned to put before the Chinese Government a pre-condition for negotiations. It can be said definitely that it is utterly futile for the Indian Government to use this inapt method to disguise the fact that it lacks sincerity for negotiations. 3. The Indian Government pretends to take interest in easing the tension along the border, but actually at the very moment when it is repeatedly expressing the hope of easing the border situation it is stepping up its intrusions and provocative activities within Chinese territory in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary. Since August 4, Indian troops have established eleven more military strongpoints on Chinese territory in the western sector, opened fire at Chinese frontier guards on 14 more occasions and even ambushed a transport team of the Chinese border defence forces, firing as many as 200 rounds at it. These daily growing aggressive activities of the Indian side have brought the border tension to a new danger point. The above facts completely belie the Indian Government's professed desire to ease the border tension. 4. The border tension ought to be eased. The Chinese Government has pointed out in its note of August 4 that if only the Indian side stop advancing into Chinese territory a relaxation of the border situation will be effected at once. But the Indian Government, while persisting in advancing into Chinese territory, changing the status quo by force and

aggravating the border tension, asserts that "an essential preliminary" to the holding of discussions on the boundary question is a "definition of measures that should be taken to restore the status quo of the boundary in this region which has been altered by force during the last five years and to remove the current tensions in this area." This assertion is utterly absurd. It is necessary to remind the Indian Government again that. if India should continue to nibble Chinese territory, it will certainly meet with China's resistance, and it must bear responsibility for all the consequences arising therefrom. 5. In the face of the above-stated facts one can hardly avoid the conclusion that the Indian Government has no des ire to solve the boundary question peacefully through negotiations but is using peaceful negotiation as a cover for its plans of nibbling Chinese territory and altering the status quo of the boundary. In his speech at the Rajya Sabha on August 22 1962 Prime Minister Nehru stated outright that on the SinoIndian boundary question the Indian Government is following a "dual policy" and intends to gain from China what it seeks to gain "by political pressure, military pressure or other pressures." To adopt one policy or another is India's own business. But the Chinese Government wishes to point out that China will welcome negotiations, if seriously intended, but will resist, whenever attacked, and that it will bring India no good to pursue a policy of "sham negotiations and real fighting." 6. In its two notes the Indian Government tried at length to prove that Indian intrusions into Chinese territory are "purely internal matters to be decided by the Government of India in accordance with the requirements of security." The Chinese Government has in its previous notes refuted this absurd assertion in detail, and so does not intend to repeat itself here. What needs to be noted is that, in an attempt to find an excuse for rejecting discussions on the boundary question, the Indian Government interpreted China's position on the boundary question, as explained by the Chinese Foreign Minister in his August 3 television interview and in the August 4 note of the Chinese Government, as putting forth a pre-

condition for negotiations. Every state has the freedom and right to set forth its own position. The Chinese Government has never said that discussions cannot start unless India accepts China's position on the boundary question. On the contrary, it has time and again stressed that "there need not and should not be any pre-conditions for such discussions." How can it be said that once the Chinese Government states its own position it is putting forth a pre-condition? To be quite open, if the Indian Government has no desire lo negotiate, why not say so plainly? There is no need to rack its brains to fish out a reason where there is none. 7. In China's opinion it is, after all, not good to maintain prolonged border tension between two big Asian countries, China and India. With a view to easing the border tension the Chinese Government once again proposes that the armed forces of each side withdraw 20 kilometres along the entire border. It believes that the implementation of this measure will not only immediately ease the border tension but also a in a way stabilize the Sino-Indian boundary pending a peaceful settlement through negotiations. 8. The Chinese Government still considers that the Chinese and Indian Governments should quickly hold further discussions on the Sino-Indian boundary question on the basis of the report of the officials of the two countries without setting any pre-conditions. The Chinese Government is convinced that this will be in conformity with the desire of the Chinese and Indian peoples as well as peace loving countries and people all over the world. It formally proposes that the two Governments appoint representatives to start these discussions from October 15 first in Peking and then in Delhi, alternately. The details can be discussed and decided upon through diplomatic channels. The Chinese Government awaits the reply of the Indian Government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, Embassy of India in China, 16 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following: Indian troops recently again crossed the so-called "McMahon Line", intruded into Che Dong of the Le village (approximately27° 49' N, 910 48' E) in China and constructed barracks and defence works there in preparation for prolonged entrenchment. At the, same time, Indian aircraft repeatedly intruded into the air space over the Le village and circled over there for reconnaissance purposes on August 29, September 9 and September 10. The Chinese' Government hereby lodges a strong protest against the above-mentioned fresh intrusions by the Indian side. After swallowing up by force large tracts of Chinese territory' south of the "McMahon Line" on the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian border, the Indian side went further to intrude into Khinzemane north of the Line in 1959 and has since hung on there. And DOW it has further intruded into Che Dong. These systematic' nibbling activities fully reveal how ambitious the Indian side's aggressive designs are. They also show that the Indian side is actively extending the tension to the en tire Sino-Indian border. The Indian Government must be held responsible for aIl the consequences arising therefrom. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 17 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the note sent by the Chinese Foreign Office to the Indian Charge d' Affairs in Peking on the 16th September, 1962. At the meeting of the officials of the two sides in' 1960, the boundary between the North-East Frontier Agency and the Tibet Region of China was described in full detail by the Indian side. The Chinese Government are fully aware that the boundary in this sector, commencing from the point approximately 91 c 40' E and 27° 48' N, runs in an easterly direction along the crest of the Tang. La (Thagla) ridge, separating the North-East Frontier Agency of India from the Tibet Region of China. Neither the Indian border forces nor Indian aircraft have at any time crossed this international boundary at any point, much less. constructed barracks and defence works on the Chinese side. Such defence arrangements as exist are entirely on the Indian side of the boundary. It is not the Indian side that is creating tension in (his border area which has been peaceful all along. Reports received by the Government of India from their local authorities indicates that it is the Chinese who have been attempting, since the beginning of September, to cross the international boundary, intrude into Indian territory and to create tension in this border region Khinzemane, to which the Chinese note refers, is indisputably Indian territory. The Government of India categorically reject the baseless allegations made in the Chinese note of the 16th September. The Government of India will hold the Chinese Government responsible for any untoward incident that may occur due to the failure of the Chinese authorities to restrain their forces from crossing the border and attempting to intrude

into the Indian territory in this region. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, Embassy of India in China, 18 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with regard to the intensificd intruding activities of Indian troops in the Pangong Lake area, Tibet has the honour to further state as follows: In its previous notes of protest, the Chinese Government has recorded in detail the facts about the willful intrusions by Indian troops and aircraft into Chine se territory and air space in the Pan gong Lake area for threats and provocations, and there is no need to repeat them here. Apart from that, the Indian side, taking advantage of the fact that the western part of the Pangong lies astride of the Sino-Indian boundary, has continually dispatched military motor-boats to intrude into Chine se territorial waters in the Pangong Lake for all sorts of provocative activities. Within the two months from July 5 to September 5, Indian military motor boats made intrusions in at least 90 sorties. Recently these intrusions have become even more frequent. Within a matter of 10 days and more from August 20 to September 5, there were intrusions in approximately 50 sorties, with an average of about 3 sorties .a day. Apart from frequently sending men and military material to the various aggressive strongpoints established by the Indian side on the banks of the Chinese part of the Pangong Lake, the motorboats of the intruding Indian troops often fired harassing shots and even pressed forward menacingly and provocatively against the Chinese posts along the banks. On August 23, two Indian military motor-boats fired 9 shots at the southern bank of the Lake for reconnaissance purposes, against which the Chinese Government already protested on August 27. And on August 25, another group of intruding Indian troops, in two motor-boats, steered up to only about 100 metres from a Chinese post (approximately 33° 39' N, 78° 44' E) on the southern bank where they loudly reviled and threatened the Chinese frontier guards. Incidents

of Indian Military motor-boats firing harassing shots again took place on September 2 and 5 successively. The Chinese Government strongly pro tests against the Indian intruding and provocative activities in the Chinese territorial waters in western part of the Pangong Lake and has to point out that the Indian side would be definitely mistaken if it thinks that China could allow the Indian intruders to run riot on Chinese waters. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of India the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 19 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note dated 13th September 1962. The Government of India are disappointed both at the contents and the tone of the Chinese Government's note of 13th September. It is a matter of regret that there has not been the slightest effort on the part of the Chinese Government to understand and appreciate the constructive suggestions put forth by the Government of India in their note of 22nd August. The Chinese Government, on the contrary, have resorted to un diplomatic language and even held out threats of force. In the context of the tone and content of the Chinese note and the concurrent attempts at creating tension in the Eastern Sector of the India-China border which has till now been peaceful, it would appear that the Government of China, while repeating their professions for a peaceful ssettlement, are determined to do all they can to continue their aggressive activities and to alter by force the status quo of the boundary unilaterally, using talks and discussions between the two Governments only as a cloak to further their aggressive and, expansionist aims. In paragraph 2 of the Chinese note it has been claimed that the Chinese Government have maintained the status quo of the boundary. Paragraph 3 of the Indian note dated 22nd August briefly sets out the factual position in this regard. The Government of India do not have the slightest doubt that the status quo along the Sino-Indian boundary has been strictly observed by India and it is the Chinese side that has, by unilateral action and aggressive activities, altered the status quo which it now fallaciously calls “the line of actual control". The hard facts of the situation cannot be -altered merely by brushing them aside as "slander" or "utterly absurd". In paragraph 6 of the Chinese note it has been stated that "Every state

has the freedom and right to set forth its own position. The Chine se Government have never said that discussions cannot start unless India accepts China's position on the boundary question. Despite this unobjectionable statement of principle, the Chinese note throughout argues that “the line of actual control" established by aggressive Chinese activities during the last few years should be accepted and suggests that Indian forces should stop their defensive activities on Indian territory and withdraw from are as claimed by China. How is this contention of the Government of China consistent with their profession that they are not imposing any pre-conditions about the acceptance of the Chinese position on the boundary question? The Government of India agree that every state has the freedom and right to set forth its own position. This is in fact what has been done by the officials of both sides in their discussions in 1960. Having ,done this, however, further discussions to resolve the differences 'between the two Governments can only start after measures have ;been taken to restore the confidence between the two Governments, ,disturbed by unilateral alteration of the status quo, and after the 'border tension has been eased. The proposal in this regard made in paragraph 7 of the Chinese note about withdrawal of the armed forces of each side by 20 kilometres, suffers from the serious defect that it leaves the aggressor who altered the status quo by unilateral action over the last few years, in possession of the fruits of his aggression. This could hardly create that climate of confidence and goodwill between the two Governments which is an essential prerequisite for fruitful discussions to resolve the differences between the two Governments on the boundary question. The Government of India hope that the Government of China will earnestly and in a constructive spirit, consider the suggestions made by the Government of India in their note of 22nd August and 110t try to confuse the issues either by use of undiplomatic language or by holding out threats of force, or by putting forth the fallacious argument about the Line of Control” which has as everyone can see, been established by

unilateral aggressive action and alteration of the status quo of the long existing traditional boundary. The Government of India repudiate the unwarranted assertion in the Chinese note that India refuses to hold further discussions on the boundary question. The Government of India are sincere in their desire to resolve their differences with the Government of China by peaceful means and to do their utmost to promote peaceful, neighbourly relations between the Government and people of India and the Government and people of China, but no amount of casuistry or threats of force will deter them from their resolve to maintain inviolate the territorial integrity of India. The Government of India are prepared to hold further discussions at the appropriate level to define measures to restore the status quo in the Western Sector which has been altered by force in the last few years and to remove the current tensions in that area. The implementation of such measures will create a climate of confidence between the two Governments which alone can make possible constructive discussions to resolve the differences between the two Governments on the boundary question on the basis of the report of the Officials. The Government of India are agreeable to these discussions starting from 15th October, first in Peking and then in Delhi. The Government of India will take further action to discuss and settle the details of these discussions through appropriate diplomatic channel after the Government of China indicate their acceptance of the proposals in the preceding paragraph. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India. 20 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to draw the attention of the Chinese Government to yet another incident that has taken place at a point approximately 78" GO' 15" E 35 07' 45" N as a result of intruding Chinese troops opening fire on an Indian defence post at approximately 9.00 A.M. on 15th September 1962. This area is over one hundred miles west of the International Boundary in this region. The Chinese troops advanced menacingly close to the Indian post in the area and attempted to interfere with its normal supply line. They wantonly disregarded the repeated warnings of the Indian side and continued to advance towards the post resulting in an exchange of fire. Latest reports indicate that the Chinese troops have been spread out in dangerous proximity to the Indian post as indicated below (a) about 50 Chinese at a distance of 800 to 1000 yards north west of the Indian post; (b) about 40 Chinese at a distance of 600 yards north east of the Indian post; and (c) about 50 Chinese at a distance of 1500 yards south east of the Indian post. The Government of India lodge an emphatic protest against these new provocations by Chinese forces on Indian territory and demand that these provocative activities be halted forthwith and the Chinese forces withdrawn immediately from Indian soil. If the Chinese forces do not cease their aggressive activities, the responsibility for any untoward incident that might occur will rest solely with the Chinese Government. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 20 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with regard to the grave tension caused by the intensified provocations on the part of intruding Indian troops against Chinese frontier guards at Che Dong, has the honour to state as follows: On September 16, 1962, the Chinese Government already lodged a strong protest with the Indian Government against the Indian troops crossing the so-called McMahon Line and establishing an aggressive strongpoint at Che Dong, Le village in Tibet. The Indian side not only turned a deaf ear to the protest, but has actively built up addition al barracks and defence works around the aforesaid aggressive strongpoint. and has kept sending reinforcements there. What is particularly serious, a detachment of Indian troops made a harassing raid to the Che-jao bridge, which is about one and a half kilometres east of Che Dong, and made threats and provocations against the Chinese frontier guards there. Around 09:00 hours on September 17, more than ten Indian soldiers, in combat formation, pressed towards a Chinese sentry post near the Che-jao bridge. Some of them came as near as about three metres from the Chinese sentry on duty there. At 11:40 hours, two intruding Indian soldiers even aimed their guns at the Chinese sentry, posing to shot. At 16.20 hours, the Indian troops made unscrupulous threats and intimidations by placing machine-guns each on the eastern, southern and western sides of the Chinese sentry post. In the morning of the same day, an Indian air-plane again intruded into the air space over the area, of the village, and made reconnaissance and provocative circlings there. Nevertheless, the Chinese sentry maintained the greatest calm and self-restraint and issued repeated warnings to the Indian troops. But the Indian troops instead of giving any heed to the warnings, built defence works on the spot and have thus far refused to

withdraw therefrom. The Chinese Government hereby lodges the strongest protest with the Indian Government against the above-mentioned expanded aggression and intensified armed provocation by Indian troops. In order to ease the tension and avoid clashes on the Sino-Indian border, the Chinese Government once unilaterally stopped sending its patrols to the area within 20 kilometres on its own side of the entire boundary. However, the Indian side took advantage of this situation and steadily pressed forward into Chinese territory. The Chinese Government, bearing the sacred duty of defending China's territory and maintaining tranquility on its border, cannot remain indifferent to the intensified aggressive activities of the Indian side. In order to prevent Indian troops from further nibbling Chinese territory and carrying out armed provocations, the Chinese frontier guards were ordered to resume border patrolling and set up additional post in the western sector. Now the Indian side, instead or ceasing its aggressive activities in the western sector, has extended them to the eastern and middle sectors. In view of this, the Chinese frontier guards have been ordered to take the same defensive measures in the eastern and middle sectors as in the western sector. The position of the Chinese Government for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question through negotiations is consistent and remains unchanged. However should the Indian side continue Hs intrusion into Chinese territory and carry on its provocations in disregard of the protests and warnings of the Chinese Government, the Indian Government must be held fully responsible for the consequences arising therefrom. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 21 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Ministry's note dated 22nd August, 24th August, 28th August and 7th September 1962, wherein the Government of India have lodged protests regarding the setting up of new military posts by intruding Chinese forces on Indian territory in Ladakh. The Government of India note with regret that, even subsequent to these protests, six more aggressive military posts have been set up by Chinese forces, deep inside Indian territory, as follows: Chip Chap region (i) Post at 78° 18' 30" E 35° 07' 45" N. (ii) Post at 78° 18' 30" E 35° 09' 45" N. (iii) Post at 78° 15' E 35° 13' 30"N. (iv) Post at 78° 09' 30" E 35° 17' 30" N. Qara Qash region (v) Post at 78° 22' 45" E 35° 05' 15" N. Pangong-Spanggur region (vi) Post at 78° 45' 45" E 33° 35' 30" N. The Government of India lodge a strong protest against the setting up of the above mentioned new Chinese military posts which constitute further evidence of China's expansionist aims. The aggressive activities pursued by Chinese forces on Indian territory also belie the oft-repeated claims of the Chinese Government 'that they have not disturbed the status quo and that they are anxious to ease the tension prevailing in the area and to avoid clashes. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 21 September 1002 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to state as follows: On 20th September at about 2130 hours two Chinese soldiers crept up to an Indian patrol post approximately one mile east of the Dhola Indian post (approx. 91° 42' E 27° 46' 5' N) and threw two head grenades injuring three Indian soldiers. The Indian post fired verey lights and saw a substantial number of Chinese soldiers massed some distance away. The Chinese soldiers thereupon opened fire on the Indian patrol post which was compelled to return the fire in self-defence. Intermittent firing continued for approximately two hours. The Chinese soldiers again opened fire at 0330 hours on the 21st September and this exchange of fire continued till 0530 hours the same day. The Chinese once again fired at the Indian patrol post at 0700 hours on 21st September. The Chinese Government are fully aware that the boundary in this Sector commences from a point at approximately 91 ° 40' E 27° 48' N and runs in an easterly direction along the crest of the Tang La (Thagla) ridge separating the North East Frontier Agency of India from the Tibet Region of China. The location of the main Dhola Indian post, to which the Chinese refer as Tse Dong is about 2 ½ miles south of the Tang La (Thagla) ridge. The Government of India lodge an emphatic protest against to unprovoked aggression and wanton attack on the Indian patrol post by Chinese forces in this area which has resulted in three India casualties and demand that the intruding Chinese troops should stop their provocative activities and withdraw immediately into Chinese territory. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 21 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following: On September 20, 1962, at 24: 00 hours, Indian troops in the Che Dong area of Tibet, China, north of the so-called McMahon Line, into which they had intruded, made a sudden armed attack on Chinese frontier sentries standing on guard west of the Che-jao bridge. From 24: 00 hours on September 20 to 07: 00 hours on September 21, the Indian troops on four successive occasions fired rifles and machine guns, totaling more than 60 rounds, and hurled seven hand grenades. An officer of the Chinese frontier guards was hit and killed and a soldier was seriously wounded. Up to 08:30 hours on September 21, the Indian troops had not yet stopped firing. The Chinese frontier guards exercised the utmost self-restraint and fired four rounds back only after they had suffered casualties. These Chinese frontier guards west of the bridge are now still encircled by the Indian troops, and their contact with the rear has been cut off. The situation in the Che Dong area is extremely dangerous, and flames of war may break out there. The Chinese Government hereby lodges the most serious and the strongest protest against the above-mentioned frantic attack by the intruding Indian troops and their crime of killing and wounding Chinese frontier guards. The Chinese Government demands that the Indian side immediately stop its attack and withdraw at once from the area of Che Dong and the Che-jao bridge. The Chinese Government reserves the right to ask for an apology and compensation from the Indian Government. If the Indian Government does not immediately accept the Chinese Government's demand, then, in order to protect the Chinese frontier guards west of the Che-jao bridge and restore their contact with the rear, the Chinese side will be compelled to take the necessary defensive

measures. Should the Indian troops again open fire at the Chinese troops during the latter's defensive action, the Chinese troops will necessarily defend themselves resolutely, and the responsibility for any casualties of the Indian side under Chinese defensive fire must be borne completely by the Indian side itself. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 24 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state as follows: Recently the Indian side again set up on Chinese territory in the western sector of the Sino-Indian border three additional strong points for aggressive purposes. Two of them are located respectively at approximately 30o34'30"N, 78°45'05"E and approximately 33°33'N, 78°46'E, both lying astride the Sino-Indian boundary west of the Spanggur Lake in the Ari district, Tibet. The third one is located at approximately 35°10'N, 78°12'E south of the Chip Chap River area in Sinkiang. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a serious, protest against this insatiable nibbling of Chinese territory by the Indian side, and once again demands that the Indian Government immediately with draw all its aggressive strong points. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 25 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the two protest notes handed over to the Charge d'Affaires of India on 22nd September 1962. 2. The Government of China are either completely misinformed about the location of the area referred to in their Note of 16th September or are deliberately confusing the precise location where the Chinese troops are carrying on their aggressive activities in Indian territory. 3. The Chinese note of 16th September alleged that Indian troops crossed the McMahon line and intruded into Che Dong of the Le village in Tibet and gave the co-ordinates of the location as 27° 49' N and 91° 48' E. A reference to the map would show that according to the co-ordinates given, the are a referred to lies to the north of the Thagla Ridge and is obviously in Tibet. There is a village called Le at this location in Tibet. The Government of India have categorically stated in their note of 17th September that no Indian forces or defence works of any kind exist to the North of the Thagla Ridge which is the McMahon line boundary in this region and pointed out that the Chinese forces have intruded to the south of the line into Indian territory. 4. The Indian note of September 21st has given full factual details to show that the Chinese troops have not only provocatively crossed the McMahon line i.e. the Thagla ridge which forms the Indo-Tibetan boundary in this region, but have wantonly attacked Indian troops and inflicted casualties on them. Indian forces in the vicinity of the main Indian Dhola Post are only exercising their legitimate right of defence of Indian territory in resisting the aggressive attacks of Chinese forces on Indian soil. 5. In the light of the factual details given in the above paragraphs" the Chinese Government's statement that "they reserve the right to ask for

an apology or compensation", is either misconceived because it is based on incorrect and misleading information, Or is deliberately confusing and patently aggressive with the sole idea of supporting the provocative activities of the Chinese forces in Indian territory. The Government of India must in either case firmly reject it. 6. The Indian defence forces have firm instructions to remain within Indian frontiers. They are unmistakably clear as to where the frontier lies in this region. No amount of confused allegations or aggressive threats, as indicated in the Chinese notes, will deter them from resisting with firmness any violation of the Indian border by Chinese forces whether here or elsewhere. 7. The Government of India hope that the Chinese Government will even now pause and consider the factual position of the boundary in the area where their forces are carrying on their aggressive activities in Indian territory, stop making unwarranted threats, and issue immediate instructions to their intruding forces to cease their aggressive activities on Indian territory and direct them to return to Chinese territory across the frontier to the North of Thagla Ridge, that is, to the region indicated by the co-ordinates given in the Chinese note of 16th September, 27° 49' N and 91 ° 48' E. The Government of India will hold the Chinese Government responsible for all the consequences that flow from this deliberate aggression and unwarranted attacks by Chinese forces on Indian forces in Indian territory. 8. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 25 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with regard to the Indian troops' grave crime of successively creating incidents of bloodshed in Che Dong by killing and wounding Chinese frontier guards, has the honour to state as follows: The Indian troops which intruded into Che Dong, China, north of the socalled McMahon Line, have in the past few days kept shooting, day and night, at Chinese frontier sentries standing on guard to the west of the Che-jao bridge, in disregard of the repeated protests and warnings by the Chinese Government. Within the one and half hours from 21:30 to 23:00 hours on September 21, 1962 alone, the intruding Indian troops fired more than 400 gun shots and two artillery rounds and threw two hand grenades. In the period from 07: 50 hours on September 22 to 02: 12 hours On September 23, the Indian troops opened fire five times, firing more than 200 gun shots and five artillery rounds and throwing 11 hand grenades, wounding a Chinese sentry. What is more serious, from 13: 00 to 13: 50 hours on September 24 the aggressive Indian troops again opened fierce fire, threw a large number of hand grenades and blew up part of the defensive works of the sentries' post of the Chinese frontier guards to the west of the Che-jao bridge, causing four casual ties among the Chinese sentries. The Chinese Government hereby lodges once again the most serious and strongest protest with the Indian Government against the abovementioned grave crime committed by the aggressive Indian troops, and reserves the right to ask for an apology and compensation from the Indian Government. In its note dated September 21, 1962 the Chinese Government demanded that the Indian side immediately stop its attack on the Chinese frontier guards and withdraw at once from the area of Che Dong and the Che-jao bridge. The Indian Government, while failing to

give an answer so far, has successively created new incidents of bloodshed. In the face of the increasingly frantic armed attacks by the aggressive Indian troops, the Chinese frontier guards cannot but take resolute measures of self-defence. The Indian Government must be held fully responsible for all the consequences arising from this. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 25 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note dated 18th September 1962. The detailed facts in regard to recent developments in the Pangong Lake area have already been given in the Ministry's notes dated 22nd July, 24th July, 2:8th July, 30th July, 15th August, 6 September, 7th September and 13th September 1962. These notes show that there has not only been an increase in the aggressive and pro vocative activities carried on by Chinese forces on Indian territory in this area but also that Chinese forces have been continuously setting up additional aggressive military posts. The western half of the Pangong Lake is an integral part of Indian territory and there can be no justification whatever for the presence of any Chinese forces in that area. It is clear that such intrusions and incidents that have occurred in the area have been caused by Chinese intruders and not by Indian troops. As far as the deployment of Indian defence forces inside Indian territory is concerned this is a matter purely for the Government of India to decide. The Indian Government cannot countenance any interference from the Chinese Government in this regard. The allegation in the Chinese note that on 23rd August 1962, Indian military motor boats on the Pangong Lake had fired 9 shots for reconnaissance purposes at an illegal Chinese post is a repetition of the baseless allegation made once before in the Chinese note of 27th August 1962. This allegation has been fully refuted in the Indian Government's reply dated 6th September 1962. Similar allegations of firing on the 2nd September and 5th September 1962 are equally baseless. In the light .of the facts cited above, the Government of India reject the Chinese note under reference. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the

Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 26 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following: On the morning of September 19, 1962, a patrol team consisting of six Chinese frontier guards was on routine duty near a Chinese post on the northern bank of the Chinese part of the Pangong Lake in Tibet. At about 11 :30, when the patrol team came to a place at about 33° 44.5' N,78° 51' E, it suddenly met with serious provocation from two batches of intruding Indian troops, totalling over 30 in number. The Indian troops, relying on their superior strength, closed in on the Chinese patrol team. One batch of these Indian troops even pressed to within thirty metres or so from the Chinese patrol team. The Chinese patrols repeatedly gesticulated and shouted out warnings. The intruding Indian troops, however not only did not stop their provocations, but continued to press forward, and then crouched down and made preparations for firing. It was only owing to the utmost selfrestraint on the part of the Chinese side that a serious incident was avoided. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest against the above armed provocations by Indian troops. It must be pointed out that intruding Indian troops have more than once made similar provocations in the Pangong Lake area (reference the Chinese Government's notes of July 28 and August 27, 1962); and what is more, this incident took place immediately after the Chinese Government lodged on September 18, 1962 a protest against the Indian side's intrusions and provocations on the waters of the Pangong Lake in Tibet. These facts show that the Indian side is stepping up and expanding its aggressive activities in the Pangong Lake area. Under such circumstances, the Chinese side will have to adopt necessary defensive measures to

protect its own territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 28 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note of 25th September 1962. A detailed account of the recent intrusions by Chinese forces in the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian boundary has already been communicated in the Indian Government's notes dated 17th September, 21st September and 25th September 1962. The Government of India's note of 21st September 1962 gives the correct account of the attack by Chinese troops at 21:30 hours on the 20th September 1962 against an Indian patrol party approximately 1 mile east of the Dhola Indian post (91 ° 42' E 27° 46.5' N). It is significant that in the Chinese note dated 16th September 1962 the coordinates for "Che Dong of the Le village", where the incident is alleged to have occurred, are given as 91 ° 48' E 27° 49' N. As has been pointed out in the Indian Government's note of 25th September 1962, this area is in Tibetan territory and there are no Indian troops present in that location. The actual scene of the clash is south of the Thagla ridge which is the India-China border and is one mile east of the location 91 ° 42' E 27° 46.5' N. This area is indisputably Indian territory into which Chinese forces have intruded. In the light of the above facts the Government of India reject the Chinese note under reference and call upon the Chinese Government ta withdraw their forces immediately from Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 29 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state the following: From 16:40 to 17:05 hours on September 25, 1962, the Indian troops which had intruded into China's Che Dong area again opened fire fiercely at the Chinese sentry post west of the Che-jao bridge, firing more than 700 gun shots and throwing four hand grenades. A Chinese frontier guard was killed and another wounded. The Chinese frontier guards were compelled to return fire in self-defence. Concerning the armed attack launched by Indian troops from 13.00 to 13.50 hours on September 24 on the same Chinese sentry post, the Chinese Government has received a further report from the Chinese frontier guards, which gives the verified casualties of the Chinese side in that incident as three soldiers killed and two officers wounded. The Chinese Government hereby again lodges the strongest protest with the Indian Government against the Indian side's grave crime of continuing to provoke armed clashes and create incidents of bloodshed. The Chinese Government once again warns the Indian side that it must immediately stop its attack on the Chinese frontier guards and withdraw its intruding troops at once from the area of Che Dong, otherwise, the Indian side must bear full responsibility for all the consequences arising therefrom. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy in China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking to the Embassy of India in China, 29 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state as follows: At 00.45 hours on September 29, 1962, the Indian troops who had intruded into China's Che Dong area again attacked the Chinese sentry posit west of the Che-jao bridge firing fiercely with machineguns, submachine-guns and rifles. At the same time, they shelled more than ten rounds at the Chinese frontier guards cast of the bridge. A total of four Chinese soldiers were wounded. The Chinese frontier guards were compelled to act in self-defence. The Chinese Government hereby lodges the strongest protest with the Indian Government against the serious crime of the aggressive Indian troops in making provocative attack on and wounding Chinese soldiers. The Indian Government must bear full responsibility for the crime and all the consequences arising therefrom. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest: consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 29 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note of 4th September 1962. The facts in regard to the villages of Longju and Roi have been fully stated in the Government of India's notes dated 28th May, 6th June and 8th August 1962. It is most regrettable that the Chinese Government should choose to ignore these unassailable facts and persist in repeating baseless allegations. There is not the least doubt that the village of Longju, like the village of Roi, is south of the McMahon line and forms an Integral part of Indian territory. No 'amount of prevarication by the Chinese side can alter this position. No Indian troops visited Longju or Roi on the 18th July 1962, as has been alleged in the Chinese note under reference. Although after their forcible occupation of Longju in August 1959, Chinese forces had withdrawn from Longju sometime in 1961, the Indian side has made no attempt to reenter it, in the interests of a peaceful settlement. Chinese forces on the other hand have shown no such restraint. As recently as the 15th September 1962, 11 armed Chinese and 6 civilians intruded into Longju and then returned the same day to the Tibet region from where they had come. The Governrment of India strongly protest against this latest instance of intrusion into Longju by Chinese forces. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew 10 the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of Its ,highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 1 October 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note dated 18th September 1962. Detailed facts in regard to the incident have already been communicated in the Indian Government's note dated 20th September 1962. The Government of India categorically reject the untenable claim made in the Chinese note under reference that Indian troops had intruded into Chinese territory and "pressed close to the defence positions" of a Chinese post. On the contrary, the incident had occurred as a result of Chinese troops advancing menacingly on an Indian post in the area and unscrupulously opening fire on it. The location at which the incident took place is 78° 08' 15" E 35° 07' 45" N. This area is over one hundred miles west of the International Boundary in this region where Chinese troops could have no justification to be present. In the light of the above facts, the Government of India, while rejecting the Chinese note under reference, stress once more the urgent need for putting a stop to the aggressive forward patrolling by Chinese forces in Indian territory and for their Immediate withdrawal. . The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy' of India in China, 3 October 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the India Government’s note of September ]9, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: 1. The Chinese Government regrets that the Indian Government has once again refused its proposal for speedily and unconditionally holding discussions on the Sino-Indian boundary question on the bas1s of the report of the officials of the two countries. 2. The Indian Government has also refused the Chinese Government's reiterated proposal that the armed forces of each side withdraw 20 kilometres along the entire border. The aim of the Indian Government in doing so is quite clear. Taking advantage of the cessation of border patrols by the Chinese frontier guards, the Indian side again crossed the so-called McMahon Line last June and intruded into the Che Dong area to its north in China's Tibet region and has since then set up four aggressive strongpoints at Che Dong, Jung putiu, Chekuopu and Kalung. The proposal for each side to with draw 20 kilometres would obviously hinder the Indian side from carrying out its aggressive activities in the eastern as well as the western and middle sectors. While sending China a note on September 19 refusing the Chinese proposal for a peaceful settlement of has since September 20 launched continuous attacks on the Chinese frontier guards in the Che Dong area and, as of September 30, killed 5 and wounded 9 Chinese frontier guards. Such unbridled provocation and attacks have not stopped up to now. It is clear that the Indian Government is determined to answer the Chinese Government's peace proposal with rifles and guns. The Chinese Government cannot but express deep indignation at this. 3. The Indian Government pretentiously repeated in its note that discussions on the boundary question can only be held after the border

tension has been eased. This is downright hypocrisy. Can it be that the Indian troops' crossing the so-called McMahon Line and firing at Chinese frontier guards are an Indian effort to ease the border tension? Whenever India attacks, China is sure to strike back. The Indian Government must bear responsibility for all the serious consequences arising from this. The Indian side on the one band says that discussions on the boundary question can be held only after the border tension has been eased. on the other hand ceaselessly creates tension on the border, thus increasingly complicating the boundary question. Hollow words can deceive no one and calculated deeds of continuously altering the status quo of the boundary unilaterally and by force will certainly bring India no good. 4. It was out of the sincere desire to ease the border tension that the Chinese Government reiterated the proposal for each side to withdraw 20 kilometres. Yet the Indian Government asserted in its note that this proposal "suffers from the serious defect that it leaves the aggressor, who altered the status quo by unilateral action over the last few years, in possession of the fruits of his aggression." As a matter of fact, it is India itself that altered the status quo of the boundary unilaterally and by force, not only over the last few years, but for more than ten years. Regarding the western and middle sectors, the Chinese Government has already given detailed accounts in its previous Notes. Now, for the eastern sector. China once again points out emphatically that the so-called McMahon Line is utterly illegal and is what the Chinese Government absolutely does not recognize. Actually, before the peaceful liberation of Tibet by China in 1950, it was merely a line which a Briton drew on a map at will and without any basis; a line without any legal or practical value. It was only after China had liberated Tibet that the Indian side unilaterally altered by force the traditional customary line in the eastern sector and pushed its frontier forces up to the so-called McMahon Line. Not satisfied with this, the Indian Government in 1959 occupied Khinzemane, which is north of the so-called McMahon Line, and has now further occupied the Che Dong area. AU these are iron-clad facts of unilateral and forcible alteration of

the status-quo of the boundary by the Indian side. 5. While repeatedly protesting against the Indian actions of altering unilaterally and by force the status quo of the boundary in the western, middle and eastern sectors, the Chinese Government, proceeding from the fundamental interests of the peoples of China and India, has never made restoration of the original state of the boundary a pre-condition for the holding of boundary negotiations between China and India. The Chinese Government holds that no pre-condition should be set for the negotiations on the boundary question. This has been, and still remains, the attitude of the Chinese Government. It is not difficult for the Asian countries and all peace-loving countries to see from this that the Chinese Government is sincerely working for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. The Indian Government, however, insists in its note on a pre-condition for the discussions on the boundary question, namely, the so-called status quo of the Sino-Indian boundary in the western sector as conceived by India must first be restored, which means that China must withdraw from vast tracts of its own territory before discussions on the Sino-Indian boundary question can start. This is absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese Government. It is clear that the Indian Government has raised the question in such a way because it wants to make the two sides bog down in endless procedural debates in a continuous exchange of notes, thus making it utterly impossible to start discussions on the boundary question. 6. The Chinese Government is against setting any preconditions for the discussions on the Sino-Indian boundary question. But it does not object to discussing any question the Indian side may raise during the discussions on the Sino-Indian boundary question. The Indian note says that only certain questions concerning the western sector of the boundary will be discussed. Why only discuss the western sector? The eastern sector being the most pressing question at present, what reason is there for not discussing it? The Chinese Government now once again proposes

that discussions on the Sino-Indian boundary question be started at once between the two Governments on the basis of the report of the officials of the two sides; that during the discussions questions concerning the middle and eastern sector of the boundary must be discussed as well as those concerning the western sector, in a word, that neither side should refuse to discuss any question concerning the Sino-Indian boundary that may be raised by the other side. 7. As regards the concrete arrangement, the Chinese Government has noted that .the Indian Government has agreed to the proposal for holding discussions from October 15 first in Peking and then in Delhi, alternately. The Chinese Government is prepared to receive on, October 15 the representative to be sent by the Indian side. It suggests that other relevant details be promptly discussed and decided upon through diplomatic channels. The Chinese Government awaits the reply of the Indian Government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 4 October 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and has the honour to state the following: The intruding Indian troops have recently set up two more strong points on Chinese territory for aggressive purposes. One is located at approximately 35° 08'5' N ,78° 14' E, at a place south of the Chip Chap valley inside Sinkiang. The other is located at approximately 33° 39'5' N,78° 45' E, on the southern bank of the Pangong Lake in side Tibet. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest against these aggressive Indian acts of setting up more and more strongpoints and nibbling more and more Chinese territory. The Chinese Government once again demands that the Indian Government withdraw all its aggressive strongpoints illegally set up in Chinese territory. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 6 October 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the note presented to the Charge d'Affaires of India at Peking on 3rd October, 1962. The Government of India regret that the Chinese Government have not only turned down the proposal to hold further discussions regarding measures to remove the current tensions in the Western sector, the implementation of which is a necessary preliminary to the creation of a climate of confidence between the two Governments for constructive discussions to resolve the differences over the border question, but categorically have stated that any consideration of measures for restoration o( the status quo of the boundary unilaterally altered by force is absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese Government. How can any talks take place in the context of this precondition? The Government of India have repeatedly stated their desire to enter into talks and discussions, first to devise measures to reduce tensions and to create a climate of confidence, and then to undertake purposeful and constructive discussions in the improved climate to resolve the differences between the two Governments over the border question. The Government of India's approach in this matter of takes and discussions has been clear and straightforward-preliminary talks to ease tensions and to create the appropriate climate of confidence to be followed by further purposeful talks, after implementation of measures to ease tensions and restore confidence have been taken, to resolve differences between the two Governments on the boundary question on the basis of the report of the officials. If there has been any double-dealing or hypocrisy, it is entirely on the Chinese side as can be seen in the succeeding four paragraphs below. The Government of China have repeatedly stated in their communications

sent to the Government of India that they have all along refrained from disturbing the status quo of the eastern sector of the boundary along the McMahon line, though they did not recognise it, as they were respecting the actualities of the situation. This boundary, running along the highest Himalayan watershed ridges, has been the traditional and customary boundary between India and Tibet for centuries and Indian administration had been established right up to it. This was conc1usively proved by the Indian officials at the talks of 1960. The Agreement of 1914 — The McMahon Line Agreement-merely formalised the traditional boundary and gave it the added sanction of confirmation by treaty. The Government of China have recently accepted the eastern section of the McMahon line as the traditional watershed boundary between China and Burma. They have also in their recent publication, "Selected Documents on SinoIndian Relations", issued in 1962, attached a map showing the McMahon line as the alignment along "the Himalayan mountains". This makes dear that even according to the Chinese, it was not just "a line which a Briton drew on a map at will without any basis" but the highest watershed ridge in this area. Despite this dear knowledge of the boundary, the Chinese forces have, during the last month, while notes were being exchanged for holding talks and discussions, intruded into Indian territory in the eastern sector and have been attacking Indian forces since 20th September. The Government of India have in these notes of 17th, 21st, 25th and 28th September given full details of this unwarranted and deliberate Chinese violation of the status quo of the border. The Government of India in their note of 25th September requested the Government of China, in the light of the full details given by them regarding this latest intrusion of Chinese forces into Indian territory, to issue immediate instructions to these forces to cease their aggressive activities on Indian territory and to return to Chinese territory across the frontier to the north of the Thagla Ridge, i.e., to the region indicated by the co-ordinates given by the Chinese authorities themselves in their note of 16th September, viz., 27" 49' N

and 91º 48' E. The Government of China have not only not takel1 any action in this regard, continued their aggressive activities in Indian territory and created further tensions in the Eastern sector, which has so far been quiet and peaceful, but are now arguing, on the basis of tensions created by their deliberate aggression, that the eastern sector being the most pressing question at present, should also be discussed. The Government of India will not enter into any talks and discussions under duress or continuing threat of force. The latest Chinese intrusion must be terminated first. The Government of India in their note of 19th September commented on the suggestion of the Chinese Government regarding withdrawal of forces on both sides by 20 kilometres that this suggestion "suffers from the serious defect that it leaves the aggressor who altered the status quo by unilateral action over the last few years in possession of the fruits of his aggression". This comment of the Government of India is fully justified. While India has never altered the traditional status quo of the boundary, it is obviously the Chinese practice to alter the status quo unilaterally whenever they can. This has been further confirmed by the latest action of the Chinese forces during the last month in the eastern sector. Quite apart from the claims of either side, it is clearly established that Chinese forces have, during the last month, crossed the Thagla Ridge and entered into the area on the Indian side. This cannot be denied. And further, they are continually strengthening their position on the Indian side of the Ridge. The Chinese forces have thus advanced into and occupied Indian territory. These facts are clear and no one can be deceived by suggestions for talks and discussions and professions of peaceful settlement when force is actually being employed to grab Indian territory even while these notes for talks and discussions are being exchanged. Nor can anyone be deceived by the false allegation that the Government of India have raised the question in such a way as to bog down the two sides in endless procedural debate and make it utterly impossible to start

discussions on the boundary question. The position of the Government of India in this matter is c1ear as stated in the third paragraph above. It is the Government of China, on the other hand, that want to bog down the talks in endless debates and wrangles by proposing that neither side should refuse to discuss any questions concerning the Sino-Indian boundary that may be raised by the other side. No useful talks and discussions can take place in the absence of a precise agenda and it appears that the Chinese are specifically aiming at creating confusion regarding the proposal for starting talks and discussions merely as a cover for their aggressive and expansionist activities along the IndiaChina border. The Government of India are prepared to make necessary arrangements for starting discussions in Peking or in Delhi from a mutually convenient date as soon as the latest intrusion by Chinese forces in Indian territory south of the McMahon line has been terminated as requested in Government of India's note of 25th September 1962, and the Chinese Government indicate their acceptance of the proposal made in that note, which is reproduced below for ready reference: “The Government of India are prepared to hold further discussions at the appropriate level to define measures to restore the status quo in the Western sector which has been altered by force in the last few years and to remove the current tensions in that area. The implementation of such measures will create a climate or confidence between the two Governments which alone can make possible constructive discussions to resolve the differences between the two Governments on the boundary question on the basis of the report of the officials." The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 6 October 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents Hs compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the notes of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government, dated September 17, 21 and 25, 1962, has the honour to state the following: In its notes to the Indian Government dl1ted September 16, 20, 21 and 25, 1962, the Chinese Government has given clear and detailed accounts of how Indian troops intruded into Che Dong, north of the so-called McMahon Line, established an aggressive strong point, attacked Chinese frontier guards and created incidents of bloodshed there. In the past few days, the Indian troops have again expanded the scope of their encroachment and set up three more aggressive strongpoints in the Che Dong area, one at Chekuopu, east of Che Dong and west of the Che-jao bridge, another at Jungputiu, south-west of Che Dong, and the third at Kalung, west by north of Che Dong. What is even more serious, the Indian troops have become increasingly unbridled in their armed provocations. Against this, the Chinese Government has repeatedly lodged the most serious protests with the Indian Government. The Chinese Government now demands once again that the Indian side immediately stop its armed attacks on the Chinese frontier guards and withdraw from China's Che Dong area. The Indian Government in its notes not only tried hard to deny having engaged in aggressive activities, but went so far as to misrepresent the armed attack launched by the Indian troops at midnight on September 20, in which they killed an officer of the Chinese Frontier Guards and wounded a Chinese soldier, as an incident in which two Chinese soldiers came "up to an Indian patrol post" and "threw two hand-grenades injuring three Indian soldiers," so that the Indian side was "compelled to return the tire in self-defence".

In concocting this lie in its notes, the Indian Government had probably fo0rgotten another version of this incident given by a spokesman of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs on September 21. He then pretentiously said that the Chinese opened tire at an Indian post from some hundreds of yards away, injuring three Indian soldiers. This evident inconsistency in itself suffices to explode the Indian side's clumsy lies. It must also be pointed out that in reply to correpondents on September 22, 1962, Prime Minister Nehru described the bloody clash created by Indian troops as "minor incidents". This irresponsible statement shows that the Indian side is going to continue to "play with fire" on the border. But he who plays with fire will burn himself, and the Indian side is advised to consider carefully the consequences. The Indian Government asserts that Che Dong is to the south of the illegal McMahon Line and is Indian territory. This is wholly incompatible with the actual situation. The so-called McMahon Line was treacherously concocted in 1914 by Britain for the purpose of aggression against China's Tibet. It is illegal and null and void and has never been recognized by any Chinese Government. But according to the original 1914 map of the "McMahon Line", this line ex tends eastward from approximately 27° 44' 6' N, 91° 39' 91, while Che Dong is situated at 27 46' 5' N, 91° 42' E, and so obviously north of the Line. In the map "India and Adjacent Countries" published by the Survey of India in 1959, the so-called McMahon Line has already been shifted further north, yet the Che Dong area is still north of the Line as delineated in this map. During the meeting of the officials of the two countries, the Indian side said in describing its claim line on June 27, 1960 that the western extremity of the so-called McMahon Line was about 13 miles south of the Mela Pass (27' 57' N, 910 40' E). Calculated by this distance, the Che Dong area is still north of the Line. All this shows that whether according to the 1914 original map, the 1959 Indian official map or the Indian officials’ own account, the Che Dong area is undoubtedly to the north of the so-called McMahon Line. The Indian

Government states in its September 17 note that the Indian side said in the officials' meeting that the so-called McMahon Line starts eastward from 27° 48' N, 91° 40' E. It is true that the Indian official said to that effect on July 13, 1960 in reply to a question put by the Chinese side. But his statement was not only at variance with the fact, but also inconsistent with the Indian official's own statement of June 27, 1960. It is utterly untenable for the Indian side now to use that statement as a ground for encroaching on the Che Dong area. The Indian side, after occupying large tracts of Chinese territory south of the so-called McMahon Line, has again and again changed its delineation of this illegal Line and encroached on Chinese territory north of the Line. According to such practice of the Indian side, what boundary could there be between China and India? The fact is very clear. It is precisely the Indian side that has intruded to the north of the illegal McMahon Line and created incidents of bloodshed in the Che Deng area. The Chinese Government expresses its extreme regret and indignation over the Indian Government's practice of willfully distorting facts and calling black white in its notes. It is absolutely futile for the Indian Government to try in this way to absolve itself of the guilt of expanding its aggression and killing and wounding Chinese frontier guards. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 10 October 1962 On 9th October 1962 a batch of the Indian troops which had intruded into the Che Dong area north of the "McMahon Line" crossed the upper reach of the Kechilang river to establish an aggressive strong point at Chihtung (more than 4 kilometres north west of Che Dong). At 09.20 hours on 10th October the aggressive Indian troops launched from Chihtung a fierce attack on the Chinese frontier guards stationed near Chihtung, killing and wounding 11 Chinese frontier guards. The Chinese frontier guards were compelled to act in self defence; by the afternoon of the 10th, the fighting was still on. At 09.40 hours on the same day, the Indian troops which had intruded into and stationed in Che Dong fired provocative shots at the Chinese frontier guards stationed at Paitsai, which is opposite to Che Dong across the river. The Chinese Government hereby lodges the strongest and most serious pro test with the Indian Government against the aggressive Indian troops above mentioned grave crimes of setting up an additional aggressive strong point, launching armed attacks and once again killing and wounding Chinese soldiers, it reserves the right to ask for admission of guilt by and compensation from, the Indian side. It must be pointed out that the fact that the Indian Government sent its aggressive troops across the upper reach of the Kechilang river to launch new attacks on the Chinese frontier guards and spread the war flame over the Che Dong area immediately after it again it refused to negotiate the boundary question with the Chinese Government shows that it is determined to realise by armed attack its ambition of continuously biting off Chinese territory and fully reveals the real policy of the Indian Government invasion under the cover of a false willingness to negotiate and provocation under the false desire to ease tension. The Chinese Government warns the Indian Government; if the Indian side does not immediately stop its armed attacks and withdraw from the Che Dong area

but keeps on creating new incidents of bloodshed the Chinese si de will surely act resolutely in self defence and the Indian Government must bear full responsibility for all the consequences.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 10 October 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note dated 6th October 1962. The Chinese note of 6th October once again bears out the Indian Government's assertion that the Government of China are either completely misinformed about the location of the area, or are deliberately confusing the precise location where the Chinese troops are carrying on aggressive activities on Indien territory. The Chinese note of 16th September had originally stated that Indian forces had stationed themselves in Che Dong of the Le village (approximately 910 48' E, 27° 49' N). The Government of India in their note of 25th September had very clearly indicated that there is a village called Le at the location given by the Chinese Government but that is in Chinese territory and no Indian forces were present there much less Indian military installations. The earlier Indian note of 21st September had also mentioned that the location at which Chinese intruding forces had entered Indian territory was in the vicinity of an Indian post at 910 42' E, 270 46' 5' N. It is indeed surprising to see that the Chinese Government have now abandoned the co-ordinates that they had originally given as the location of "Che Dong" and, without any compunction or embarrassment, have switched over to the co-ordinates given by the Government of India. The Chinese Government's allegation that there is a discrepancy between the account of the incident of the 20th September in the Indian note of the 21st September and the Indian spokesman's statement of the same date is wholly baseless. The statement of the official Indian spokesman was identical with para 2 of the Indian note of September 21st. The Chinese Government have also seen fit to refer disparagingly to the Prime Minister's description on 22nd September of the incidents in the

north-western sector of the eastern boundary of India as of a minor nature. The Government of India hoped that the Chinese Government would see the dangers inherent in their fresh intrusion into Indian territory and would, after verification of the location of their forces get them to withdraw before the situation deteriorated further. That hope has so far been belied. It is not the Government of India but the Chinese Government who are playing with fire by their continuous armed attacks on Indian personnel in Indian territory. The Government of India hope that the Chinese authorities will even now see the error of their ways and correct the situation by withdrawing their forces on their side, i.e. the northern side of the Thagla Ridge. The boundary between India and Tibet in this sector is the traditional alignment along the highest watershed ridge which is the Thagla Ridge. Commencing from a point approximately 91 40' E, .27 48' N, this boundary runs in an east-south-east direction along the crest of this ridge. There can be no room for doubt in regard to this traditional alignment which was described in great detail by the Indian side at the talks of the officials in 1960. The Agreement of 1914-the MacMahon Line Agreement-merely formulised this boundary and gave it the added sanction of confirmation by treaty. The MacMahon line was delineated on maps which were signed by the Chinese and Tibetan representatives. The maps were of the small scale of 1" =8 miles; but even so it was clear that the boundary in this sector lay along the watershed. The map "India and Adjacent Countries" published by the Survey of India 1959 and cited in the Chinese note also shows the boundary running along the watershed ridge; this alignment is identical with that on the map of 1914. The Chinese note has falsely claimed a contradiction in the description of the boundary given by the Indian officials on 27th June, 1960 and that provided by them on 13th July, 1960 and sought to draw from this the unwarranted conclusion that Tse Dong (210° 42' E, 27° 46' 5'N) lies north of the international boundary in this area. There is no basis whatsoever for this presumption. The western extremity

of the MacMahon line does lie about 13 miles from Mela Pass I3.S measured along the international boundary. This is at the point approximately 91º 40' E, 27º 48' N. At the talks of the officials on 27th June, 1960, to which reference has been made in the Chinese note, the Indian officials had repeatedly urged the exchange of maps on very large scales so that the fullest and most precise information about the alignments would be available. It was the Chinese side which rejected this suggestion and provided a map on the diminutive scale of about 1" =80 miles. The reluctance to provide a map on a larger scale, and the statement of the Chinese official on 27th June, 1960 that "there is no need for such an exchange" indicate that the Chinese were satisfied that the boundary ran along the high ridges and no further details were necessary or they were not only ignorant of the topography of the area but also harbored aggressive designs on the Indian border and sought to conceal this beneath the cloak of imprecision. The Government of India once again draw the attention of the Chinese Government to the fact that the presence of Chinese troops on Indian soil either as a result of misconception of the correct alignment of the boundary or as an act of willful aggression constitutes a grave danger and the Chinese Government will be entirely responsible for whatever consequences may follow from their failure to withdraw to their side of the boundary north of the Thagla Ridge. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 11 October 1962 The Indian troops which had intruded into Chedong area after crossing the Kechilang river occupying Chihtung and launching an attack in the morning of 10th October killing and wounding 11 Chinese frontier guards (reference Chinese Government Note of protest dated 10th October 19(2), continued their frenzied attack and killed and wounded 22 more Chinese frontier guards. The Chinese frontier guards having suffered heavy casualties were compelled to strike back in self defence. The aggressive Indian troops fled to the southern bank of the Kechilang river when their attack was thwarted and left behind them 6 corpses and some arms and ammunition. The corpses of the Indian military men have been properly buried on the spot by the Chinese frontier guards. The Chinese Government hereby again lodges the strongest and most serious protest with the Indian Government against the aggressive Indian troops' above mentioned crime of launching continued frenzied attacks and killing and wounding Chinese frontier guards. It reserves the right to ask for admission of guilt and compensation by the Indian side. According to reports from the Chinese frontier guards, the aggressive Indian troops entrenched in the Chedong area are continuing to get reinforcements and preparing for new attacks. The Chinese Government hereby issues another stern warning: should the Indian side still not rein in before the precipice but continue to spread the flames of war, the Indian Government must bear full responsibility for the resulting casualties on both sides and all other consequences that may ensue.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 11 October 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note, dated 26th September 1962. In their note, dated 25th September, 1962, the Government of India have drawn the attention of the Chinese Government to the increase in the aggressive and provocative activities of Chinese forces on Indian territory in the Pangong Lake region and also to the setting up of additional military posts. The Chinese note of 26th September, 1962 makes the untenable claim that these posts are all within Chinese territory. Such an assertion is completely inconsistent with facts. On 19th September 1962, Chinese forces, with a view to cutting off the normal supply lines of Indian posts in the vicinity of the location 78° 51' 15" E, 33° 44' 50" N, encircled two Indian patrols proceeding on normal routine duties and obstructed their line of access to their posts. Chinese forces subsequently set up a post at the same location (78° 51' 15" E, 33° 44' 50" N) with the deliberate aim of obstructing the lines of supply of the Indian posts and harassing them. The new Chinese post is ten miles west of the Indian border and well within Indian territory. There can be no justification whatsoever for the presence of Chinese troops in this area. It is a matter of deep regret to the Government of India that Chinese troops continue to persist in their systematic and deliberate encroachments of Indian territory without any regard to the grave consequences that they may entail. While, therefore, categorically rejecting the Chinese note, dated 26th September 1962, the Government of India lodge a strong protest with the Chinese Government against the setting up of this latest Chinese post on Indian territory at 78° 51' 15" E, and 33° 44' 50" N and demand its immediate withdrawal. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 12 October 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and with regard to the new provocative activities of the Indian side in the Galwan Valley area in Sinkiang China has the honour to state the following: At about 2250 hours on September 28th, 1962 intruding Indian troops fired a shot at the Chinese post located approximately at 34° 37' 20 second N 78° 36' E. At about 1610 hours on October 3rd, 1962 two intruding Indian soldiers pressed forward to the front position of the Chinese post located approximately at :34° :35' 40 second N 78° 35' 30 second E and fired five shots at the Chinese frontier guards. At about 14.00 hours on October 4th, 1962 an Indian helicopter carrying more than 20 Indian soldiers illegally landed at a place at approximately 34° 36' 30 second N 78° 35' 30 second E in the vicinity of a Chinese post in the Galwan Valley area. Only after the Chinese frontier guards issued repeated warnings did the helicopter fly away at about 1700 hours of the same day. But it did not leave China at once, and merely flew to an aggressive Indian firing point on the southern bank of the Galwan River. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a serious protest against the Indian side's above mentioned aggressive activities of wanton intrusion into Chinese territory and airspace and firing of more provocative shots. The Chinese Government deem it necessary to point out that since the intrusion into the Galwan Valley area by Indian troops in July this year .Indian air planes have frequently intruded into the air space over this area, incessantly circled over Chine se posts for reconnaissance purposes and made threats and provocations. Furthermore the landing of the Indian helicopter carrying intruding Indian troops in the vicinity of the Chinese post constitutes a most grave provocation. In order to prevent the situation from aggravating the Chinese side maintained utmost self

restraint and allowed the Indian helicopter to fly away. Should the Indian side stubbornly continue its intrusions and provocations from the air the Chinese side will have to take military measures to stop these repeated intrusions into China's air strips by Indian aircraft and the Indian side must bear the full responsibility for all the consequences arising therefrom. In its Notes dated 13th July, 3rd August and 27th August 1962 the Chinese Government lodged protests and served warnings against the intrusions by more and more Indian troops and aircraft into Galwan Valley area and their increasingly rampant provocations since July this year. The Indian Government has however refused to stop its aggressive activities and engaged in prevarications and denial in its notes of 24th July, 8th August and 6th September 1962. The new provocations by Indian troops in the Galwan Valley area as cited in the present note have thoroughly belied all prevaricating arguments of Indian side. Furthermore the above mentioned incidents took place precisely after the aggressive Indian troops made armed attacks in the Che Dong area in Tibet and killed and wounded Chinese officers and men there. These facts once again show that the Indian side is aiming at extending its aggressive activities and creating armed clashes along the entire Sino-Indian boundary. They also show that that the Indian side is persisting in its "dual policy'" towards China of paying lip-service to holding talks while actually' preparing to fight. But this will certainly bring no good to India.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 13 October 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the note of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government dated September 28, 1962, has the honour to state the following: In its note of September 25, 1962, the Chinese Government lodged the most serious and strongest protest with the Indian Government against the grave crimes of repeatedly attacking Chinese frontier guards and killing and wounding them on September 21, 22 and 24, committed by intruding Indian troops in China's Che Dong area. In its reply dated September 28, the Indian Government not only refused to give an account of the Indian crimes of aggression, but also deliberately distorted the Chinese Government's note of September 16, 1962, asserting that it gave the co-ordinates of Che Dong as 270 49' N, 910 48' E. Such willful trouble- making can only show how .devoid of reason India is. It was explicitly pointed out in the very beginning of the Chinese note of September 16 that "Indian troops recently again crossed the so-called McMahon Line, and intruded into Che Dong of China's Leh Village (approximately 27 49' N, 91 48' E)." The co-ordinates given in the note come right after Leh 'Village and not after Che Dong. Everybody can see that the coordinates given there are clearly for Leh Village, not for Che Dong. As the Indian side itself knows, Che Dong which it has occupied is located at approximately 270 46'5' N, 910 42' E. Nevertheless, it deliberately tries to mislead the public in an attempt to divert attention. As is well known, Che Dong is one of the pastures in the Kechilang grassland and has always been under the administration of Leh Village. The inhabitants of Leh Village have for generations grazed cattle at Che Dong and handed in their payment for the pasturage to Leh Village authorities. Even the Indian Government has had to acknowledge the fact explicitly that Leh Village has always belonged to China. None of India's

pretexts for its aggression are tenable. Following its occupation of Che Dong and its vicinity, India has now made further advances and expanded the flames of war it started in the Che Dong area. The Chinese Government hereby serves another warning: The Indian Government must bear the full responsibility for all the consequences that may arise from India's playing with fire. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 13 October 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state as follows: The Indian troops that had crossed the illegal McMahon Line to intrude into the Che Dong area in Tibet, after launching a frantic attack on October 10 against the Chinese .frontier guards in the vicinity of Chihtung along the upper reaches of the Kechilang River, on October 11 intruded into the area of Niangpa, Tang, Jihtingpu and Keningnai, which are to the east and north of the lower reaches of the river. The aggressive Indian troops concerned advanced on the local Chinese frontier posts, with some of them coming as close as 30 metres of the positions of the Chinese frontier guards, and attempted to make an attack. Meanwhile, aggressive Indian troops have been continually airdropped in the Changto area north of the illegal McMahon Line in preparation for war. Against these actions the Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong pro test with the Indian Government. These new aggressive actions of the Indian troops show conclusively that, after their frantic attack at Chihtung was defeated, the Indian aggressors are attempting to make a renewed trial in the lower reaches of the Kechilang River. Should the Indian side disregard the repeated protests and warnings by the Chinese Government and persist stubbornly in expanding its scope of aggression and continuing its attacks on the Chinese frontier guards, the latter will surely continue to strike back resolutely. The Indian aggressors must bear full responsibility for the consequences of their crimes. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 14 October 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's notes dated 28th and 29th September 1962. The detailed facts regarding the Chinese intrusion in the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian boundary south of the Thagla ridge have already been given in the Government of India's notes dated 17th, 21st, 25th and 28th September 1962. It is clear that the Chinese Government alone are responsible for the serious situation that has been created by the Chine se forces crossing the international boundary and launching an attack on Indian defence forces at a point approximately one mile east of 91° 42' E 27° 46.5' N. No amount of prevarication by the Chinese side can conceal this latest instance of Chinese aggression across the Indian border. The Government of India accordingly reject the Chinese note under reference, and once again call upon the Chinese Government to withdraw their intruding forces back into Chinese territory. At the same time, the Government of India reserve the right to demand from the Chine se Government full compensation for the wanton damage to Indian life and property caused by the above aggressive activities of Chinese forces on Indian territory. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurance of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 15 October 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's notes dated 9th September, 13th September, 24th September and 4th October 1962. Although the co-ordinates given in the Chinese notes are not correct, it is a fact that the Government of India have some posts in these general locations. All the locations mentioned are, without exception, well inside Indian territory, some of them as much as a hundred miles west of the international boundary in this region. These posts have been necessitated by the threat posed in recent years to the security and territorial integrity of India by Chinese forces advancing and illegally occupying Indian territory. It is needless to reiterate that the deployment of Indian defence forces in these areas is a matter solely within the competence of the Government of India and no outside party has any right to interfere in it. Chinese forces have not only intruded deep inside Indian territory in this region but there has been no halt to their aggressive forward patrolling and setting up of new posts in Indian territory. Detailed facts in regard to such Chinese activity in Ladakh in recent months have been given in the Indian Government's notes dated 22nd August, 24th August, 28th August, 7th September and 21st September 1962. As regards the allegations made in the Chinese note dated 13th September, 1962 of an incident that took place on 2nd September, 1962, the facts have already been communicated in detail to the Chinese Government in the Government of India's notes dated 2nd and 3rd September 1962. This incident was sparked off by a large Chinese military force intruding into Indian territory and attacking an Indian patrol proceeding on a routine task in the area south of the Chip Chap river region (78° 17' 15" E 35° 08' 15" N) The incident that took place on the

5th September 1962 was also similarly due to Chinese soldiers provocatively advancing on Indian defence forces at a point approximately 78° 17' 30" E 35° 08' 15" N as has been conveyed in the Indian Government's note dated 10th September 1962. There is absolutely no basis for the allegation of a shooting incident on 29th August. It will be clear that it is the Chine se forces who have been constantly pushing forward and encroaching on Indian territory. They have, by their aggressive and provocative activities over the past few years, been solely responsible for mounting tension in this area. In the light of the above facts, the Government of India reject the four Chinese notes under reference. The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 16 October 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and with reference to the notes presented to the Indian Charge d'Affaires in Peking by the Chinese Government on the 10th, 11th and 13th October regarding the clashes between Indian defence posts and the intruding Chinese forces in Indian territory to the south of the Thagla Ridge on 20th September and 10th October, has the honour to state that the Chinese authorities still continue to confuse the location where these clashes occurred and to misrepresent the factual details of these clashes. This Ministry had, in its note of the 21st September, given full and accurate details of the clash that occurred on the 20th September. Il was the Chinese intruding forces who mounted an attack On an Indian defence post and the latter had to return the tire in self-defence. This clash occurred approximately a mile to the east of the Dhola Indian post in the area. The clash on the 10th of October occurred in an area approximately 2 miles to the north-west of the Dhola Indian post. The Chinese threw a grenade at the Indian defence post at 20.30 hours on the 9th October. Next morning they followed this up with a severe attack using 2-inch mortar guns, automatic weapons and grenades. The Indian defence forces had to return the Chinese tire in self-defence. In the fighting that ensued, the Indian forces suffered 17 casualties. These are the incontrovertible facts regarding the two clashes. The sites of these clashes are also conclusively established by the details given in the Chinese and Indian notes exchanged since 16th September, The area in which these clashes occurred is south of the Thagla Ridge, which is the boundary between India and the Tibet region of China in this sector. Despite the attempts at confusion made by the Chinese authorities, certain facts stand out clearly, The Himalayan water-shed range in the

region has all along been the traditional and customary boundary. This boundary was further confirmed by the Agreement of 1914. There has never been any doubt in the minds of the local authorities and inhabitants of the are as on both sides of the frontier as to where the international boundary in this sector lies. The Chine se authorities must be aware that it is the common practice of the villagers on both sides of the frontier to take their cattle for grazing on either side of the frontier, but in each case they pay grazing fees to the local authorities of the area concerned. This was so even after the People's Government of China had established their control in Tibet. The villagers of Le in Tibet were permitted to use the pastures in the Namkha Chu river valley. which lies immediately to the south of the Thagla Ridge and where the intruding Chinese forces have been mounting attacks on the Indian defence forces, on payment of grazing fees in accordance with the request in writing "Tsarin should be collected and deposited with the Government of India"made by the Chine se official at Tsona in August 1953. There had been similar cases of villagers on the Indian side of the frontier grazing their animals on the northern slopes of the Thagla Ridge on paying grazing fees to Le village. This mutual accommodation So far as the grazers on the two sides are concerned does not alter but in fact confirms the international frontier, which lies along the crest of the Thagla Ridge. In August 1959 a Chinese party led by a Chinese Army Officer and a civilian official met the Indian Assistant Political Officer of the area, at Khinzemane. The latter told the Chinese officials that the correct frontier lay along the Thagla Ridge upto Khinzemane and the Chinese party went back. In the talks between the officials of the two Governments in 1960 the same position was reiterated by the Indian side, viz. that the international frontier in this area lay along the Thagla Ridge, which is the highest water-shed ridge in that area. Le village of which the co-ordinates were given in the Chinese note of the 16th September, lies to the north of the Thagla Ridge and is in the Tibet

Region of China. The intruding Chinese forces have crossed the Thagla Ridge and are now to the south of it. During the last few weeks these intruding Chinese forces have been reinforced, have been aggressive and provocative and have attacked Indian defence forces in Indian territory, major attacks having been launched on the 20th of September and the 10th of October. ln each case it was the Chinese intruding forces which attacked the Indian forces and the latter had to return the fire in selfdefence. These facts speak for themselves. It is beyond doubt, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, that the international boundary in this sector lies along the crest of the Thagla Ridge and that the Chinese authorities are fully aware of this position. The intrusion of the Chinese forces and their attacks on Indian defence forces in the area to the south of the Thagla Ridge during the last few weeks are deliberate acts of aggression in pursuance of the threat that the Chinese authorities held out as early as 30th November 1961 when they stated in a note: "the Chinese Government would have every reason to send troops to cross the socalled 'McMahon Line' and enter the vast area between the crest of the Himalayas and their southern foot". It is clear that the tension and conflict in this sector of the Eastern boundary is the result of deliberate aggression by Chinese forces; and the responsibility for the consequences of these aggressive acts must therefore rest solely on the Government of China. It is the Chinese forces who have to accept the guilt for intruding into Indian territory, continuing to secure reinforcements and mounting concerted attacks on Indian defence posts on Indian soil. It is the Government of China who are not only refusing to undertake talks and discussions for easing of tension and for creating the appropriate climate for purposeful talks and discussions to resolve the differences between the Governments of India and China on the boundary question, but are creating further tension and conflict in another section of the boundary viz., in the Eastern sector, by pushing their forces across the frontier into Indian territory and mounting

concerted attacks on Indian defence forces. The responsibility for these new incidents and the loss of Indian lives rests squarely on the shoulders of the Chinese authorities, who must bear full responsibility for the consequences. If the repeated Chinese professions of resolving the differences peacefully by discussions have any meaning, it is still open to the Government of China to direct their forces south of the Thagla Ridge to return to their side of the boundary, i.e. on the northern side of the ridge. The Government of India cannot and will not permit intrusions into, and aggressive' activities against Indian defence forces in, Indian territory to go unchallenged. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 19 October 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note dated 12th October, 1962. The allegations in the Chinese note of firing by Indian defence forces on 28th September and 3rd October, 1962, are absolutely baseless. There has been no firing on the specified dates, in the areas mentioned. On the other hand, the Government of India must once again draw the attention of the Chinese Government to the fact that both the areas referred to namely, 78º 36' E 34º 37’ 20" N and 78º 35' 30" E 34º 35' 40" N are located well inside Indian territory. The Chinese forces have no business to be in these are as in Indian territory. Their presence there is continuing act of aggression by China on the territory of India. The Chinese note has further referred to the landing by an Indian helicopter a t a place approximately 78º 35' 30" E 34 º 36' 30" N. As stated in the preceding paragraph, this location is also well inside Indian territory being over 70 miles to the west of the international boundary in this region. The Government of India have already indicated that intruding Chinese forces have established four camps and five strongpoints around the Indian defence post on the Galwan river. The present Chinese allegation of aggressive Indian activity in the Galwan area is not likely to mislead anybody. The Chinese Government should be aware that these' baseless allegations are being made merely as a cloak for their aggressive and hostile activities in this region. It is not the Indian but the Chinese side that is adopting the "dual policy" of professing a desire for peaceful settlement of the border question while pursing at the same time the path of flagrant aggression. This is clearly established by the fact that it is China which not only committed aggression On Indian territory in the Western sector of the frontier but

also started last month another aggression in the north-western area of the Eastern sector of the boundary. No threats of force or use of force by the Chinese will deter the Government of India from their firm determination to defend the territorial integrity of India. In the light of the above facts, the Government of India categorically reject the Chinese note under reference. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 20 October 1962 The Chinese Government received successive urgent reports from the Chinese frontier guards on October 20th to the effect that Indian troops had launched massive general attacks against Chinese frontier guards in both Eastern and Western sectors of the Sino-Indian border simultaneously. The Chinese Government hereby lodges the most urgent the most serious and the strongest protest with the Indian Government. In the Eastern sector, the Indian forces of aggression had in the three days since 17th October repeatedly directed vehement artillery bombardments against the Chinese frontier guards in the area between Kalung and the Sechang lake in the upper reaches of the Kechilang river, and in the Che-jao bridge area in the middle reaches of the river in the Chedong area in China's Tibet region. At the same time great number of Indian troops had moved continuously to concentrate at Pangkangting south of the Chedong bridge. At 7 O'clock (Peking time) in the morning of 20th October the aggressive Indian forces, under the cover of tierce artillery tire launched massive attacks against the Chinese frontier guards all along the Kechilang river and in the Khinzemane area. In the Western sector the Indian forces of aggression entrenched in the Chip Chap Valley and the Galwan Valley in Sinkiang also launched general attack early in the morning of the 20th against Chinese frontier guards under the cover of fierce gun tire. Two days before that is on 18th October the Indian forces occupying the Chip Chap Valley had already begun closing in on the Chinese frontier posts in preparation for these attacks. The above mentioned frenzied attacks by the aggressive Indian forces on Chinese territory in both Eastern and Western sectors of the Sinkiang Indian boundary have caused heavy casualties to the Chinese frontier guards. Pressed beyond the limits of forbearance and forced to where no further retreat was possible the Chinese frontier guards were compelled

to strike back in self-defence. It must be seriously pointed out that the present massive general attack by the Indian forces were prepared over a long time by India. On 6th October the Indian Government for the third time flatly rejected China's proposal for holding discussions on the basis of 22nd March report of the Officials of the two countries. On 12th October Indian Prime Minister NEHRU declared that he has issued instructions to "free" China's territory of Chinese troops. On 14th October Indian Defence Minister MENON stated that they would tight China to the last man and the last gun. On 16th October immediate by after his return to New Delhi from abroad Prime Minister NEHRU summoned a meeting of high ranking military officers to step up war dispositions. And on October 20th the Indian forces brazenly unleashed their massive general attacks on Chinese territory in the Sino-Indian border. The Chinese Government has always stood for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. The Indian Government after flatly refusing to negotiate has launched massive general attacks against the Chinese frontier guards on Chinese territory. China has no choice but to rebuff these frenzied attacks resolutely. The fight is still going on. The Indian Government must bear full responsibility for all the serious consequences arising therefrom.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 26 October 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to the Chinese Government's note dated 20th October, 1962, on the recent grave developments in the Eastern and Western sectors of India's northern border. The Government of India take the strongest objection to the deliberate distortion of facts that is contained in the Chinese Government's note. The falsity of Chinese claims is only matched by the reckless cynicism with which they have begun large scale hostilities in which Indian posts in Indian territory have been attacked and air craft evacuating casualties have been shot down. At 0500 hours on 20th October Chinese intruding forces mounted a fierce offensive with machine gun and heavy mortar fire against Indian defence positions along the Namkha Chu river and also at Khinzemane. The Indian post at Khinzemane was surrounded and wireless contact was lost with the post at 0700 hours the same day. Subsequently the Indian posts at Dhola and Tsangdhar were overrun by Chinese troops in major battle offensives. Not only were Indian defence positions on the ground subjected to Chinese attack but Chinese forces also unscrupulously shot down two Indian helicopters which were engaged in evacuating casualties from the area. It will be seen from the above facts that it is Chinese forces and not Indian forces that have "brazenly unleashed their massive general attacks". Even as recently as in their note dated 13th October the Chinese Government had been protesting against the existence of Indian defence positions at Tse Dong (91 42' E 27° 46. 5' N). The fact that the fighting today is taking place far south of Tse Dong is dear evidence that Chinese forces are aggressively pressing forward into Indian territory. No prevarication by the Chinese Government can conceal

this basic truth. In the Western sector also, Chinese intruding forces similarly launched a series of planned attacks from the evening of 19th October. Fighting in this area has continued unabated from the 19th October and Chinese forces have to date over-run several legitimate Indian defence posts in the area. That Chinese attacking forces have been supported by heavy mortar and mountain artillery tire and by tanks indicates beyond doubt that these attacks too form part of a premeditated and large scale Chinese offensive into Indian territory. The Chine se Government are aware that in spite of the initiative taken by the Government of India since July this year for talks and discussions on measures to reduce tensions prior to substantive discussions on the India-China boundary in the Western sector, the Chinese Government, both in their notes and by their aggressive military policies, had indicated their lack of interest in any civilized solution to differences between the two countries. On 3rd August 1962 the Chinese Foreign Minister, Marshal Chen Yi, unequivocally stated that no force in the world could oblige Chinese troops to with draw from their own territory either in the past or in the future. On the next day, in their note of August 4th, the Chinese Government had the effrontery to write that "it approves of the suggestion put forth by the Indian Government in its note for further discussions on the Sino-Indian boundary question on the basis of the report of the officials of the two countries." In plain words, they were ready to discuss on the clear understanding that they hold what they have taken by force over a period of years. The hollowness of Chinese professions was soon patent once again when on 8th September, Chinese military forces committed fresh aggression in an area which had been comparatively quiet for some years. They marched across the Indian frontier-the Thagla Ridge in the north-western sector of the Eastern boundary-into undisputable Indian territory. This was followed by unscrupulous attacks on Indian posts in the NEF A on 20th September and 10th October.

While notes were being exchanged to correct the situation created by this further Chinese aggression, the Chinese satisfied with their assessment of the military situation from the result of their probing attacks on 20th September and 10th October, launched an all-out military offensive on the 20th October along the entire India-China boundary. This offensive still continues and Chinese forces are continuing to mount heavy attacks on Indian defence positions and are advancing into Indian territory. The hypocrisy of the Chine se allegations in their note that the Indian Government for the third time flatly rejected the Chine se proposal for holding discussions is clearly established from the facts in the preceding paragraphs. The repeated professions of the Chinese Government reiterated even in the present note, that "the Chinese Government have always stood for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question" are sheer hypocrisy and were only intended to deceive while massive preparations for invasion of India were being made by the Chinese. Obviously this hurling of Chinese military might against India's limited border defence forces had only one objective viz. to force India to accept a settlement on Chine se terms. The Government of India can never agree to talk or discuss under threat of force. They stand by their earlier position that before any talks can be considered there must be a restoration of the position that existed in early September 1962. While rejecting the Chinese note under reference, the Government of India pro test most categorically against this blatant aggression by China which will be resisted at all cost. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 12 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs present their compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and have the honour to refer to the Ministry's note dated the 17th July 1962. It was pointed out in that note that, due to various arbitrary regulations introduced by the Chinese authorities in Tibet, the terms of Indo-Tibetan trade had been radically altered so as to make it difficult for Indian traders to dispose of large quantities of goods already imported into Tibet. Indian nationals also own some immoveable property in Tibet and large sums of money are owed to them by Tibetans. The Government of India desire that equitable compensation should be paid by the Chinese authorities for all property, moveable and immoveable left behind by Indian nationals in Tibet due to causes beyond their control and propose that talks to determine the quantum of compensation to be paid to the affected Indian nationals should be started urgently. The Ministry of External Affairs avail themselves of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of their highest consideration.

Aide Memoire given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 25 September 1962 In the course of discussions on the withdrawal of Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet, the Chinese Embassy was informed of the Government of India's intention to retain their property and buildings in Yatung under the charge of the Indian Consul-General at Lhasa. In this Ministry's Aide Memoire dated the 1st June 1962 it was further stated that the Indian ConsulGeneral would maintain a small staff for the upkeep of the property and buildings which would be used as a resting place for Indian officials and diplomatic couriers proceeding to and returning from Lhasa. 1 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese People's Republic informed the Indian Embassy in Peking on the 2nd June 1962 that they were agreeable to the retention of the buildings of the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung by the Government of India under the charge of their Consul-General in Lhasa. The request that Indian staff might remain in Yatung to look after the property was, however, not acceded to. The Indian Trade Agent at Yatung accordingly appointed Tibetan staff consisting of 5 persons to maintain the buildings left behind by him. 2 The Government of India are extremely surprised that, despite the understanding reached earlier, the Chinese authorities have persistently refused to permit Indian officials and couriers to make use of the former Agency building in Yatung as a resting place on their way to or from Lhasa. It has been further reported that some members of the staff deputed to look after the buildings have since been asked to leave the Agency premises by the local authorities. 4. The buildings of the Indian Trade Agency in Yatung have be longed to the Government of India for several years and continue to be their property, to be used by them in accordance with their local requirements. The Government of India regret the arbitrary action taken by the Chinese local authorities and wish to emphasise that the fact of legal ownership which is undisputed carries with it the legal right to utilise

the building as and when required. 3 The Government of India emphatically protest against the action, of the local Chinese authorities in removing forcibly the staff employed to maintain the buildings. The Government of India would request the Chinese Embassy to move the Government of China to take immediate steps to ensure that the legitimate rights of Indian officials to maintain and use their property in Yatung are restored with immediate effect. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Memorandum given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 8 October 1962 Reference the memorandum of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, dated July 25, 1962 to the Chinese Embassy in India. As Deputy Director Chang Tung of the First Department of Asian Affairs of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs clearly pointed out on June 2, 1962, to Mr. P. K. Banerjee, Charge d'Affaires a.i. of the Indian Embassy in China, the Chinese side agrees that the buildings of the former Indian Trade Agency at Yatung may be put under the charge of the Indian Consulate-General in Lhasa. But the Chinese Government cannot accede to the Indian request that a small staff be allowed to remain to look after the buildings and that Indian officials and couriers be permitted to use these buildings as a resting place on their way to or from Lhasa, as this would be tantamount to the setting up of another official establishment on Chinese soil, which is both inconceivable and unacceptable. It turned out, however, that the Indian side, in withdrawing its trade agency from Yatung, unilaterally kept in the buildings quite a number of the personnel of its former Trade Agency at Yatung. The Chinese Government greatly regrets this. It must be pointed out that the buildings of the former Indian Trade Agency at Yatung were maintained by the Indian Government under the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet Region of China and India and the Notes exchanged by the two countries in its regard, and that the land on which the buildings stand was leased by the Indian Government under the same Agreement and Notes. It can thus be seen that these buildings can only be used for specific purposes. Now the Agreement is no longer in force and the Indian Trade Agency has been abolished, yet the Indian side is trying to take advantage of its ownership of the buildings to set up another official establishment in actuality in Chinese territory. The Chinese Government naturally cannot agree to it. Therefore, it is entirely unjustifiable for the Indian Government to lodge the protest with the Chinese side. The Chinese Government categorically rejects this protect.

Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi to the Embassy of China in India, 31 October 1962 Reference Memorandum, dated 8th October, 1962 from the Government of the People's Republic of China. The building of the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung has been the property of the Government of India for several decades. When the. Trade Agency was withdrawn in 1962, the Chinese Embassy had been clearly informed of the Government of India's intention to retain their property and buildings at Yatung under the charge of the Indian Consul General at Lhasa. It was also stated by the Government of India that the building would be used as a resting place for Indian officials proceeding to and returning from Lhasa in the course of the performance of their official duties. The Indian Government's request was fully in keeping with international custom and practice. The Chinese Government had informed the Indian Embassy in Peking on the 2nd June 1962 that they were agreeable to the retention of the buildings by the Government of India under the charge of the Consulate General in Lhasa. However, by later on denying permission to use the building, the Chinese Government has effectively gone back on its earlier assurance as the right to the use of property is an essential and fundamental right that arises from ownership. In accordance with the stipulation of the Government of the People's Republic of China, the Government of India even did not keep any Indian nationals as maintenance staff but instead retained 5 Tibetan ex-employees of the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung. The Government of India were therefore, naturally surprised when these employees, too, were turned out of the building later on by the local authorities. The Agency premises and the buildings are now not being looked after by anyone. It is understood that the locks of some of the quarters have been removed and some window panes have also been broken. The Agency building has belonged to the Government of India for several decades and in paragraph (4) of the notes exchanged between the two Governments on 29th April, 1954, it has been clearly stated that all

buildings within the compound wall of the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung may be retained by the Government of India. It has also been stated that the Government of India may continue to lease the land within the agency building from the Chinese side. This clearly shows that the land within the compound' wall on which the building stands was already on lease with the' Government of India several years prior to the conclusion of the 1954 Agreement. It was only at the unreasonable and arbitrary insistence of the Chinese Government that a fresh lease deed for the land was signed between the two Governments on the 18th of January 1958, for a period of 10 years, although such a procedure was uncalled for in terms of the Agreement. The Chinese Government's unwarranted denial of facilities to the Government of India for taking care of their property and building at Yatung and their plea that if Indian officials and couriers are permitted to use these buildings as a resting place it would be tantamount to the setting up of another official establishment on the Chinese soil constitute further testimony of the uncooperative and obstructive attitude that has all along characterised the actions of the Chinese Government in Tibet. The Government of India hold the Government of the People's Republic of China responsible for any loss or damage that has already been caused, or may be caused in future, to the Agency building as a result of these unwarranted actions of the Chinese Government.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 14 August 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to state that in its Aide Memoire of 20th June 1962 and Note of 26
th

July 1962 the Ministry

of External Affairs drew the attention of the Chinese Embassy to the harassment that the Indian Trade Agents at Yatung and Gyantse were subjected to by local authorities resulting in vexatious delay in the withdrawal of the Trade Agencies. The Foreign Bureau raised a number of issues with the Indian Trade Agent at Gyantse and made the unreasonable demand that they should be settled to their satisfaction before his departure. The specific questions raised by the local authorities are as follows: 1- Payment of arrears of rent at Gyantse Reference has already been made in the Aide Memoire of 20
th

June to the

unreasonable claims made by local authorities for arrears of rent unsupported by any lease deed, written understanding or agreement. The rental claimed for the period between the departure of the former landlord and the signing of the new lease-deed on the 28th November 1961 was arbitrarily fixed by the Chinese authorities on the basis of the rental agreed to in the new lease deed. Even though the monthly rental paid to the former landlord was lower than that claimed by the Chinese authorities, there is no legal basis for this enhanced claim. The claim for rental of Changlo Linka is also completely arbitrary as no lease deed has been signed by the Government of India and China for this land. The responsibility for failure to sign the lease deed lay entirely with the Chinese local authorities as the Indian Consul-General at Lhasa and the Indian Trade Agent in Gyantse had carried" out protracted negotiations with the Chinese authorities for the settlement of outstanding questions.

The claim made for rental of Changlo Linka was vaguely fixed on the basis that the land belonged to the former landlord till January .1961 and that for the "convenience of accounting" it had been decided that rent would be charged from the 16th January 1961. The arbitrary character of this claim and the absence of any legal basis to support it render it untenable. ' The Government of India, however, did not like to prolong this correspondence as it is clear that the local Chinese authorities with their past attitude could not but consistently continue to be petty "minded and difficult in this matter. The Indian Trade Agent was, therefore, authorised to make payment in full in respect of the Agency "buildings before his departure from Gyantse. Arrangements to settle the claim regarding the land of the Agency site are being made through the Indian ConsulateGeneral at Lhasa. 2. Demolition of Spurs The Indian Trade Agent was also called upon to take action before his departure to demolish spurs which had been constructed earlier to save Agency property from erosion. The Chinese authorities had been clearly informed by the Indian Trade Agent in September 1961 that they may demolish the spurs if they were endangering public works but that they would have to accept responsibility for protection of the Agency land from the river. The Chinese authorities were also informed that the stones salvaged as a result of demolition of spurs would continue to be the property of the Trade Agency. It is surprising that this action which had been suggested to the local authorities in September 1961 was postponed indefinitely and was made the subject of unnecessary harassment to the Indian Trade Agent. 3. Removal of Building Material etc. The Chinese authorities in Gyantse also called upon the Indian Trade Agent to remove all building material and partly constructed structures belonging to the Government of India from Gyantse before his departure.

The Trade Agent made arrangements to dispose of such building material as could be conveniently and economically transported out of Gyantse. Following the withdrawal of the Indian Trade Agency from Gyantse, building material acquired and partly constructed structures put up in good faith by the Agency during the operation of the 1954 Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between India and the Tibetan region of China and in anticipation of its renewal have had to be left behind. Its disposal will have to be determined in accordance with established principles of international law and compensation on an equitable basis will have to be paid by the Chinese Government to the Indian Government for all property acquired by the Agency in connection with the performance of its official functions at Gyantse which has now been left behind and is under the care and control of the local Chinese authorities. Government of India desire that negotiations with Indian Consulate-General, Lhasa should be started by the local Chinese authorities at an early date to settle this outstanding matter. It is a matter of regret that the local authorities in Gyantse did not agree to watchmen being deputed by the Indian Trade Agent to look after property belonging to the Government of India. In the circumstances the Chinese authorities must accept complete responsibility for any loss of or damage that may be caused to this property pending its final disposal. 4. Other difficulties experienced by the Indian Trade Agents Apart from the major problems listed above the Indian Trade Agent at Gyantse was faced with a number of additional administrative difficulties all of which further delayed his departure from Gyantse. He was denied the assistance of members of the local staff for purposes of packing, etc. after June 3, 1962 on the specious ground that there was no obligation on the part of the local authorities to provide staff to the Indian Trade Agency after it had ceased to operate. Similarly, questions of transport and loading arrangements, storage facilities for baggage, travel permits for Tibetan wives of Indian and Nepalese employees of the Trade Agency

were not settled until detailed and laborious discussions had been held with the local Foreign Bureau. The Government of India regret that the Chinese authorities in Tibet should have, despite the specific request made for the cooperation of the Chinese authorities in facilitating smooth withdrawal, denied normal facilities to the Indian Trade Agents at Yatung and Gyantse as a result of which their departure was considerably delayed. They would also call upon the Chinese Government to give' urgent consideration to the specific proposals made regarding the disposal of the Government of India's property in Gyantse and elsewhere in Tibet. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 5 September 1962 The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China and has the honour to refer to para 3 of the Ministry's note dated the 14th August 1962, relating to building material and partially constructed structures of the former Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse for which an equitable compensation will have to be paid by the Chinese Government. It was suggested that the matter should be settled by the Consul-General of India at Lhasa and local Chinese authorities. The Government of India have also left behind building material in Gartok which was acquired in good faith with the intention of constructing buildings for the Indian Trade Agency there. The Government of India desire that disposal of this property should also be considered between the Indian Consul-General at Lhasa and local Chinese authorities who may be informed accordingly. The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 22 September 1962 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Embassy of India in China and, with reference to the memorandum and the note delivered by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the Chinese Embassy in India (on June 20 and July 26, 1962 respectively, has the honour to state as follows: 1- In view of the fact that the Indian Government again and again rejected the Chinese Government's proposal for the two sides to conduct negotiations to conclude a new agreement on trade and intercourse, the trade agencies established by each side in accordance with the 1954 SinoIndian Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet Region of China and India should naturally be withdrawn upon expiration of the Agreement on June 3, 1962. The Chinese Government withdrew its Trade Agencies at Calcutta and Kalimpong even before the expiration of the Agreement. The Indian Government did not inform the Chinese Government till May 30, 1962 that it proposed to withdraw its trade Agencies at Yatung and Gyantse, China, on June 10 and 11 respectively, and the actual withdrawals were then delayed till June 18 and 23, respectively. The Chinese Government, showing an attitude of goodwill and considerateness throughout, not .only gave them plenty of time for the above-mentioned withdrawal of the Indian Trade Agencies, but also gave special permission to the former Indian Trade Agent Mr. A.K. Bakshi to visit Gartok more than one month after the expiration of the Agreement. 2. The local authorities in China's Tibet gave every possible assistance and facility to the Indian Trade Agencies in the course of their withdrawal. The Bureau of Foreign Affairs in Tibet, China, conceded to the request of the Indian Consul-General and Vice-Consul at Lhasa for a special visit to Gyantse and Yatung to assist the Indian Trade Agencies in their withdrawal. In order to meet the transportation requirements of the

Indian side, the Chinese local authorities provided trucks on 23 runs, 291 beasts of burden, and civilian labour totaling 81 persons/times. The large amount of articles of the former Indian Trade Agencies and the luggage of the former Indian Trade Agents were all granted exemption from customs examination on exit. Special allowance was also made so that employees of the former Indian Trade Agencies were able to take out with them articles the exportation of which was prohibited by China's customs regulations. Upon departure, both Mr. LS Jangapangi, the former Indian Trade Agent at Yatung and Mr. KLS Pandit, the former Indian Trade Agent at Gyantse, expressed their thanks for the assistance and facilities given by the Chinese local authorities in the withdrawal. 3. In its memorandum, however, the Indian Government unwarrantedly charged the Chinese local authorities with not giving the former Indian Trade Agencies, due co-operation, and alleged that the local authorities "used unfair means to harass and delay the departure of the 'Indian trade agencies". This does not At all conform to the facts, and the Chinese Government categorically rejects this; charge and allegation. The Indian Government requested that the privileges of using couriers and code communication be accorded as before to the former Indian Trade Agencies after the expiration of the Sino-Indian Agreement. This is obviously an improper request and the Chinese Government naturally cannot agree to it. But as a special allowance, the Chinese side agreed that couriers sent by the Indian Government to its Consulate-General at Lhasa might stop over at the former Indian Trade Agencies on their way back to India. As to the premises and the site occupied by the former Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse, they belong to the Chinese Government; and since the Trade Agency did not pay the rent over a long period of time, it goes without saying that it should clear and settle its accounts before its withdrawal. Before his departure from Gyantse, the former Indian Trade Agent himself wrote to the Gyantse Office of the Tibet Foreign Bureau, pledging that the Indian Consulate-General at Lhasa would pay the overdue rent to the Bureau of Foreign Affairs in Tibet,

China. It is crystal clear that the handling of this question by the Chinese local authorities was entirely correct and unimpeachable. It was equally proper for the Chinese local authorities to state that the former Indian Trade Agency at Gyantse should handle on its own the Indian property left over. It is regrettable that the Indian Government repeatedly slandered the Chinese local authorities as "most unreasonable" and "arbitrary". What is particularly surprising is that the Indian Government should have raised objection to a matter which is entirely within China's internal jurisdiction, that is, the Chinese wives of employees of the former Indian Trade Agencies, in leaving China together with their husbands, should go through the necessary procedures in accordance with Chinese law. Could it be that by marrying employees of the former Indian Trade Agencies they could be exempted from undergoing the necessary procedures which Chinese citizens must undergo before going abroad? As a matter of fact, the Chinese local authorities adopted special procedures so that they could leave the country as quickly as possible. The unwarranted charge of the Indian Government can only expose its unjustified position in interfering in China's internal affairs. 4. It must be particularly mentioned that about the time when the Indian Government announced the withdrawal of the Indian Trade Agency, one incident occurred after another in which Chinese employees of the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung and their families fled the country in groups under the threats and instigation of the Trade Agency and a Chinese employee, named Mingmapingtso, met a sudden and unaccounted-for death at the premises of that Agency. Regarding this the Chinese Government already lodged a strong protest with the Indian Government in its note of June 11, 1962, in which the Indian side was urged to give an account of those incidents. In its memorandum and note, the Indian Government not only tried to help the former Indian Trade Agency at Yatung shirk its responsibility, but made false counter-charges against China, alleging that the local employees had run away "only due to fear of the local authorities", and that Mingmapingtso had committed "suicide"

because of "the entry of Chinese troops into the Agency premises". It even described the proper investigation conducted by the Chinese local authorities into these incidents as "undue harassment" against the Indian Trade Agent and therefore lodged a counter-protest. The Chinese Government firmly refutes such nonsense and categorically rejects this unreasonable protest. 5- In its note the Indian Government admitted that the large numbers of Chinese employees who had run away had been aware of the decision of the Indian Government to withdraw its Trade Agencies long before it intimated this decision to the Chinese Government on May 30. In both cases, however, the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung did not inform the Chinese local authorities until long after the incidents took place (this was obviously intended to make it easy for these escapees to sneak out of Chinese territory). The Indian frontier guards, disregarding entry procedures, allowed these persons to enter Sikkim, and now the Indian Government has given ,them permission to stay in India. These iron-clad facts indisputably show t hat the escape of the above-mentioned persons was purposely instigated and arranged by the Indian Trade Agency und the Indian Government in a planned way. The Indian side can only expose itself further by its quibbling and making false counter-charges. 6. Mingmapingtso's sudden death at the Indian Trade Agency's premises was all the more mysterious. The spot where Mingmapingtso lay seriously wounded had been disturbed before examination was undertaken by Chinese officials so that it was hard to make out the real cause of the death. It has been established that when Mingmapingtso was carried to the hospital of the Indian Trade Agency at about 16:00 hours, he was still conscious and asked for a talk with local Chinese officials. But the Chinese local authorities had never been informed of this request of his and was informed by the Indian Trade Agency only at 20: 00 hours of the death of Mingmapingtso. From the time of entry of the wounded into the hospital to his death, Sonam Dorjie, the doctor of the Indian Trade Agency, not only did not make the necessary diagnosis and try to save the man's life,

but also did not make any report or record. (These facts are established by Sonam Dorjie's written evidence which bears his personal signature). All this was extraordinary. In disregard of these facts, the Indian Government in its memorandum of June 20 lightly explained the sudden death of Mingmapingtso as "suicide" and fabricated a fictitious "entry of Chinese troops into the Agency premises" so as to explain the cause of the "suicide". That will not do at all. 7- From the above paragraphs it can be seen clearly that, in withdrawing its Trade Agencies, the Indian side conducted a series of premeditated acts of disruption to undermine the relations between the two countries. The Indian Government can in no way shake off its responsibilities under whatever pretext. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Notes, Memoranda and letters Exchanged and Agreements signed between The Governments of India and China

WHITE PAPER VIII October 1962-January 1963
Extracts

Ministry of External Affairs Government of India

Letter from Premier Chou En-lai to Prime Minister of India, 24 October 1962 Your Excellency Respected Prime Minister, It is most distressing that border clashes as serious as the present ones should have occurred between our two countries. Fierce fighting is still going on. At this critical moment, I do not propose to trace the origin of this confect. I think we should look ahead we should take measures to turn the tide. In order to seek a way to stop the border clashes, reopen peaceful negotiations and settle the Sino-Indian boundary question, the Chinese Government has already issued a statement, proposing the following: (1) Both parties affirm that the Sino-Indian boundary question must be settled peacefully through negotiations. Pending a. peaceful settlement, the Chinese Government hopes that the Indian Government agree that both parties respect the line of actual control between the two sides along the entire Sino-Indian border, and the armed forces of each side withdraw 20 kilometres from this line and disengage. (2) Provided that the Indian Government agrees to the above proposal, the Chinese Government is willing, though consultation between the two parties, to withdraw its frontier guards in the eastern sector of the border to the north of the line of actual control; at the same time, both China and India undertake not to cross the line of actual control, i.e., the traditional, customary line, in the middle and western sectors of the border. Matters relating to the disengagement of the armed forces of the two parties and the cessation of armed conflict shall be negotiated

by officials designated by the Chinese and Indian Governments respectively. (3) In order to seek a friendly settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question, talks should be held once again by the Prime Ministers of China and India at a time considered appropriate by both parties, the Chine se Government would welcome the Indian Prime Minister to Peking; if this should be inconvenient to the Indian Government, the Chinese Premier would be ready to go to Delhi for talks. For thousands of years, the peoples of China and India have been friendly to each other, and they should remain so from generation to generation;. Our two countries jointly initiated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and took part in the Bandung Conference of historic significance. Our two peoples common interests in their struggle against imperialism outweigh by far all the differences between our two countries. We have a major responsibility for Sino-Indian friendship, Asian-African solidarity and Asian peace. Driven by a deep sense of this responsibility I sincerely appeal to you that you may respond positively to the above three proposals. Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. (Sd.) CHOU EN-LAI, Premier of the State Council of

Statement of the Chinese Government, 24 October 1962, Serious armed clashes have recently taken place on the Sino-Indian border. This occurrence is most unfortunate. The Chinese and Indian people have always been friendly to each other and should remain so from generation to generation. That China and India should cross words on account of the boundary question is something the Chinese Government and people are unwilling to see, it is also what the peace-loving countries and people of the whole world are unwilling to see. The Sino-Indian boundary question is a question left over by history. There is a traditional customary boundary between the two countries, but the boundary between the two countries has never been formally delimited. The so-called McMahon Line in the eastern sector is a line which the British imperialists attempted to force upon China by taking advantage of the powerlessness of the Chinese and the Indian peoples. It is illegal and has never been recognized by the Chinese Government. After the independence of India, and especially around the time of the peaceful liberation of the Tibet region of China, the Indian side gradually extended its scope of actual control in the eastern sector northward from the traditional customary line to the vicinity of the so-called McMahon Line. In the middle and western sectors, up to 1959 the extent of actual control by China and India in the main conformed to the traditional customary line, except at individual places. Although India occupied more than 90,000 square kilometres of Chinese territory in the eastern sector, provoked two border clashes in 1959 and made claim to large tracts of Chinese territory, the Chinese Government has always stood for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question through negotiations and held that, pending, a peaceful settlement, the extent of actual control by each side should be respected and neither side should alter the state of the boundary by unilateral action.

Seeking a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question, Premier Chou En-lai went to New Delhi in April, 1960 to hold talks with Prime Minister Nehru, and tried hard to reach a preliminary agreement conducive to a settlement of the boundary question. Regrettably, the sincere effort of the Chinese side did not evoke a response from the Indian side. Following that, the meeting of the officials of China and India likewise failed to yield results as it should. The Chinese Government has always held that, even though China and India cannot for a time reach agreed opinions on the boundary question, this should not lead to border clashes. As early as 1959, the Chinese Government repeatedly proposed that the armed forces of each side withdraw 20 kilometres all along the border and stop frontier patrols so as to disengage the armed forces of the two sides and avoid conflict. After the Indian side rejected these proposals, China unilaterally stopped patrols on its side of the boundary in the hope that this might help ease the border situation. Contrary to our expectations the Indian side, taking advantage of… steadily and penetrated deep into Chinese territory, first in the middle and western, and then in the eastern sectors of the Sino-Indian boundary, set up scores of military strong-points and continually caused armed clashes, thus making the border situation increasingly tense. In the past year and more, the Chinese Government has again and again asked India to stop changing the status quo of the boundary by force and return to the table of negotiations. In the last three months, the Chinese Government three times proposed negotiating the Sino-Indian boundary question without any preconditions but all three' times met with the refusal of the Indian Government. The Indian Government insisted that negotiations cannot start until China has withdrawn from vast tracts of China's own territory.

Especially shocking to China is the fact that the Indian .Government, after rejecting China's peaceful proposal, on October 12 ordered the Indian forces to "free" Chinese frontiers of Chinese troops. Then, on October 20, Indian forces started a massive general offensive in both the eastern and western sectors of the Sino-Indian border. ln these serious circumstances, the Chinese frontier guards had no choice but to strike back in self-defence. Fierce fighting is now going on. The occurrence of this grave situation pains the Chine5e Government and people and disturbs the Asian and African countries and people. After all, what issue is there between China and India that cannot be settled peacefully? What reason is there for bloody clashes to occur between China and India? China does not want a single inch of India's territory. In no circumstances is it conceivable for the Sino-Indian boundary question to be settled by force. China and India are both big countries of Asia having a major responsibility for peace in Asia and the world. They are initiators of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and participants of the Bandung Conference. Although the relations between China and India are presently very tense, there is no reason to abandon the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and the spirit of the Bandung Conference. The Chinese Government holds that both the Chinese and Indian Governments should take to heart the fundamental interests of the 1,100 million people of China and India, the common interests of the people of the two countries in their struggle against imperialism and the interests of Asian peace and Asian-African solidarity, and try their best to seek a way to stop the border conflict, reopen peaceful negotiations and settle the Sino-Indian boundary question. In line with its consistent stand for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question, the Chinese Government now solemnly puts forward the following three proposals:

(1)

Both parties affirm that the Sino-Indian boundary question must be settled peacefully through negotiations. Pending a peaceful settlement, the Chinese Government hopes that the Indian Government will agree that both parties respect the line of actual control between the two sides along the en tire Sino-Indian border, and the armed forces of each side withdraw 20 kilometres from this line and disengage.

(2)

Provided that the Indian Government agrees to the above proposal, the Chinese Government is willing, through consultations between the two parties, to withdraw its frontier guard6 in the eastern sector of the border to the north of the line of actual control; at the same time, both China and India undertake not to cross the line of actual control, i.e., the traditional customary. line, in the middle and western sectors of the border. Matters relating to the disengagement of the armed forces of the two parties and the cessation of armed conflict shall be negotiated by officials designated by the Chinese and Indian Governments respectively.

(3)

The Chinese Government considers that, in order to seek a friendly settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question, talks should be held once again by the Prime Ministers of China and India. At a time considered to be appropriate by both parties, the Chinese Government would welcome the Indian Prime Minister to Peking; if this should be inconvenient to the Indian Government, the Chinese Premier would be ready to go to Delhi for talk.

The Chinese Government appeals to the Indian Government for a positive response to the above three proposals. The Chinese Government appeals to the governments of Asian and African countries for an effort to bring about the materialization of these three proposals. The Chinese Government

appeals to all the peace-loving countries and people to do their part in promoting Sino-Indian friendship, Asian-African solidarity and world peace.

Letter from the Prime Minister of India, to Premier Chou En-lai. 27 October 1962

Dear Mr. Prime Minister, Thank you for the copy of your message of 24th October which was delivered to the Ministry of External Affairs by your Charge d'Affaires in Delhi on the evening of 24th October along with a copy of the statement issued by the Government of the People's Republic of China on the morning of the 24th. Nothing in my long political career has hurt and grieved me more than the fact that the hopes and aspirations for peaceful and friendly neighbourly relations which we entertained, and to promote which my colleagues in the Government of India and myself worked so hard, ever since the establishment of the People's Republic of China, should have been shattered by the hostile and unfriendly twist given in India-China relations during the past few years. The current clashes on the India-China border arising out of what' is in effect a Chinese invasion of India, which you have described as "most distressing", are the final culmination of the deterioration in relations between India and China. l would not, in this letter, go into the long history of this deterioration in India-China relations or argue as to where the fault lies because you are quire familial' with our views on this subject. l would say is that the long preamble to the statement of the Government of the People's Republic of China of 24th October, enclosed with your letter, gives a distorted picture of the history of India-China relations. l agree with you, however, that we should look ahead and consider what can be done not merely to turn the tide as you suggest, but to reverse it and make a serious attempt to restore the relations between India and China to the

warm and friendly pattern of earlier days and even to improve on that pattern. As regards the three points mentioned in your letter which were put out in the statement of 24th October, the Government of India have already indicated their official reactions to the proposals in these three points. l enclose a copy of this official reaction for ready reference. My colleagues and l have carefully considered the appeal made in your letter. We are not able to understand the niceties of the Chinese three-point proposals which talk about ‘lines of actual control’, etc. l believe several other Governments interested in peaceful settlement of our differences have also not been able to understand or appreciate what these proposals actually mean. We are of the considered view that a clear straightforward way of reversing the deteriorating trend in India-China relations would be for Your Excellency to accept the suggestion made in point (V) of the official reaction of the Government of India and to revert to the position as it prevailed all along the India-China boundary prior to 8th September, 1962. If this is agreed to, it can be implemented by both sides. We will, thereafter, be glad to welcome you or a delegation from your country at any level that is mutually accept able to discuss and arrive at further agreed measures which can facilitate a peaceful settlement of our differences on this border question, in one stage or in more than one stage as may be necessary. There have been repeated declarations by the Government of the People's Republic of China that they want to settle the differences on the border question with India by peaceful means, though what is happening today is in violent contradiction with these declarations would, however, presume that your letter is a reaffirmation of the earlier declarations and indicates a desire to revert to the paths of peace and peaceful settlement. On this common basis of eschewing war and violence in the settlement of border

differences, our proposal to revert to the status quo along the entire boundary as it prevailed before 8th September, 1962, should be acceptable to you. We could, after this is implemented, discuss our differences and see whether we can arrive at agreed measures and settle the differences either in one stage or in several stages. If we fail, we can consider what other agreed peaceful method of settling our differences should be adopted. Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Yours sincerely, (Sd.) JAWAHARLAL NEHRU.

Annexure to letter from the Prime Minister of India to Premier Chou En-lai, 27 October 1962

The Government of India have seen Press Agency reports of the three-point statement issued by the People's Republic of China which the New China News Agency has put out this morning. There has been no official communication from the Chinese Government on this matter 50 far. The Government of India have in previous notes and in statements made by the Prime Minister clearly indicated their attitude in this matter. Government of India's position is: i. The Government of India wedded to peace and peaceful methods have always sought to resolve differences by talks and discussions in this case of border differences with the Government of China. ii. On the 16th October, 1962, in a note sent to the Government of China they proposed the restoration of the status quo of the boundary as it prevailed before the Chinese aggression in the eastern sector on 8th September, 1962, prior to talks and discussions for easing of tension and for creating the appropriate climate for purposeful talks and discussions to resolve the differences between the Governments of India and China on the boundary question. iii. Since then, it is the Government of China which on the morning of the 20th October, 1962, hurled its vast armies at various points on an sectors of the India-China boundary and enlarged the conflict. These Chine se forces have .advanced in all sectors into Indian territory and are still advancing. India cannot and will not accept a position under which Chinese forces continue to commit aggression into Indian territory, occupy substantial Indian territories and use these as a bargaining counter to force a settlement on their terms.

iv.

There is no sense or meaning in the Chinese offer to withdraw 20 kilometres from what they call 'line of actual control'. What is this 'line of actual control'? Is this the line they have created by aggression since the beginning of September? Advancing 40 or 60 kilometres by blatant military aggression and offering to withdraw 20 kilometres provided both sides do this is a deceptive device which can fool nobody.

v.

If the Chinese professions of peace and peaceful settlement of differences are really genuine, let them go back at least to the position where they were all along the boundary prior to 8th September, 1962. India will then i1e-. prepared to' undertake talks and discussions, at any level mutually agreed, to arrive at agreed measures which should be taken for the easing of tension and correction of the situation created by unilateral forcible alteration of the status quo along the India-China boundary.

vi.

India is always prepared to resolve differences by talks and discussions but only on the basis of decency, dignity and self-respect and not under threat of military might of any country however strong it may be.

vii.

India would be prepared to welcome the Chinese Prime Minister or any suitable representative of the Chinese Government on a mutually agreed date if China is sincere in its professions of peaceful settlement and accepts the constructive proposal made in point (v) above which is fully consistent with dignity and self-respect both of India and China.

Letter from Premier Chou En-lai, to the Prime Minister of India, 4 November 1962

Respected Mr. Prime Minister, I thank you for your letter dated October 27. I have also received the enclosed copy of the Indian Government's statement dated October 24. It is indeed most painful to the Chinese Government and people that the current unfortunate border clashes should have eventually broken out and should have not yet ceased. The major enemy or China, as well as of the other Asian and African countries, is imperialism. The Chinese Government and people are by no means willing to see the two largest Asian c0untries crossing swords on account of differences between them, while they are confronted with the major enemy. Though we interpret the cause of the current grave situation between China and India differently, I am glad that Your Excellency agrees that we should look ahead and should not merely turn the present tide but restore SinoIndian relations to the warm and friendly pattern of earlier days and even improve on that pattern. I believe that if we really cherish such a common desire we shall certainly be able. through our joint efforts, to find a way to settle the Sino- Indian boundary question peacef.lly that is acceptable to both sides. The three proposals of the Chinese Government of October 24 were advanced exactly in the spirit of resuming the friendly relations between the two countries prior to 1959. Your Excellency said that you and your colleagues were not so clear about the precise meaning of the Chinese Government's proposals. Although the Chinese Government already pointed out in its statement the origin and meaning of its proposals, I am still willing here to make some further explanations.

As pointed out in the October 24 statement of the Chinese Government, the proposals for the armed forces of China and India to withdraw 20 kilometres each from the line of actual control and to disengage was first put forward by the Chinese Government back in 1959, to put it more specifically, in my letter to you dated November 7, 1959. Now, the Chinese Government has reiterated this proposal. The ‘line of actual control’ mentioned in the proposal is basically still the line of actual control as existed between the Chinese and Indian sides on November 7, 1959. To put It concretely in the eastern sector it coincides in the main with the so called McMahon Line and in the western and middle sectors it coincides in the main' with the traditional customary line which has consistently been pointed out by China. The reason why the Chinese Government put forward this proposal again emphatically is that we have deeply realized from the bitter experience of the past three years that it is very hard to avoid clashes in border areas under dispute if the armed f:orces of the two sides are not disengaged. The fact that the Chinese Government's proposal has taken as its basis the 1959 line of actual control and not the present line of actual contact between the armed forces of the two sides is full proof that the Chinese side has not tried to force any unilateral demand on the Indian side on account of the advances gained in the recent counter-attack in selfdefence. According to this proposal of the Chinese Government, the undertakings of both sides are equal. Moreover as Your Excellency is surely aware, in concretely implementing this proposal the Chinese armed forces will have to withdraw much more than 20 kilometres from their present position in the eastern sector. The Chinese Government greatly regrets that the Indian Government in its statement of October 24 should describe this fair proposal of the Chine se Government as a deceptive device to fool anybody. As Your Excellency is dearly aware, implementation of this proposal of the Chine se Government is not tantamount to the settlement

of the boundary question, and so it will in no way prejudice the position of either side in maintaining its claims with regard to the boundary. No matter how differently our two sides view the Sino-Indian boundary question, the question has in fact been in existence for a long time. Yet this situation did not prevent our two countries from living together on friendly terms before 1959, then how is it that they can no longer do so after 1959? Of course, we both wish to see the boundary question settled speedily in a friendly way, yet why is it that our two countries must resort to arms before the boundary question is settled? The proposal of the Chinese Government for the armed forces of the two sides to withdraw 20 kilometres each from the line of actual control along the entire boundary and to disengage is precisely designed to create an atmosphere for the peaceful settlement of the boundary question; and even if the boundary question cannot be settled for the time being, avoidance of clashes along the border can be ensured. The Indian Government said in its statement that India can enter into talks "only on the basis of decency, dignity and self-respect." I deem that the three proposals of the Chinese Government have precisely provided such a basis. Should the Indian Government agree to the Chinese Government's proposals, China and India can quickly designate officials to negotiate matters relating to the disengagement of the armed forces of the two sides and the cessation of their armed conflict. When these negotiations have yielded results and the results have been put into effect the Prime Ministers of the two countries can then hold talks to proceed further to seek a friendly settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. You have said in your letter that "a dear straight-forward way of reversing the deteriorating trend in India-China relations is for the Chinese side to accept the suggestion made in point V of the Indian Government's statement, that is, to revert to the position as it prevailed all along the

India-China boundary prior to September 8 1962." I cannot but state with regret, however, that this Indian suggestion is contrary to the aim of turning the present tide and resulting Sino-Indian friendly relations. I do not wish to reopen the old argument. But since the state of the SinoIndian boundary prior to September 8, 1962 has been referred to I cannot but point out that that state was unfair and pregnant with the danger of border conflict and hence should not be restored. So far as the eastern sector is concerned, I believe the Indian Government must be in possession of the 1914 original map of the so-called McMahon Line. According to the original map, the western end of the so-called McMahon Line clearly starts from 27 ° 44.6'N. Yet the Indian Government arbitrarily said that it started from 27°48'N and, on this pretext, it not only refused to withdraw the Indian troops from the Kechilang River area north of the Line but made active dispositions for a massive military attack, attempting to clear the area of Chinese frontier guards defending it. Such was the position in the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian boundary prior to September 8, 1962. How can the Chinese Government agree to revert to such a position? As for the western sector, the Aksai Chin area has always been' under China's jurisdiction. It was through this area that back in 1950 the Chinese People's Liberation Army entered the Ari district of Tibet from Sinkiang. Again, it was through this area that, from 1956 to 1957, the Chine se Government constructed the Sinkiang Tibet Highway involving gigantic engineering work. Yet the Indian Government arbitrarily said that it was not until 1957 that the Chinese side came to this area and on this pretext, unilaterally altered the state of the boundary in the western sector by force from 1961 onwards, occupied large tracts of Chinese territory east of the 1959 line of actual control and set up over 40 military strong points. Such was the position in the western sector of the Sino Indian boundary prior to

September 8, 1962. How can the Chinese Government agree to revert to such a position? The Chinese Government holds that the present border clashes should not have occurred at all and that, in order quickly to stop the border clashes, reopen peaceful negotiations and settle the Sino-Indian boundary question, neither side should assume the attitude of a victor, no matter how the clashes may develop. It was precisely in this spirit that the Chinese Government put forward its three proposals of October 24. The three proposals are reciprocal and not one-sided, they are equitable and not asking submission of one side, they are based on mutual accommodation and not imposed on others, they are based on mutual respect and not bullying one side, and they are in the spirit of friendly negotiation and not arbitrary or dogmatic. However, the Indian Government has put to the Chinese Government humiliating conditions such as forced on a van gui shed party. Your Excellency, Mr. Prime Minister, both our countries are sovereign states and neither can force its unilateral demands on the other. India' has its self-respect, so has China. It was for the upholding of the selfrespect, of both China and India that the Chinese Government put forward its three proposals of October 24. l sincerely appeal, to your Excellency once again to consider these three proposals and make a positive response. Respected Mr. Prime Minister, since the unfortunate Sino-Indian border clashes began, many Asian and African countries have appealed to our two countries, expressing the hope that we may stop the clashes and resume negotiations. They say that imperialism and colonialism are the chief enemies of us newly independent Asian and African countries, and that the Asian and African countries should settle their mutual disputes peacefully on the basis of mutual understanding and mutual accommodation. I am convinced that their intentions are good and their viewpoint is correct. We should not disappoint their eager expectations.

Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

(Sd.) CHOU EN-LAI, Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China.

Letter from the Prime Minister of India, to Premier Chou En-lai, 14 November 1962

Dear Mr. Prime Minister, Thank you for your letter of 4th November. Our Charge d'Affaires in Peking to whom it was handed over sent .us a copy by telegram. My colleagues and I have carefully considered the elaboration of the three proposals of the Chinese Government of October 24, given in your letter. Apart from the Chinese claims regarding the territorial boundary in various sectors of the India-China boundary, one fact stands out quite clearly. This is the basic fact that till the 8th September, 1962, no Chinese forces had crossed the frontier between India and China to the Eastern sector as defined by India, that is, along the highest watershed in the region, in accordance with the Agreement of 1914. It was on 8th September, 1962, that your forces crossed this frontier and threatened the Dhola frontier post of India. We took limited defensive measures to reinforce this post and at the same time made repeated approaches to the Chinese Government to withdraw their forces beyond the Thag La ridge which is the frontier in this region. Your forces not only did not withdraw to the position the y occupied before 8th September, 1962, but, after some probing attacks, mounted .a massive attack and are now in occupation of large areas of Indian territory in this region and also ID various other frontier areas of NEFA. That the attack was premeditated and carefully planned is clear from the fact that this attack at the Thag La ridge frontier which commenced on the morning of the 20th October, 1962, was not an isolated move; similar attacks against Indian defence posts started simultaneously along other parts not only of the eastern sector of the frontier, but also of the western sector of the frontier.

As l said in my letter of 27th October, l do not want to go into the history of the last five years and the forcible, unilateral alteration of the status quo of the boundary by the Chinese forces in the western sector, on which a mass of notes and memoranda have been exchanged between our two Governments. The events since 8th September, 1962, however, have completely shattered any hope that that anyone could have entertained about settling India-China differences peacefully in accordance with normal international principles observed by all civilized governments. This invasion, coming after 12 years of constant and consistent endeavour on our part to maintain and develop friendly relations with China, can only point to one and only one conclusion, namely, that the Government of China have taken a deliberate cold-blooded decision, in total disregard of all principles, which govern normal neighbourly relations between sovereign governments, to enforce their alleged boundary claims by military invasion of India. It is this crisis of confidence which has to be dealt with. I must state frankly, that we find no attempt, either in the three proposals as elaborated now or in the other parts of your letter, to deal with this main problem created by the massive Chinese aggression on India which began on 8th Septerp.ber, 1962, namely, the complete loss of confidence in the bona fides of the professions for a peaceful settlement repeatedly made in public Statements of the Government of China. On the other hand, your letter proceeds on the unilateral assumption that the line of actual control created by the latest Chinese invasion of India should be accepted as a part of the cease-fire arrangements and implemented on the ground, the boundary differences being negotiated thereafter between the two Prime Ministers. In brief, China will keep what it ,has secured by this further invasion and is prepared to negotiate on the rest. India can never agree to this position. The three proposals of the Chinese Government of October 24, 1962, have been examined carefully and in detail. The result of the examination is

given in the memorandum that I am attaching to this letter. The memorandum speaks for itself. You have mentioned in your letter that according to the Chinese proposals, the Chinese armed forces will have to withdraw by more than 20 kilometres from their present positions and that the fact that the Chinese Government have taken as its basis the 1959 "line of actual control" and not the present "line of actual control" between the armed forces of the two sides, is full proof that the Chinese side has not 'tried to force any unilateral demand on the Indian side on account of the advances gained in what you still choose to each “recent counter-attacks in self-defence". What you call the 1959 "line of actual control" was no line but a series of positions of Chinese forces on Indian territory in Ladakh progressively established since 1957, which forcibly and unilaterally altered the status quo of the boundary. This was done even while assuring us since 1954 that China had no territorial claims against India. So far as the Central sector is concerned, the Chinese forces were always to the north of the Himalayan watershed ridge which is the traditional and customary boundary in this area. The analysis given in the attached note will, however, show that even this 7th November, 1959, line of actual control is projected three years ahead to be identical with the line of actual control established by your forces since the massive attack on 20th October, 1962. Surely this must ,be clear to all concerned. To advance a few hundred kilometres and then offer to withdraw 20 kilometres is, as anybody can see, hardly a constructive proposal based on mutual accommodation. Your present proposal in brief amounts in broad terms to this because India had been pressing China to remedy the forcible alteration. of the status quo, since 1957 in the Western sector China has undertaken since 8th September, deliberately and in cold blood, a further massive aggression and occupied larger areas of Indian territory and is now making the magnanimous offer of retaining the gains of

the earlier aggression plus such other gains as it can secure by negotiations from the latest aggression on the basis of the Chinese three point proposals. If this is not the assumption of the attitude of a victor, I do not know what else it can be. This is a demand to which India will never submit whatever the consequences and however long and hard the struggle may be. We cannot do less than this if we are going to maintain the principles we cherish, namely, peace, good neighbourliness and peaceful co-existence with all our neighbours including China. To do otherwise would mean mere existence at the mercy of an aggressive, arrogant and expansionist, neighbour. Despite the crisis of confidence created by the earlier Chinese aggression, we are, as l said in my letter of 27th October, prepared to consider entering into talks and discussions to deal with our differences and to re-establish good neighbourly relations on the basis of peaceful co-existence between our two countries, each following its own way of life, provided it was agreed that the status quo along the entire boundary as it prevailed before 8th September, 1962, should be restored. This is the minimum corrective action necessary. The damage to the very principles of good neighbourliness and peaceful co-existence done by the further aggression since 8th September, 1962, must be corrected before any other constructive step can be taken. You have referred to the peaceful friendly relations between our two countries till 1959 despite the differences on the boundary question and asked why we could not have these relations after 1959, despite the differences on the boundary question. The reason I feel should be clear to you. It was in January, 1959, that you put forward a claim for 50,000 square miles of Indian territory under the guise of a boundary dispute. This was not a small adjustment of the boundary here or there involving a few hundred square miles but a demand for surrender of large areas of Indian

territory. You did not stop at this preposterous demand. Though we agreed to talks and discussions at various levels to examine the relevant historical, cartographic and other data on the subject, your forces continued to forcibly occupy substantial areas of Indian territory even while these talks and discussions were going on. This process continued throughout the subsequent years and, on 8th September, 1962, your forces started the further aggression in the Eastern sector which had been quiet and peaceful all these twelve years except for the minor differences over Longju. In your letter as well as in the official note of your Government,' there are references to the line of actual control as on 7th November, 1959, as the basis of the three-point proposals. If the Chinese Government really mean what they say regarding the restoration of 7th November, 1959, positions of their forces in all sectors of the boundary, their withdrawal to those positions and the restoration of the positions of the Indian forces as they were prior to 8th September 1962, would, by and large, meet the problem of disengagement as there will be enough distances between the position of the forces of the two sides to prevent any risk of a clash. To put it concretely, in the Eastern sector the Chinese forces will go back to the positions they held on 7th November, 1959, that is, they will be on the other side of the boundary along the Himalayan watershed which they first crossed on 8th September, 1962. In the Central sector the position will be the same, that is, they will be to the north of the highest watershed ridge. In the Western sector the Chinese forces will go back to the positions they held on 7th November, 1959, as given in the attached note, that is, along the line connecting their Spanggur post, Khurnak Fort and Kongka La and then northwards to join the main Aksai Chin Road. The Indian forces will go back to the various defence posts they occupied in ail the three sectors prior to 8th September, 1962. This arrangement will secure not only adequate disengagement of forces of both sides but will not in any way

prejudge either the alignment of the customary and traditional boundary in the Western and the Central sectors as claimed by the two sides or the alignment of the McMahon Line boundary in the Eastern sector. You have, Mr. Prime Minister, referred in your letter to the appeal made by Asian-African countries. l agree that this appeal should evoke a constructive response. You must have seen in this connection the four-point suggestion made by the President of the U.A.R. mentioned in the U.A.R. Presidential communique of 31st October and my message to the President of the U.A.R. dated 27th October. Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Yours sincerely, (Sd.) JAWAHARLAL NEHRU.

Annexure to letter dated 14 November 1962, from the Prime Minister of India The implications of the three-point proposal of the Chinese Government presented on the 24th of October and further elaborated upon in Prime Minister Chou En-lai's letter, dated 4th November 1962, are given below: Western Sector. The line of actual control in November 1959 was no line but a series of positions of Chinese forces on Indian territory. These positions had been progressively established since 1957 by forcibly and unilaterally altering the traditional status quo of the boundary, even while the Government of China were assuring the Government of India that they had no territorial claims against India. ln November 1959, Chinese posts in the Western sector were at Spanggur, Khurnak Fort, Kongka La and along the main Aksai Chin Road. Within three years, i.e., by September 1962, the Chinese had constructed a large network of military roads and posts, beginning with posts opposite Daulat Beg Oldi in the north, along the Chip Chap river valley and across the Galwan river to the Pangpog and Spanggur lake areas. At certain points the network of military posts was more than one hundred miles to the west of Chinese positions in 1959. The Chinese three-point proposal, taken with its clarifications, is that, in the Western sector, both parties agree to respect the ‘line of actual control’ between the two sides. In his clarificatory letter Premier Chou En-lai states that ‘the line of actual control’ ''is basically still the line of actual control as existed between the 'Chinese and the Indian sides in November 1959". The normal deduction would be that this line of control would, therefore, be a line connecting Spanggur, Khurnak Fort, Kongka La and proceeding northwards to join the main Aksai Chin Road. However, Premier Chou En-

lai's letter states that "in the Western and Middle Sectors it (the line of actual control) coincides in the main with the traditional customary line". In short, while referring to the line of control as it existed in 1959, the Chinese actually project it 1.0 the line they claimed in the meeting between the officiaIs of the two sides in 1960 and the line they physically hold now since their massive attack which commenced in this region on 20th October 1962. This line not only includes all the Chinese posts established in the three years since 1959, but also includes all the Indian posts in the territory that existed till 20th October 1962, and extends even farther westwards, thus taking in an additional 5,000 to 6,000 square miles since their 7th November 1959 position. According to the Chinese proposal, after this "line of actual .control" is determined, India would have to further withdraw yet another 20 kilometres inside territory accepted by the Chinese as undoubtedly Indian, while the Chinese withdrawal of 20 kilometres would be only 20 kilometres inside Indian territory claimed DY them leaving the Chinese forces weIl over a hundred kilometres deep into' territory belonging' to India. .The total effect of this would be that the entire network of Chinese aggressive posts which existed on 20th October 1962, and some more would remain intact poised for a further attack. while all Indian defence posts in Indian territory claimed by China will be eliminated and even posts in territory accepted as Indian including such key posts as Daulat Beg Oldi, Chushul and Hanle would be dismantled and eliminated. Middle Sector In the middle sector, the suggestion that the ‘line of actual control’, whether on 7th November 1959 or now, coincides only "in the main" with the traditional and customary boundary is absolutely without foundation. The Chinese Government have never had any authority south of the main

Himalayan watershed ridge, which is the traditional boundary in this sector. Some Tibetan officials along with some Chinese troops did intrude into Barahoti on various occasions since 1954; and, in 1958, the two Governments agreed to withdraw their armed personnel from the locality. But Indian civilian personnel have throughout been functioning in the area. A conference held in 1958 to discuss the question made clear that the Chinese Government had not even precise knowledge of the area they were claiming. Eastern Sector. In the Eastern sector the Chinese Government are willing to withdraw their troops to the north of the "line of actual control". This ‘line of actual control’ has been clarified in Premier Chou En-lai's letter as coinciding "in the main" with the McMahon Line. The Chinese Government by this ambiguous statement indicates that there are portions of the ‘line of actual control’ as envisaged by them which do not coincide with the McMahon Line. These divergences have not, however, been revealed. The fact remains, however, that Chine se positions have always remained to the north of the highest Himalayan ridge in the Eastern sector of the India-China border and the alignment of the McMahon Line has never been questioned by China. The Chinese were nowhere in the vicinity of this watershed boundary either in November 1959 or later till 8th September 1962, when they started their aggression into Indian territory in this region. Premier Chou En-lai has in his letter referred to the 1914 original map of the McMahon Line and the coordinates given in this map. The Agreement of 1914 only formalised what was the traditional and customary boundary in the area which lies along the highest Himalayan watershed ridges. The maps attached to the Agreement were of small scale of 1 inch to 8 miles. They were sketch maps and intended to be only illustrative. All that they

made clear was that the boundary ran along the main watershed ridges of the area. The parallels and meridians were shown only approximately in accordance with the progress achieved at that time in the sphere of scientific surveys. This is a common cartographic feature and the Chine se Government have themselves recognised this in Article 43 of their 1960 Treaty with Burma. If the maps and the coordinates given therein were taken literally it is impossible to explain the discrepancy between the existing distances and those given in the map between various villages in the area. Also Migyitun according to the maps is at latitude 28° 38' north while its actual position as ascertained by the latest surveys is much further north. Tulung La has been shown on the 1914 maps at 27° 47' N while its position on the ground is further north of this point. Strict adherence to the co-ordinates shown on the McMahon Line maps would result in advancing the Indian boundary in both the areas of Migyitun and Tulung La further north thereby including both these places inside Indian territory. In the area east of Tsari Sarpa, strict adherence to the coordinates of Lola in the McMahon Line maps would result in advancing the boundary of India into this area by at least 7 miles to the north. This would mean including at least 70 square miles of Tibetan territory within India. The Government of India recognising the principle underlying the McMahon Line agreement that the boundaries lie along the highest watershed ridges actually confined their jurisdiction to the area south of this boundary and did not try to take over Tibetan territory beyond the highest watershed ridge on the basis of the inaccurate coordinates given in the 1914 maps. This must be known to the Chinese authorities and yet they ignore this and seek to use the inaccurate coordinates given in the maps where they are favourable to their fanciful claims made to support their latest aggression. The Chinese authorities cannot have it both ways. They cannot accept the highest watershed as the boundary in parts of the Eastern sector where it

suits them though this is not consistent with the coordinates given in the 1914 maps and quote the coordinates in these very maps in their favour in other parts of the sector to make demands for territorial concessions from India. The Chinese proposal envisages a further withdrawal of 20 kilometres on either side of the McMahon Line as understood by them. This would leave Chinese forces in command of the passes leading Into India while Indian forces would be 20 kilometres to the south leaving the entire Indian frontier defenceless and at the mercy of any fresh invasion. The present Chine se invasion which commenced on 8th September, 1962, was known because there was a defence post near the border. If there are no border posts at or near the passes, Chinese aggression could recur without India knowing' about it for quite some time. The objective of the Chinese three-point proposal is to secure for the Chinese side guaranteed occupation of the Indian areas in the Western and Central sectors which they claim while the y retain their right to negotiate, and negotiations failing, to enforce, whatever territorial adjustments they want in the Eastern sector. Western Sector India should not dispute on the ground, though it will be allowed to talk about its juridical claim, the Chinese occupation of 14,000 square miles of Indian territory including 2,000 squares miles forcibly occupied since 20th October 1962. India has to agree not only to respect this so-called line of actual control but must also dismantle and withdraw its defenses in the region a further 20 kilometres into admittedly Indian territory involving withdrawal from points like Chushul, etc. Middle Sector

The Chinese claims must be fully satisfied so far as physical occupation is concerned. Eastern Sector The principles of the highest watershed which is the boundary and which had been respected till.8th September 1962, should be given up in favour of whatever interpretation of the Government of China decide to put on the McMahon Line. There should be a further withdrawal of 20 kilometres. Thus, India must give up control of the passes in the highest watershed ridges in the areas, with no guarantee that the Chinese side will not cross the actual line of control whichever it may be. In short, the Chinese three-point proposal, despite the manner in which it is put forth, is a demand for surrender on terms which have to be accepted while the Chinese forces in great strength are occupying large areas of Indian territory which they have acquired since their further aggression which commenced on 8th September, 1962, and the massive attack which they started On 20th October, 1962.

Statement given by the Chinese Government, 21 November 1962 In the past two years, first in the western and then in the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian border, Indian troops crossed the line of actual control between China and India, nibbled Chinese territory, set up strongpoints for aggression and provoked a number of border clashes. Relying on the advantageous military positions they had occupied and having made full preparations, the Indian troops eventually launched massive armed attacks all along the line on the Chinese frontier guards on October 20, 1962. This border conflict deliberately provoked by India has been going on for a month. The Chinese Government served repeated warnings in regard to the increasingly serious Indian encroachments and provocations, and pointed out the gravity of their consequences. The Chinese frontier guards aU along maintained maximum self-restraint and forbearance in order to avert any border conflict. However, all these efforts by China proved of no avail, and the Indian acts of aggression steadily increased. Pressed beyond the limits of endurance and left with no room for retreat, the Chinese frontier guards finally had no choice but to strike back resolutely in self-defence. After the present large scale border conflict broke out, the Chinese Government quickly took initiative measures in an effort to extinguish the flames of conflict that had been kindled. On October 24, that is, four days after the outbreak of the current border clashes, the Chinese Government put forward three reasonable proposals for stopping the border clashes, reopening peaceful negotiations and settling the Sino-Indian boundary question. The three proposals are as follows: 1. Both parties affirm that the Sino-Indian boundary question must be settled peacefully through negotiations. Pending a peaceful settlement, the Chinese Government hopes that the Indian

Government will agree that both parties respect the line of actual control between the two sides along the entire Sino-Indian border, and the armed forces of each side withdraw 20 kilometres from this line and disengage. 2. Provided that the Indian Government agrees to the above proposal, the Chinese Government is willing, through consultation between the two parties, to withdraw its frontier guards in the eastern sector of the border to the north of the line of actual control; at the same time, both China and India undertake Dot to cross the line of actual control, i.e., the traditional customary line, in the middle and western sectors of the border. Matters relating to the disengagement of the armed forces of the two parties and the cessation of armed conflict shall be negotiated by officials designated by the Chinese and Indian Government respectively. 3. The Chinese Government considers that, in order to seek a friendly settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question, talks should be held once again by the Prime Ministers of China and India. At a time considered to be appropriate by both parties, the Chinese Government would welcome the Indian Prime Minister to Peking; if this should be inconvenient to the Indian Government the Chinese Premier would be ready to go to Delhi for talks. On the very day it received them, the Indian Government hastily rejected the Chinese Government's three proposals and insisted that the Chinese Government should agree to restore the state of the boundary as it prevailed prior to September 8, 1962, that is to say, India wanted to reoccupy large tracts of Chinese territory so that the' Indian troops might regain the position from which they could launch massive armed attacks on the Chinese frontier guards at any time. Iln

his reply to Premier Chou En-lai dated November 14, Prime Minister Nehru put forward even more unreasonable demands, which, on the one hand, required the Chinese Government to agree to the Indian troops reverting to their positions prior to September 8, and, on the other hand, required the Chinese frontier guards not only to withdraw to their positions as on September 8, but to retreat farther in the western sector to the so-called positions of November 7, 1959, as defined for them by India unilaterally, that is, requiring, China to cede five to six thousand square miles (thirteen to fifteen thousand square kilometres) more of Chinese territory. In the meantime, the Indian Government, relying on large amounts of U.S. military aid, again launched powerful attacks in the eastern and western sectors of the Sino-Indian border in an obstinate attempt to expand the border conflict. It is by no means accidental that the Indian Government has taken such an extremely unreasonable attitude. To meet the needs of its internal and external politics, the Indian Government has long pursued the policy of deliberately keeping the Sino-Indian boundary question unsettled, keeping the armed forces of the two countries engaged and maintaining tension along the Sino-Indian border. Whenever it considered the Ume favourable, the Indian Government made use of this situation to carry out armed invasion and provocation on the Sino-Indian border, and even went to the length of provoking an armed clash. Or else, it made use of the situation to conduct cold war against China. The experience of many years shows that the Indian Government has invariably tried by hook or by crook to block the path which was opened up by the Chinese Government for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question.

This policy of the Indian Government runs diametrically counter to the fundamental interests of the Chinese and Indian peoples and the. .common desires of all the peoples of the world, and serves only the interests of imperialism. The Chinese Government's three proposals are most fair and reasonable; they are the only proposals capable of averting border clashes, ensuring border tranquility and bringing about a peaceful settlement of the SinoIndian boundary question. The Chinese Government perseveres in these three proposals. However, the Indian Government has so far rejected' these three proposals and continued to expand the border conflict, thus daily aggravating the Sino-Indian border situation. In order to reverse this trend, the Chinese Government has decided to take initiative measures in order to promote the realization of these three proposals. The Chinese Government hereby declares the following: 1. Beginning from the day following that of the issuance of the present statement, i.e. from 00: 00 hours on November 22, 1962, the Chinese frontier guards will cease fire along the entire Sino-Indian border. 2. Beginning from December 1, 1962, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw to positions 20 kilometers behind the line of actual .control which existed between China and India on November 7, 1959. In the eastern sector, although the Chinese frontier guards have so far been fighting back in self-defence on Chinese territory north of the traditional customary line, they are prepared to withdraw from their present positions to the north of the line of actual control, that is, north of the illegal McMahon line, and to withdraw 20 kilometers farther back from that line. In the middle and western sectors, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw 20 kilometers from the line of actual control.

In order to ensure the normal movement of the inhabitants in the SinoIndian border area forestall the activities of saboteurs and maintain order there, China will set up checkposts at a number of places on its side of the line of actual control with a certain number of civil police assigned to each checkpost. The Chinese Government will notify the Indian Government of the location of these checkposts through diplomatic channels. These measures taken by the Chinese Government on its own initiative demonstrate its great sincerity for stopping the border conflict and settling the Sino-Indian boundary question peacefully. It should be pointed out, in particular, that after withdrawing. The Chinese frontier guards will be far behind their positions prior to September 8, 1962. The Chinese Government hope that, as a result of the abovementioned initiative measures taken by China, the Indian Government will take into consideration the desires of the Indian people and peoples of the world, make a new start and give a positive response. Provided that the Indian Government agrees to take corresponding measures, the Chinese and Indian Government can immediately appoint officials to meet at places agreed upon by both parties in the various sectors of the Sino-Indian border to discuss matters relating to the 20 kilometres withdrawal of the armed-forces of each party to fix a demilitarized zone, the establishment of check posts by each party on its side of the line of actual control as well as the return of captured personnel. When the talks between the officials of the two parties have yielded results and the results have been put into effect, talks can be held by the Prime Ministers of the two countries for further seeking an amicable settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. The Chinese Government would welcome the Indian Prime Minister to Peking; if this should be inconvenient to the Indian Government, the Chinese Premier would be ready to go to Delhi for the talks.

The Chinese Government sincerely hopes that the Indian Government will make a positive response. Even if the Indian Government fails to make such a response in good time, the Chinese Government will take the initiative to carry out the above-mentioned measures as scheduled. However, the Chinese Government cannot but take into account the following possible eventualities: (1) that the Indian troops should continue their attack after the Chinese frontier guards have ceased fire and when they are withdrawing; (2) that, after the Chinese frontier guards have withdrawn 20 kilometres from the entire line of actual control, the Indian troops should again advance to the' line of actual control in the eastern sector, i.e., the illegal McMahon Line and/or refuse to withdraw but remain on the line of actual control in the middle and western sectors; and (3) that, after the. Chinese frontier guards have withdrawn 20 kilometres from the entire line of actual control, the Indian troops should cross the line of actual control and recover their positions prior to September 8, that is to say, again cross the illegal McMahon line and reoccupy the Kechilang River area north of the line in the eastern sector, reoccupy Wuje in the Middle sector, and restore their 43 strongpoints for aggression in the Chip Chap River Valley, the Galwan River Valley, the Pangong Lake area, and the Demchok area or set up more strongpoints for aggression on Chinese territory in the western sector. The Chinese Government solemnly declares 'that, should the above eventualities occur, China reserves the right to strike back in self-defence, and the Indian Government will be held completely responsible for all the grave consequences arising therefrom. The people of the world will then see even more clearly who is Peace-loving and who, is bellicose, who upholds friendship between the Chinese and Indian peoples and Asian-African solidarity and who is undermining them who is protecting the common interests of the Asian and African peoples in

their struggle against imperialism and colonialism and who is violating and damaging these common interests. The Sino-Indian boundary question is an issue between two Asian countries. China and India should settle this issue peacefully; they should not cross swords on account of this issue and even less allow U.S. imperialism to poke in its hand and develop the present unfortunate border conflict into a war in which Asians are made to fight Asians. It is from its consistent stand of protecting fundamental interests of the Chinese and Indian peoples, strengthening Asian-African solidarity and preserving world peace that the Chinese Government has, after considering the matter over and over, decided to take these important measures. The Chinese Government calls upon all Asian and African countries and all peace-loving countries and people to exert efforts to urge the Indian Government to take corresponding measures so as to stop the border conflict reopen peaceful negotiations and settle the Sino-Indian boundary question.

Memorandum given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 26 November 1962 On November 23, 1962, the Indian Foreign Secretary met the Charge d'Affaires a.i. of the Chinese Embassy in India by appointment and orally asked for clarification on five points relating to the Chinese Government's Statement of November .21. The Chinese Government gives its answers as follows: Question: It is stated in point 2 of the Chinese Government's Statement that Chinese troops will withdraw to positions 20 kilometres behind the line of actual control. Does this refer 10 the western sector only? Answer: It is clearly stated in the Chinese Government's Statement that Chinese frontier guards will withdraw along the entire Sino-Indian border to positions 20 kilometres behind the line of actual control which existed on November 7, 1959. In other words, this applies, without exception, to the western as well as the eastern and middle sectors of the Sino-Indian border. Question: It is stated in point 2 of the Chinese Government's Statement that Chinese troops will withdraw 20 kilometres north of the so-ca11ed McMahon Line. Where will that be? Will that be behind the positions of September 8, 1962, as suggested by the Indian Government? Answer: It is clearly stated in the Chinese Government's Statement that, after withdrawing, the Chinese frontier guards will be far behind their positions prior to September 8, 1962. In the eastern sector the Chine se frontier guards will withdraw to positions 20 kilometres north of the illegal

McMahon Line, that is, they will withdraw not only from the Kechilang River and Che Dong area, but also from Le village, Migyitun and Tsayul. China will, of course, continue to exercise administrative jurisdiction in the above mentioned areas. Question: The Chinese Government's decision to cease fire and take these measures is China's unilateral action. Where, according to the interpretation of the Chinese side, should the Indian troops be in order not to go against the three measures and to evoke China's reaction? Answer: It is clearly stated in the Chinese Government's Statement that it is out of its great sincerity for stopping the border conflict and settling the Sino-Indian boundary question peacefully that the Chinese Government is taking these three measures on its own initiative. The Chinese Government sincerely hopes that the Indian Government will give a positive response and take corresponding measures. In other words, it hopes that the Indian armed forces will similarly withdraw 20 kilometres on its side from the line of the actual control along the en tire Sino-Indian border. When this is done, the armed forces of the two sides will disengage on an equitable basis, tranquility along the border will be effectively ensured and recurrence of border clashes will be prevented. It goes without saying that respect by both. China and India of the line of actual control up to which each side exercised administrative jurisdiction on November 7, 1959 and an equitable withdrawal of their respective armed forces from this line will in no way prejudice each side's adherence to its claims with regard to the boundary. However, as pointed out in the Chinese Government's Statement, China reserves the right to strike back in self-defence in case, after the Chinese frontier guards have ceased fire and withdrawn, Indian troops should continue to attack the Chinese frontier guards, or again advance to the line

of actual control, or refuse to withdraw but remain on the lin8 of actual control or against cross it. Question: Will China's checkposts be set up only in the areas within 20 kilometres of what China considers to be the boundary, or in other areas as well? In the middle and western sectors China will probably set up checkposts within 20 kilometres on its side of the customary line, but in the eastern sector will it set up checkposts within 20 kilometres north of the McMahon Line or, for a period of time, south of the line too? Answer: It is clearly stated in the Chinese Government’s Statement that China will set up checkposts at a number of places on its side of the entire line of actual control which existed on November 7, 1959. Therefore, the question of China setting up checkposts south of the line of actual control in the eastern sector does not arise at all. As for the concrete location of the line of actual control of November 7, 1959, reference is made to maps 3 and 5 attached to Premier Chou En-lai's letter of November 15, 1962 addressed to the leaders of Asian and African countries. Question: The McMahon Line was mentioned in Premier Chou's letters of November 4. India has always held that this line should follow the highest ridge. The map of the McMahon Line is merely a sketch map. If, as China says, one should go by the co-ordinates on the map, 140 square miles of territory would be included into India, which territory, however, is now under the jurisdiction of Tibet. The Indian side hopes that China will clarify as to which delineation it supports. Answer: The so-called McMahon Line is illegal and the Chinese Government has never recognized it. The reason why the Chinese Government pointed

out the coordinates of the western extremity of the so-called McMahon Lin8 was to show that Indian troops had crossed this line and intruded into the Kechilang River area. The Indian Government asserts that the so-called McMahon Line should follow the highest ridge. But this is an entirely groundless assertion. The Chinese Government considers that at present both sides should first adopt measures to disengage their armed forces, with the line of actual control of November 7, 1959 as the basic line, and prevent the recurrence of clashes so as to create an atmosphere conducive to boundary negotiations. Both sides should defer the differences on the 'boundary question for settlement by future negotiations, and refrain from haggling over them now endlessly.

Memorandum given by the Embassy of China in India to the Ministry of. External Affairs, 26 November 1962 On November 21, 1962 Mr. A. P. Venkateswaran, Deputy Secretary of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, orally asked Mr. Yin Shang-chih, First Secretary of the Chinese Embassy, for clarification on three points relating to the Chinese Government's statement of November 21. The Chinese Embassy replies as follows: Question: Beginning from December 1, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw 20 kilometres from the line of actual control as on November 7, 1959. Is this line of actual control the one which was interpreted in the People's Daily of November 8? Answer: Beginning from December 1, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw 20 kilometres from the line of actual control as on November 7, 1959. This line of actual control is described in detail in the letter from Premier Chou En-lai to Prime Minister Nehru dated November 4, and in the letter and attached maps from Premier Chou En-laid to the leaders of Asian and African countries dated November 15; the People's Daily of November 8 can also a serve as a reference. Question: According to the Statement, the Chinese frontier guards, after withdrawing 20 kilometres from the line of actual control, will be' far behind their positions prior to September 8. How would you define this? Because even according to the so-called line of actual control claimed by China, Chinese troops, after withdrawing 20 kilometres, would still have crossed the line of September 8 at certain places.

Answer: The Chinese frontier guards, after withdrawing 20 kilometres from the line of actual control, will be far behind their positions prior to September 8 (reference documents mentioned above). In the eastern sector, China will even have to withdraw its frontier guards in Tsayul and Le Village; in the western sector many Chinese posts in the Chip Chap River Valley, the Galwan River Valley the Kongka Pass, the Pangong lake and the Spanggur lake areas will be withdrawn. Question: Please clarify point (2) of the "possible eventualities" in the Statement. Answer: It means that should the Indian side, taking advantage of the withdrawal by the Chinese side, again advance to the line of actual control or remain on it, this cannot but be regarded as the Indian side deliberately maintaining border tension, preparing for new intrusion at any moment and provoking clashes. The Chinese side hopes that such a situation will not arise.

Letter from Premier Chou En-lai to the Prime Minister of India. 28 November, 1962 Respected Mr. Prime Minister, As a result of the cease-fire by the Chinese frontier guards on their own initiative along the entire Sino-Indian border from 00:00 hour November 22, 1962, the unfortunate border conflict between our two countries has come to a halt, and the situation has been eased somewhat. Beginning from December 1, 1962, the Chinese 'frontier guards, in pursuance of the Chinese Government's deci6ion, will withdraw on its own initiative all the way to positions on the Chinese side 20 kilometres behind the line of actual control as of November 7, 1959. The moment when the situation takes a turn, I consider it necessary to write to you in directly appealing to the Indian Government to take corresponding measures in good time so that our two sides may jointly move the present situation towards further relaxation. Your Excellency must have taken note of the Chinese Government's Statement of November 21. This Statement is very clear in itself. Earlier, on November 19 and 20, l had explained in detail the spirit and substance on this Statement to Mr. Banerjee, the Indian Charge d'Affaires in China. l believe he must have reported back to you. It is regrettable that so far I have failed to get a due response from Your Excellency. Both our sidles are well aware of the differences between us on the boundary question. It is not necessary to repeat them at present. The Chinese Government holds that the present task before our two sides is to terminate the border conflict, separate the armed forces of the two parties and create a proper atmosphere so as to settle our boundary differences through negotiations; and we should be confident that these differences can be settled in a friendly way through peaceful negotiations.

We should not get these differences entangled with the present task, lest the border conflict could not be terminated and negotiations could not be started at all. It was precisely out of these considerations that the Chinese Government decided to take the lead in ceasing tire and withdrawing its frontier guards. In taking its decision, the Chinese Government had given full consideration to the decency, dignity and self-respect of both sides. The initiative measures which the Chinese Government has decided to take are not conditional on simultaneous corresponding measures to be taken by the Indian side. According to the Chinese Government's decision, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw 20 kilometers from the line of actual control of November 7, 1959. That is to say, they will not only evacuate the area-s they reached in their recent fight in self-defence but will withdraw to positions far behind those they held on September 5 or October 20, 1962. The line of actual control of November 7, 1959 had to ken shape on the basis of the extent of administration by each side at the time; it existed objectively and cannot be defined or interpreted according to the free will of either side. In withdrawing 20 kilometres from this line, the armed forces of each side would be evacuating areas under its own administration; hence the question of one side achieving gains and the other suffering lasses does not arise. Moreover, this would not prevent either side from continuing to administer the area evacuated by its armed forces on its side of the line nor will this prejudice either side's position in regard to the boundary alignment. l would like to stress that withdrawal by China alone of its frontier guards beyond 20 kilometres on its side of the 1959 line of actual control cannot ensure the disengagement of the armed forces of the two sides, nor can it prevent the recurrence of border clashes. On the contrary, in case the Indian side should refuse to co-operate, even the cease-fire which has been

effected is liable to be up-set. Therefore, the Chinese Government sincerely hopes that the Indian Government will take corresponding measures. If the Indian Government agrees to do so, l specifically propose that the Governments of our two countries appoint officials to meet at places agreed upon by bath parties in the various sectors of the Sino-Indian border to discuss matters relating to the 20-kilometres withdrawal of the armed forces of each party to form a demilitarized zone, the establishment of checkposts by each party on its own side of the line of actual control, and the return of captured personnel. The meeting of the officials of the two countries will itself be of great positive significance because it will signify the return of our two sides from the battlefield to the conference table. If the meeting of the officials of the two countries achieves results and the results are put into effect, the Prime Ministers of our two countries can then hold talks and proceed further to seek a friendly settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. The border conflict in the past month has greatly strained the relations between our two countries. China's Embassy, Consulates, bank establishments and nationals in India have been subjected to treatment which is rarely seen even when war has been formally declared between two states. In my view, such an abnormal state of affairs unnecessarily poisons the atmosphere between our two countries and obviously should not continue any longer. Your Excellency Mr. Prime Minister, only a handful of ill-intentioned people in the world want our two countries to keep on fighting. The common friends of our two countries are all heartened by the realizalion of cease-fire between us. They ardently hope that we will make joint efforts to transform the cease-fire which has been effected into the starting point of a peaceful settlement of the boundary question. The Chinese Government has taken the first steps, i.e., cease-fire, and is going to take the second step, i.e.,

withdrawal I hope the Indian Government will give a positive response and make efforts in the 'same direction. I am awaiting your reply. Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. (Sd.) CHOU EN-LAI, Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China

Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi to the Embassy of China in India, 30 November 1962 The clarifications of the Government of China, delivered on the 26th November 1962, are, in several respects, vague and would require further elaboration before the Chinese ceasefire proposals can be fully considered by the Government of India. Maps 3 and 5 while correctly indicating Demchok area as within the line of actual control of India in the Western sector show large areas of Ladakh including Qiziljilga, Shinglung, Dehra, Samzungling and areas to the west of these locations as within the Chinese line of actual control as on 7th November 1959. A reference to the notes exchanged between the Governments of India and China during the last three years would establish clearly that none of these areas were under Chinese control in November 1959. Some of these areas were occupied by Chinese forces later in 1959 and in 1960 while exchange of notes and discussions at various levels were going on some other areas were subsequently occupied in.1961 and 1962 upto the beginning of September but about 2,000 square miles more were taken by the Chinese after they mounted their massive attack on 20th October 1962 and after stiff fighting with numerous small Indian existing in this area. In view of this factual background the Government of India would be grateful for an objective and factual clarification of the Chinese line of actual control in the Western sector based on the position on the ground as on 7th November 1959 and not on the basis of any theoretical claims or surreptitious or forcible advances made by Chinese forces since then. Maps 3 and 5 while correctly indicating Khinzemane as within the line of actual control of India have shown the Dhola area (Tse Dong), Longju and Bara Hoti as lying outside it. This is an evident violation of the line of actual control in regard to all these locations.

There is a specific understanding with the Chinese Government that Indi3n police personnel would exercise control in Bara Hoti. In Longju both Governments agreed that neither Chinese nor Indian personnel should occupy the village. However, it is known that Lonjiu lies within the Indian side of the line of control, whereas Migyitun is on the Chinese side. As regards the Dhola area (Tse Dong) this has always been under Indian control till the further Chinese aggression in this area on 8th September 1962. This has been indisputably established in the numerous notes sent by the Government of India to the Government of China since 8th September 1962. Clarifications were sought on clause 3 of the Chinese ceasefire proposals which referred to the establishment of Chinese civilian checkposts. While vague reference has been made in the original proposal to the possibility of the establishment of checkposts by each party on its side of the line of actual control, no indication has been given in the clarifications on Indian civilian checkposts to be established on the line of actual control. It is presumed that the arrangements for the checkposts are reciprocal and that Indian civilian checkposts may be established up to the line of actual control. No indication has been given in the clarifications of the manner in which civilian checkposts would function to ensure normal movement of the inhabitants or forestall activities of the saboteurs or maintain order. For these purposes, it is presumed that personnel of these civilian checkposts would carry such small arms as are necessary and that there would be a parity both in the number of posts and the number of personnel between Indian and Chinese checkposts. The memorandum handed over to the Director of the China Division at the Ministry of External Affairs and to the Indian Charge d'Affaires in Peking, stated that "China reserves the right to strike back in self-defence in case,

after the Chinese frontier guards have ceased fire and withdrawn, Indian troops should continue to attack the Chinese frontier guards, or again advance to the line of actual control or refuse to withdraw but remain on the line of actual control, or again cross it". This is in fact a reproduction of the relevant portion of the Chinese statement of 21st November on unilateral ceasefire and withdrawals. Yet in a further Memorandum sent at 11:00 p.m. on the night of 26th November, a clarification to the same question has been given by the Chinese Embassy as follows: "It means that should the Indian side, taking advantage of the withdrawal by the Chinese side, again advance to the line of actual control or remain on it, this cannot but be regarded as the Indian side deliberately maintaining border tension, preparing for new intrusion at any moment and provoking clashes. The Chinese side hopes that such a situation will not arise". As this is a substantial modification and not a mere clarification, it is imperative that the attitude of the Chinese Government to a question that his considerable relevance to effective operation of the unilateral Chinese ceasefire proposals is clearly indicated. The Memorandum of the Government of China has brushed aside as being mere haggling an extremely relevant query of the Government of India in regard to the alignment of the McMahon Line. It must be clearly understood that since the Chinese Government has defined "the line of actual control" as coinciding in the main with the McMahon Line, no clear interpretation of the ceasefire proposals is possible, when the very alignment of the line of control is vague and unclear. The Chinese clarifications state that the Chinese Government had never recognised the McMahon Line; but surely if the ceasefire proposals are to have any meaning at all, since they are based upon the McMahon Line as the line of actual control, a precise definition of the alignment of the McMahon Line is imperative. If both sides are, as the Chinese clarifications suggest, to defer the differences on the

boundary question for settlement by further negotiations and to refrain from haggling over them now, surely the Chinese side should not haggle over Longju and the Kechilang River area which have always been within Indian control till displaced by force by the Chinese in August 1959 and on 8th September, 1962.

Letter from the Prime Minister of India to Premier Chou En-lai, 1 December, 1962 Dear Mr. Prime Minister, Thank you for your message of 28th November, which was delivered by your Charge d'Affaires to our Foreign Office at midnight, on 28th/29th November, 1962. In the letters that have been exchanged between UG since the further aggression by your forces commenced on 8th September, 1962, the following principles, on the basis of which our differences can be resolved peacefully, have emerged: i. We should create a proper atmosphere for peaceful settlement of our differences. (This has also been mentioned in your message of 28th November). ii. We should settle our differences in a friendly way through peaceful talks and discussions. (This has also been reiterated in your message of 28th November). If we fail, we can consider what other agreed peaceful method of settling our differences should be adopted (my letter of 27th October, 1962). iii. There should be no attempt to force any unilateral demand on either side on account of the advances gained in the recent clashes. (Your letter of 4th November, 1962). iv. The necessary preliminaries for talks and discussions suggested should be consistent with the decency, dignity and self-respect of both sides. (Your message of 28th November). v. The implementation of these proposed arrangements will not in any way prejudice either side's position in regard to the correct boundary alignment. (Your message of 4th November and your message of 28th November, 1962).

The withdrawal arrangements, however, that you propose, behind what you refer to as "the line of actual control as of November 7, 1959’, are inconsistent with the principles mentioned in the preceding paragraph. In spite of the clarifications given, l cannot understand How "the line of actual control as of November 7, 1959" can be as delineated in your maps a and 5 which were sent as accompaniments to your letter of 15th November to Heads of States/Governments of some Asian-African countries and to which reference was made in the clarifications given regarding "the line of actual control as of November 7, 1959". l would in this connection refer you to the last but one paragraph of my letter of 14th November, 1962, which gives, what we regard, as the line of actual Chinese control as it existed on the ground on 7th November, 1959. You have mentioned in your letter that this line cannot be defined or interpreted according to the free will of either side. This is .exactly, however, what your Government have done in the clarification given to the Indian Government regarding "the line of actual control as of November 7, 1959". What you call "the line of actual control as on November 7, 1959" in the western sector was only a series of isolated military posts. You are aware that in November 1959 there were no Chinese posts of any kind either at Qiziljilga, Shinglung, Dehra, Samzangling or any areas to the west of these locations nor did the Chinese have any posts to the south or west of Spanggur. De-spite this, "the line of actual control as on November 7, 1959, as your Government now claim in Ladakh, is along the line of control established by your forces after the massive attacks mounted since 20th October, 1962. This is a definite attempt to retain under cover of preliminary ceasefire arrangements, physical possession over the area which China claims and to se cure which the massive attack since 20th October, 1962, was mounted by your forces. This we cannot agree to. This

also violates principles (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) mentioned in paragraph 2 above, which you have been reiterating in all your communications. The same remarks apply to "the line of actual control as of November 7, 1959" defined by your Government in the central and the eastern 6ectors. Barahoti, which your Government call Wuje, had never been under Chinese control. As a matter of fact, if you will refer to the past communications on. this subject, you would find that there is an understanding that the administrative control of Barahoti will remain with the Indian side, only unarmed civil administrative personnel being in charge of the area. As regards the eastern sector, Longju was under Indian administrative control till August 1959 when Chinese forces attacked the Indian garrison there. Since then it has not been under the administrative control of either side. Again various communications exchanged between our two Governments would show clearly that Khinzemane and the Dhola region to the south of the Thagla ridge, which the Chinese clarification describe as the Kechilang river and Chedong area, have always been under Indian administrative control till Chinese forces started their further aggression on 8th September, 1962, in this region. The three-point proposals of October 24, 1962 and the statement on ceasefire and withdrawals of 21st November, 1962, clearly aim at securing physical control of areas which were never under Chinese administrative control either on 7th November, 1959 or at any time prior to 8th September, 1962. These proposals not only violate principles (iii) and (iv) mentioned in para 2 above, but are a definite attempt to prejudice India's position in maintaining its stand as regards the boundary. You have mentioned in your message of 28th November that "the initiative measures which the Chinese Government have decided to take are not conditional on simultaneous corresponding measures to be taken by the Indian side". And yet, later on in your message you state "that withdrawal

by China alone of its frontier guards beyond 20 kilometres on its side of the 1959 line of actual control cannot ensure the disengagement of the armed forces of the two sides, nor can it prevent the recurrence of border clashes. On the contrary, in case the Indian side should refuse to co-operate, even the cease-fire which has been effected is liable to be upset." These observations appear to be contradictory. In any case, if the Government of India are to take any attitude to the so-called unilateral measures of ceasefire and withdrawals announced by the Chinese Government, they must clearly know what the "line of actual control as of November 7, 1959" is, nor can that line be unilaterally determined by the Chinese Government either on the basis of their alleged claims or on the basis of the position reached as a result of their further aggression. In the light of the above, I would once again commend for your acceptance the clear and straightforward proposal made by us, namely, at least the status quo prior to 8th September, 1962, should be restored so that the necessary atmosphere for reverting to peaceful processes may be created. There is no danger of any clashes under this arrangement if both sides are genuinely sincere in their desire to revert to paths of peace. As you know, the earlier minor clashes occurred because your forces attacked the small Indian patrols of posts guarding against surreptitious aggressive intrusions in Indian territory which had been going on since 1957, and the major clashes started since 8th September, 1962, when your forces started an unprovoked wanton invasion of Indian territory. Our Foreign Office has presented a written note to your Charge d'Affaires in Delhi on 30th November for further clarification of "the line of actual control as on November 7, 1959". I hope that the written memorandum presented by our Foreign Office and my present letter will result in positive clarifications on this rather confusing and complicated question of what you call "the line of actual control as of November 7, 1959".

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Yours sincerely, (Sd.) JAWAHARLAL NEHRU.

Memorandum given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 8 December 1962 1. In compliance with the request of the Indian Government, the Government of China has twice made clarifications concerning its statement of November 21, 1962, which is itself very clear. But the Indian Government alleged in its memorandum delivered on November 30 that the Chinese clarifications are "vague and would require further elaboration before the Chinese ceasefire proposals can be fully considered by the Government of India". While failing so far to make a positive response to the three measures taken by the Chinese Government on its own initiative, the Indian Government has created side issues and time and again raised meaningless and trouble-making questions, asking for clarifications from the Chinese Government. The Government of China cannot but express deep regret at this line of action taken by the Indian Government out unrevealed motives. 2. In its memorandum, the Indian Government distorted the November 7, 1959 line of actual control in an attempt to deny the Chinese Government's exercise of administrative jurisdiction over large tracts of Chinese territory. The Chinese Government resolutely refutes such a groundless argument. A. The Chinese Government has already set forth in detail in its many previous documents facts about the Chinese Government's exercise of administrative jurisdiction over the vast areas on the Chinese side of the traditional customary line in the western sector of the Sino-Indian border. Chinese administrative jurisdiction has extended right up to the traditional customary line, the areas including Qiziljilga, Shinglung, Dehra, Samzungling and places to the west of these locations have without

exception been und el' the effective jurisdiction of China. By intentionally confusing the extent of China's administrative jurisdiction and the location of China's frontier posts, the Indian Government attempts to prove that China's jurisdiction has not reached these areas. The very premise of this argument is wrong. But, even speaking of frontier posts, China had set up before November 7, 1959 seven posts close by the traditional customary line, with the northernmost one near the Karakoram Pass and the southernmost one near Spanggur Lake and with close ground contact maintained among these posts and between them and the rear. It is precisely because of the effective jurisdiction exercised by the Chinese Government that when armed Indian personnel on two occasions in September 1958 and July 1959 sneaked into these areas they were promptly detained by Chinese frontier guards, and that when armed Indian personnel intruded into Kongka Pass and provoked a border conflict in October 1959, the;" were immediately repulsed. Apart from these three occasions, not a single Indian personnel had entered these areas before 1961. What the Indian side had been able to do since then was confined to the establishment of 43 strongpoints of aggression within 20 kilometres on the Chinese side of the line of actual control, and the Indian side was able to do this surreptitiously only by taking advantage of China's unilateral cessation of border patrols. In order to resist Indian intrusions, beginning from May 1962 the Chinese side restored its patrols in these desolate border areas and set up a number of new frontier posts. Thus there had arisen prior to September 8, 1962 a situation of the posts of the two sides confronting each other in a manner of interlocked jigsaw puzzle within 20 kilometres on the Chinese side of the line of actual control in the western sector of the Sino-Indian border.

B. In the eastern and middle sectors of the Sino-Indian border, India tried to describe the Che Dong area, Longju and Wuje as situated on the Indian side of the line of actual control. This is wholly groundless. Regarding the Che Dong area, China has in its previous notes and statements repeatedly given in contestable proof that this area is to the north of the illegal McMahon Line and under Chinas effective jurisdiction. There is no need to repeat it here. Longju is a village in the Migyitun area, and India itself has admitted that Migyitun is situated to the north of the illegal McMahon Line. This village was invaded and occupied by Indian troops in June 1959, but was recovered by China after the armed conflict instigated by Indian troops in August 1959. Following that, China not only restored its administrative control over Longju, but also maintained a post there for a period of time. The Indian memorandum alleges that both sides agreed that neither Chinese nor Indian personnel should occupy the village. This is pure fabrication. It is appropriate to ask: When and in what manner did the two Governments agree to refrain from "occupying" Longju? It is impossible for the Indian Government to produce any definite evidence on this question. As for Wuje, the Indian Government is clearly aware that, owing to the intrusion of Indian troops into this area after 1954, an agreement of nonstationing of either side's troops there was reached between China and India on the initiative of China. However there has never been any interruption in China's administrative control over the place. The Indian memorandum asserts that "there was a specific understanding with the Chinese Government that Indian police personnel would exercise control in Bara Hoti (Wuje) ". This is also pure fabrication. It is appropriate to ask when and in what manner did the Chinese Government agree to the "control" of Wuje by Indian police personnel. On this question too, it is impossible for the Indian Government to produce any definite evidence.

The line of actual control of November 7, 1959 was a result of India's forcible violation of the traditional customary line and its seizure of large tracts of Chinese territory. China has already shown great forbearance and accommodation by renewing the proposal of taking this line as the base line for the withdrawal and separation of the armed forces of the two sides. It goes without saying that this line is not the final boundary line between China and India. Yet now India is not satisfied with this, but attempts to describe the Chinese territory which India has never occupied or has failed in its attempt to occupy as situated on the Indian side of the line of actual control of November 7, 1959. This is most unreasonable. 3. Regarding the question of checkposts, the Chinese Government's statement of November 21 made it quite clear that after the withdrawal of the Chinese frontier guards, China will establish checkposts on its own side of the line of actual control. Of course, China will have no objection to India's establishing checkposts on the Indian side of the line and manning them with an appropriate number of civil police equipped with weapons for self-defence. The memorandum, however, poses the so-called question of establishing check posts on the line. If this is not deliberate trouble-making, it shows that India intends to edge into the Chinese side of the line of actual control on the pretext of establishing checkposts. This is absolutely impermissible. As for details relating to the establishment of checkposts, it has also been clearly explained in the Chinese Government's statement that they can be discussed and settled by the officials to be designated by the Governments of the two countries. While avoiding saying whether it is prepared to make a positive response to the three measures taken by China on China's own initiative, the Indian side unwarrantedly asked China to clarify the details. This was obviously deliberate haggling and evading an answer to the substantive question.

4. It is clearly stated in the Chinese Government's statement in what eventualities China reserves the right to strike back in self-defence after the cease-fire and withdrawal of the Chinese frontier guards. This stand of China's was further explained in the Chinese memorandum of November 25. The hope was expressed in the Chinese memorandum of November 26 that the possible eventualities mentioned in the statement of the Chinese Government might not occur. The stand of the Chinese Government is consistent. But the Indian Government asserted that China's clarification on November 26 was "a substantial modification and not a mere clarification". It may be asked: What is the substantial difference between China's reservation of the right to strike back in self-defence under certain circumstances and its simultaneously expressed hope that such circumstances might not occur? The Indian Government has been either deliberately refusing to understand China's statement and clarifications, or intentionally making trouble. Should the Indian side further try to seek loopholes in China's clarification in order to make new provocations, the Chinese Government must point out here that this is dangerous and will never bring India any good. 5. By means of oral and written explanations and of maps, China has made it clear in detail the location of the line of actual control as of November 7, 1959 in the eastern sector and its relation with the illegal McMahon Line. Since the Indian side advanced to the illegal McMahon Line, both sides have been clearly aware of the extent of .each other's administrative control. In other words, there objectively existed between the two sides a line of actual control formed by the extent of each side's administrative control. This was the line of actual control of November 7, 1959 as pointed out by China. Since November 7, 1959, the only dispute between the two sides has

concerned the Che Dong area. This also proves that both sides are clear about and have no differences over the location of this line of actual control. There is nothing vague about the Chinese Government's proposal to take this perfectly clear line of actual control as the base line for separating the armed forces of the two sides, and no clarification whatsoever is needed. The Che Dong area has always been under China's administrative jurisdiction. If India takes exception to this fact, the only thing it can go by is the original 1914 map, and cannot be any so-called geographical principle laid down by India unilaterally. While the so-called Thagla ridge on which India bases itself in unilaterally defining the alignment of the illegal McMahon Line in this area is not to be found on the original 1914 map, the coordinates which are clearly there indisputably show that the Che Dong area is to the north of the illegal McMahon Line. The Indian side has been haggling about this question and held that it has the right to define unilaterally the specific location of the illegal McMahon Line. This is clearly an attempt to create confusion about the 1959 line of actual control, which is very clear itself. 6. The November 21 statement of the Chinese Government is explicit and contains nothing vague. Many of the points raised by India for clarification were no questions at all, some of them were even deliberately raised to confuse right and wrong, and the object was nothing but putting off any response to the measures which China has taken on its own initiative. It should be pointed out that what is really vague is the attitude of the Indian Government. The Indian Government faces a series of questions to which it cannot long avoid giving a frontal answer. These questions are: 1. Does the Indian Government agree, or does it not agree, to a ceasefire? In the western and eastern sectors of the Sino-Indian border,

Indian troops and aircraft have taken advantage of the fact that the Chinese frontier troops have ceased fire and began to withdraw on China’s own initiative … This is a strong signal. It is now for the Indian Government to clarify whether the Indian troops intend to continue their provocations against the Chinese frontier troops. 2. Does the Indian Government agree, or does it not agree, that the armed forces of the two sides should disengage and withdraw 20 kilometres each from the November 7, 1959 line of actual control? The Indian Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs Mrs. Menon openly declared in Colombo on December 4 that India would move its troops right up to the so-called McMahon Line and that India must gain control of the passes in the "Northeast frontier Agency". It must be stressed that the Chinese frontier guards are withdrawing from the nearly 20,000 square kilometre of Chinese territory north of the traditional customary line in the eastern sector of the Sino-Indian border in order to urge the Indian Government to make a positive response and seek a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question. Now it is for the Indian Government to clarify whether the above statement made by the Indian Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs represents the official reply of the Indian Government to the fact that the Chinese frontier guards have ceased tire and begun to withdraw on China's own initiatives. 3. Does the Indian Government agree, or does It not agree, that officials of the two sides should meet and discuss matters relating to the 20 kilometre withdrawal of the armed forces of each party from the line of actual control of November 7, 1959 to form a demilitarized zone, the establishment of checkposts by each party on its side of the line of actual control as well as the return of captured personnel. The Chinese side 1S prepare d, in the officials' meeting, to discuss with

the Indian side any specific details relating to the above-mentioned matters. It is hoped that the Indian Government will give a clear and definite reply.

Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 19 December, 1962. The Memorandum handed over to the Indian Embassy at Peking by the Chinese Foreign Office on 9th December, 1962, apart from containing three questions couched in a peremptory and dictatorial tone, i8 replete with factual distortions. It is utterly fallacious to state that the Chinese Government have already set forth in detail in their many previous documents facts, about their exercise of administrative jurisdiction over vast areas on the Chinese side of what they refer to as the traditional and customary line in the Western sector … During the talks of the Officials of the two Governments in 1960, the Chinese side brought forward no evidence at all of having administered even the Aksai Chin area, let alone regions further west stretching up to their so-called line of actual control. The Indian side, on the other hand, produced considerable evidence of tax collection, revenue assessment, maintenance of law and order and construction of public works in this area. All that Chine se officials were able to show were unsubstantiated c1aims to have collected taxes in the Aksai Chin. The only document they could produce which they claimed referred to the Aksai Chin and Lingzi Tang areas was a petition from the Governor of Sinkiang in 1927 and an order passed the next year by the Chinese Government in that connection. A careful study of the document would indicate that it did not refer at all the Aksai Chin, but to an area north of the Kuen Lun range. Despite the Chinese claim that the Aksai Chin and Lingzi Tang areas since the 18th century had been extensively used for salt mining, pasturing and grazing, not a single document from either the archives of the Sinkiang Administration or from contemporary records or accounts was produced by

them to establish the prevalence of this practice. To state brazenly that documents are available establishing the fact of Chinese administration upto their so-called traditional and customary line is patently fallacious when they are unable to produce evidence of administrative control even in the Aksai Chin region. The Chinese Memorandum in referring to three incidents in 1958 and 1959 between Indian and Chinese forces states that "apart from these three occasions not a single Indian personnel had entered these areas before 1961". The facts are that Indian official survey parties and patrols have constantly visited this area even after 1950, the year when the Chinese Government falsely claimed that they were present in the Aksai Chin area. In 1951, a group went from Leh to Lingzi Tang and Aksai Chin. In 1952, a party went upto Lanak La via Kongka Pass. In 1954 and 1956, patrols went to Lanak La. In September 1957, a party went to the Qara Tagh pass via Shamallungpa. In the summer of 1958, another party went to SarighJilganang and Amtoghar lake regions. The entire area was constantly being patrolled by Indian officials. These facts were very clearly brought to the notice of the Chinese side during the discussion of the officials in 1960, though the Chinese Government now choose to ignore all knowledge of these facts. The Chinese Memorandum states that beginning from May 1962, in order to resist Indian intrusions, "the Chinese side restored Hs patrols in these desolate areas and set up a number of new frontier posts." The patent falsehood of this assertion is established by the fact that, well before May 1962, the Indian Government had protested on numerous occasions on aggressive Chinese forward patrolling, on harassment of Indian personnel proceeding on normal duties and on establishment of military posts in the Western sector. The Government of India's notes of 2nd July 1958, 8th November 1958, 30th July 1959, 4th November 1959, 31st October 1961

provide ample evidence of aggressive forward patrolling and establishment of military posts by Chinese forces throughout this earlier period. While the Chinese Government has continued to make statements that the "Che Dong" area is north of the McMahon Line and with its effective jurisdiction, it has in no way substantiated it with what the Chinese Memorandum refers to as "incontestable proof that was under China's effective jurisdiction". On the contrary, the Government of India have, time and again, given detailed facts prove that this area has been under the direct administrative control the Government apart from the substantive fact of its being south of the highest watershed ridge which forms the McMahon Line in this area. There is evidence in writing even as recently as August 1953 by the Chinese official at Tsona in Tibet to the effect that taxes collected should be deposited with the Government of India. The baseless character of the Chinese assertion has been very clearly indicated in the Indian Government note of 16th October, 1962. Reference in this connection is invited to the comments under '''Eastern Sector" in the Memorandum attached to the Prime Minister of India's letter of 14th November to Prime Minister Chou-En-lai. The Chinese authorities should state clearly whether they accept the highest watershed principle or want to follow strictly the coordinates given in the 1914 maps. If they follow the latter for the purpose of supporting their so-called claim to the "Che Dong area"they should be prepared to accept on the same analogy that the areas of Migyitun and Tu Lung La should form part of Indian territory. In referring to Longju, the Memorandum very boldly asserts: “The Indian Memorandum alleges that bath sides agreed that neither Chinese nor Indian personnel should occupy the village. This is pure fabrication. It is appropriate to ask: When and in what manner did the two Governments agree to refrain from 'occupying' Longju? It is impossible for the Indian Government to produce any definite evidence on this question". The

Chinese Government is requested to refer to para 3 of the letter dated 17th December, 1959, of Premier Chou En-laid to the Prime Minister of India, in which it has been stated as follows: "Pending the above-mentioned agreement, the Chinese Government, in a conciliatory spirit and out of the desire to move towards the withdrawal of armed forces along the en tire border, is prepared to agree first to reach a partial solution by applying the proposal you have made in your letter for the non-stationing of the armed forces of both sides at Longju to the other disputed In regard to Wuje, the Chinese Government will recollect that in their Note of 13th September, 1959, the Government of India had mentioned that: "if the Government of China are not agreeable to this suggestion the Government of India will continue as in previous years to send its civil personnel to exercise jurisdiction over an area which the Government of India have always considered as part of Indian territory. Such personnel, however, will not carry any arms". No reply was received to this communication and the Government of India have been sending Indian police personnel to Bara Hoti du ring the summer season. The attitude of the Government of India to the three questions posed by the Government of China has been indicated by the Prime Minister of India in his statement in the Indian Parliament on 10th December, 1962: (1) The cease-fire and withdrawal declaration by the Government of China was a unilateral one. But in so far as the cease-fire is concerned, nothing has been done by the Indian side to impede the implementation of the cease-fire declaration. (2) India is in favour of the disengagement of the forces of the two sides on the basis of a commonly agreed arrangement. Such an arrangement, however, can only be on the basis of undoing the further aggression committed by the Government of China on

Indian territory on the 8th September, 1962. If the Government of China dispute that a particular areas is Indian territory, this is a matter for juridical or the like decision. The fact, however, is that the areas in which aggression had been committed by China had long beer. in Indian occupation and this is something which cannot be disputed. The Government of India have given their understanding of the so-called line of actual control of November 7, 1959. They do not agree with the Chinese interpretation which is not in accordance with the facts. These facts can, as evidenced by the instances given in the earlier part of this Memorandum, be determined from the correspondence between the two Governments during the last five years. The Government of China cannot expect India to agree to the so-called line of actual control of November 7, 1959, which i3 manifestly not in accordance with facts. (3) It is obvious that if the officials of the two sides are to meet, they must have clear and precise instructions as to the cease-fire and withdrawal arrangements which they are supposed to implement, Unless they receive these instructions, which must be the result of an agreement between the two Governments of India and China, they will be unable to function. Therefore, it has to be determined previously which line is to be implemented. Between the line of actual control immediately prior to the 8th September, 1962, and that on the 7th November, 1959, as defined by Chinese Government, there is a difference of about 2,500 square miles of Indian territory which China has occupied as a result of invasion and massive attacks during the last three months. The Government of India cannot agree to the Chinese authorities

retaining the advantages secured by this latest invasion of Indian territory. The Government of India regret that the Chine se authorities are deliberately confusing the line of actual control as on 7th November, 1959, with their so-called territorial claims, particularly in the Western sector, and holding out threats of counter-attack if this arbitrary line of actual control is not accepted by the Government of India. This is clearly inconsistent with the Chinese Government's professions of their des ire for disengagement of the forces of the two sides based on line of actual control prior to the invasion and the clashes with a view to reverting to the processes of peaceful talks and discussions to resolve the differences between, the two. Governments on the question of the India-China boundary.

Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 27 December 1962

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and, with reference to the note of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian Government, dated May 31, 1962, has the honour to state as follows: In a number of its previous notes the Chinese Government has repeatedly and patiently made it clear to the Indian Government that, in view of the fact that the Sino-Indian boundary has not yet been formally delimited, no specific provisions have been made in the Sino-Burmese Boundary Treaty regarding the tri-junction of China, Burma and India. However, the Indian Government has all along persisted in its subjective and one-sided assertion that this tri-junction has already been defined in the SinoBurmese Boundary Treaty. Furthermore, it wants to impose such a distorted interpretation on the signatories. The Chinese Government cannot but express once again its deep regret at the Indian Government's repeated and unreasonable haggling over the matter. It is not difficult to see from the five Indian notes, and particularly from its note of May 31, that the Indian Government has been so endlessly harping on the subject simply because the conclusion of the Sino-Burmese Boundary Treaty has provided a powerful circumstantial evidence which once again refutes the Indian contention that the Sino-Indian boundary has long been delimited, thus leaving the Indian side with no tenable ground in the Sino-Indian boundary dispute. But that the Sino-Indian boundary has never been f