The Press TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1959. India’s Disputed Frontier

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28840, 10 March 1959, Page 14

The Press TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1959. India’s Disputed Frontier

Tibetan independence movements can expect no help from the Prime Minister of India (Mr Nehru), not even, it seems, recognition of their growing opposition to the Chinese overlords. Mr Nehru has two reasons for trying to minimise the rebellion in Tibet. Any recognition of an independent Tibetan movement would further strain the relations between India and China, and in India’s most sensitive spot, their common frontier. Second, if the tribesmen of Tibet have too much success they might attract the more active support of their kinsmen across the border, who have little in common with the India of the plains, thus weakening India’s claim to its mountain rampart. This frontier has always been a heavy care for Indian Governments, after as well as before independence. The boundary was last defined, on the MacMahon Line, by agreement between the British and Chinese Governments in 1914. The new regime in China does not recognise the line. Though Peking has generally held its claims in abeyance, Chinese and Indian forces in one area faced each for two years before the Chinese withdrew and deferred this specific claim to a later conference. In a sense, however, Mr Nehru is right that the situation in Tibet has been exaggerated. Except in the area controlled by the Khamba tribesmen, progress under Chinese rule has impressed Indians of Tibetan stock, who have been comparatively neglected by the Indian Govem-

ment. For instance, the Chinese have built roads to their side of the frontier; there are none on the Indian side.

The Chinese do not, however, control all Tibet. The Khambas hold an area of 20,000 square miles, and are talking of establishing a “ Free Tibetan “ Government ”. Well armed with captured equipment, they have won surprising successes

against rather immature Chinese garrison troops. They are now said to be planning a two-pronged attack on the capital, Lhasa, which the Chinese, taking no chances, have heavily fortified, with pill boxes at every • crossroad. Chinese nervousness is suggested by reports of the destruction of a large monastery and the exile of some of the leading monks, a flagrant breach of an undertaking not to interfere with monastic life. In spite of his attempt to shrug off the rebellion in Tibet, Mr Nehru must be deeply concerned by the grip the Khamba tribesmen have gained along the borders of Sikkim, Bhutan, and eastern India. Irritated by his refusal to give them

countenance, the Khambas are likely to raid Indian territory. Much more serious is the prospect of a Chinese military sweep southwards to put down the revolt. The Chinese will find themselves looking down again on India; and revision of the MacMahon line in China’s favour would almost certainly become a more pressing objective for Peking. Unfortunately this is a threat that cannot be overcome merely by pretending that it does not exist.