Talk:McMahon Line

This article depicts the McMahon Line primarily as a territorial dispute between China and India and the cause of the 1962 war, a view I can't agree with. Mao is on record as saying that the disputed territory was worthless [Auhtor: Could you point out a source for your strange claim?] If the Chinese had really thought the territory they occupied in 1962 was their's, they would not have withdrawn so quickly. I am sure they logistical problems and so forth, but I assume such problems were anticipated by Chinese military planners.

[The following is entirely personal biased view] The purpose of the invasion of 1962 was to enhance the prestige of China and the Maoists by giving some foreigners a beating. It kicked off a propaganda campaign which glorified the Chinese army and Lin Biao, at that time China's defense minister and Mao's intended successor.

Why did Mao picked India and not some other country? Aside from the obvious (military opportunity), India was a prominent Soviet ally and China had recently broken with the Soviets.

The only historically Tibetan town south of the line is Tawang. Chinese maps show a large swath of Indian territory as "South Tibet" and therefore belonging to China, but this is sheer mapsmanship.

The McMahon Line is also significant for a reason not mentioned in the article: It was establish through a bilateral treaty between Britain and Tibet. Recognition of the line by Britain and India implies recognition of Tibet's power to concluded treaties at the time of the Simla Convention (1914).

Kauffner 14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Kauffner

China's military is governed by an underlying doctrine called "Active Defensive". Many outside analysts were puzzled by China's seemingly impulsive, irrational military campaigns in the Sino-Vietnamese War and the Sino-Indian War. Google "China" and "Active Defense" and read it. Then you will see the clear consistency in China's military campaigns. That doctrine explains China's strategies, patterns and behaviors in the Korean War, Sino-Vietnamese War, and Sino-Indian War (plus few other conflicts.) And it will help you predict how China will react in any future conflict. ktchong 17 August 2006

Its funny China doesnot recognize the already demarcated boundaries of countries it occupied i.e, Tibet and East Turkestan(Xinjiang), boundaries which these countries agreed to, as a result it squeezed thousands of square kilometeres out of land out of Pakistan, Nepal and soon to Bhutan. On the other side after the fall of soviet union it forced Kyrgyzstan and Kazkhstan to cede territory to China. India is the only country resisting so far, but china occupies Askai Chin as a result of 1962 war anyways, Aksai Chin has been a part of Ladakh for centuries. March 21, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.79.209 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 22 March 2007

What government(s) recognised Tibet and East Turkestan as a "country"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

if you read the article on wikipedia, some of the land "ceded" was not even signed and agreed by the 'defacto' administration, the british just grab whoever didn't escape and make them sign an agreement to cede land, surely a treaty signed under such conditions cannot be considered legal? else everyone will be grabbing people of the street and cede land from each other. the british did the same with Singapore, they recognise another king and sign treaty with him. it impresses me what diplomacy is during imperial times. ;) Akinkhoo (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a few issues with recent edit by 219.79.122.73. First off, the gist seems to be that not only was China always right, but everyone else knew it. By the end of the article, you're wondering if there is any real dispute.

• The April 1943 British Foreign Office report questioning the validity of the Simla Convention is an internal memo, but it is presented as if it was an official position. The report just says that defending the convention is "difficult" which I see as a lot of weasal words. But the way the quote is positioned in the text, it sounds like the Foreign Office is siding with China against the British government, which had adopted the McMahon Line officially six years earlier. Eden's August 1943 letter to Soong is most official statement of the British position (Goldstein, p. 401). This describes Tibet as enjoying "de facto independence." As Foreign Minister, Eden certainly outranked whoever wrote the earlier report. Britain's 1943 communications with Washington concerning Tibet can be found here. Highlights: "The [Simla] convention was ratified by Tibet and the Government of India"; "The Government of India have always held that Tibet is a separate country in full enjoyment of local autonomy, entitled to exchange diplomatic representatives with other powers." No suggestion in any of this that the Foreign Office disputes the validity of the Simla Convention.

• To the cut and paste so much stuff from from Maxwell is a copyright violation. Also Maxwell has a lawyerly style of writing that's inappropriate here. (How many times do we need to be told that China rejected Simla?)

• The significance of the 1904 Anglo-Tibetan treaty for this article it that is was concluded between Tibet and Britain without the participation of China. This aspect of the treaty is glossed over. Tibet refused to recognize the earlier Sino-British treaties, hence the Younghusband expedition aimed at getting Tibet's consent. This edit makes it sound like it was the other way around, i.e. that the agreement Younghusband made was a temporary expedient pending China's confirmation.Kauffner 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ultimately, China's position is summed up in one simple, straightforward, easy-to-understand sentence: McMahon Line is a põart of Simla Convention treaty between Britan and Tibet, entirely without China's participation, and China refuses to accept it. ktchong 17 August 2006

1stly the source give on point one is withdrawn from the tibetan website "This page is busy meditating, preparing for the Kalachakra initiation and an audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Please try back later." they are neitehr having some fun, server trouble or no longer support that article. we will need to ignore it for now until the source is reaffirmed. point number 3, i wouldn't call invading people a means to reach an agreement; would you? are we to start accepting land ceded to nazi germany by the use of force? i don't think so. the treaty neutrality itself is questionable, even if we take china out of the equation. what do you think? Akinkhoo (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is written from an extremely Sino centric point of view and needs to be cleaned up

--> "cleaned up"? In my opinion we can offer the two points of view, saying that are two points of view (from India and from China). The things about which all people agree, we can write them in the first part. Why always "clean up" things?

because it leave people with a confusing picture. if we present the stance of both sides, it is much more easier of people to understand the conflict of interest here. Akinkhoo (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Several editors of this page seem to have relied on unreliable sources of modern Chinese history, most notably Jung Chang (see Mao: the Unknown Story for details for problems with her works). While some of these views are commonly espoused, it is a grave WP:NPOV error to present them as facts. For example, Mao starting a war to groom his successor is almost purely speculation, and should be presented as such. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with adding that information; do you have a source we can cite to? --David Shankbone 22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have restored a suppresed text citing Jung Chang. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

New section called "British Discards the McMahon Line" has started under History section. Due to British's policy change in Oct 2008, this entry has to be updated to reflect the change. The section includes British's policy change, and some of its implications. If anyone wants to change it, please bring the change up here for discussion first. Thanks. Xingdong (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Miliband statement doesn't mention the McMahon Line or even Simla, so heading is untrue. Not only that, but to devote an entire section to this issue gives WP:UNDUE attention to Barnett's views, who is not a specialist in international law. Kauffner (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, see titles of this entry: "Drawing the line", "Britain attempts to enforce line", "India and China dispute boundary", the next one would be more appropriate to be called "British discards the line". This is not only consistent with the titles, but also consistent with Britain's policy changings. The McMahon Line was a colonial legacy, and now British abandons it.

Since you mentioned so much about international law, I would challenge your understanding of Tibet's status according to international law. In your various posting regarding Tibet, you mentioned many times that Tibet was an independent country. But surely you don't understand international law, or in Tibet's case you have wrong understanding.

Tibet's self-proclaimed independence from China was not recognized by China, neither it was recognized by any country as a de jure independent nation. By any international law, Tibet can not be treated as an independent nation. Period.

Xingdong (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Barnett's view obviously worth quoting since he is considered as an world renown experts on Tibet issues. Even NY Times quoted what he said.

If you have anyone credible enough on British policy change, I welcome your contribution here.

Xingdong (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The phrase Line of Actual Control comes from a 1959 diplomatic message by Zhou Enlai to Nehru. Zhou defined the LAC as "the so-called McMahon Line in the east and the line up to which each side exercises actual control in the west." The LAC therefore pre-dates the 1962 war and is at a fixed location. If India goes north of the line or China south, the line stays where it is.
Many authors more prominent than Robert Barnett have commented on this subject over the years. To put his comments in the lede is both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Kauffner (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, to say the McMahon Line is a demarcation line is a conceptual mistake. It is good we removed that. Also, to say the McMahon Line is the "effective boundary between China and India" is not exactly right. The boundary between these two countries has never been settled. To be exact, the Line can only be called "Line of Actual Control". As it is called, the LAC can be changed any time due to advance of one side and retreat of another side. The term has been used on both Chinese and Indian in many occations (both official and unofficial). WP:UNDUE or WP:RECENTISM does not apply here. So, I suggest we change the "effective boundary" to "Line of Actual Control". Xingdong (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, Nehru asked Zhou in 1962 whether the LAC moved south when Chinese forces advanced. Zhou told him it did not: The line was, "basically still the line of actual control as [it] existed between the Chinese and Indian sides on 7 November 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."

Here is what Maxwell says: "On November 4, [1962] Chou En-lai replied that the "line of actual control" was referred to the same line that he had proposed in 1959. He explained: "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 counterattack in self-defense."

As you can see, Zhou defined the LAC in terms of the McMahon Line and as something different than the "present line of actual contact". To define the McMahon Line in terms of the LAC is therefore circular. Kauffner (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, I don't have too much objection to your explanation of the LAC. Only that there is no official boundary between China and India yet. I suggest the last sentence of first paragraph be changed to "Although its legal status is disputed, it is where the Line of Actual Control between China and India currently lies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xingdong (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read anything I wrote? "Currently lies" implies that is it possible for the LAC to move, which is not the case. Kauffner (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the LAC is possible to move, why not?? DID you read anything I wrote? Xingdong (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this claim? "LAC" was just Zhou's name for the McMahon Line. Kauffner (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, when I googled "Line of actual control", thousands popped up. Here is one of them from India source. Maybe Zhou named it, but it is widely used by both sides. Now I suggest the sentence be changed to "'Although its legal status is disputed, the current Line of Actual Control between China and India coincides with the McMahon Line." You have any objection? Xingdong (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And you claim that the McMahon Line is "effective boundary" between China and India, Do you have any reference for that claim? who(China or India) recognize that? and when? Xingdong (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was, do have a reference for your claim that it is possible for the line to move? The link that you gave certainly doesn't imply that. If you read the quotes from Zhou I gave above, he's obviously talking about a line corresponding to the McMahon line and not some moving line. The phrase is now enshrined in treaty. If you want a more recent example, in 2005 the Chinese Foreign Minister called on India to "respect and 'strictly honor' the line of actual control." That doesn't make sense if you think of the LAC as a line that moves whenever either side advances or retreats. Note that these sources don't say "current Line of Actual Control" or otherwise imply that the line the has moved in the past or is likely to move in the future.

It is common enough to refer to the LAC as a "border" or "boundary". Are you objecting to the word "effective"? Kauffner (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, it is a commonsense that a Line of Actual Control depicts only current situation, and is subject to change. It can not be used as a boundary between two countries. Boundary between two countries needs to be negotiated and rectified by both sides.

In 1962, Zhou proposed the LAC along the McMahon Line, but Nehru refused it. And now, border situation may change from time to time. For example, according to the treaty you provided above, both sides shall avoid large army movement(no more than one Division). However just recently India moved 2 Divisions to the border area, and they apparently are targeting China. Should India invade China again, China would do another counter-back, then reclaim Tawang area. The Line of Actual Control would be changed again. In this case the Line of Actual Control would no longer conincide with the illegal "McMahon Line". Make sense? Xingdong (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand you fine. I just don't happen to agree. You might try reading what I write and engaging with it instead of just repeating the same flawed argument over and over. The idea of an LAC the can move might seem "common sense" to you, but it is not the way diplomats or historians who deal with this issue use the phrase. You need to based your argument on references rather than common sense. "a Line Actual Control" -- You imagine that there is more than one LAC? There is only the LAC as it is defined in Zhou's 1959 and 1962 notes. Zhou does not define the term the way you do. Look up line of control -- it's a totally different thing than LAC.

So you are looking forward to a war India? Will you volunteer? Kauffner (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, Chinese people do not like a war to settle things, however if they are forced to do so they have no fear. And it has been proven they have ability to win a war. Thinking of Korean War, the war with India was just too small scale(battalion level - Calvin).

The LAC is a term reflecting the situation at a specific time. It can be changed when the situation changes. That is a common sense to everybody, not only to me. In 1962, Zhou mentioned the LAC back to 1959. That means he would like Indian forces to retreat to whatever it was in 1959. That doesn't mean he agreed that India could use that line as a boundary.

Again, let me ask you, the last sentence of the first paragraph, "Although its legal status is disputed, it is the effective boundary between China and India." do you have any reference?? If you don't, then please remove it. "Effective boundary" is not a right statement. I think it is better we change it to "Although the legal status of the McMahon Line is disputed, the current Line of Actual Control between China and India coincides with it." Xingdong (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is completely wrong. "LAC" is just another name for the McMahon Line. It cannot move. Even Neville Maxwell admits this. Find a reference that says otherwise and you can put this stuff in. In 1962, Zhou was refering to a note he sent to Nehru in 1959, a note that defines the LAC as the McMahon Line. Kauffner (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL the "LAC" is just another name for the McMahon Line?? Listen, the LAC is the line of actual control. It happened to conincide with the McMahon Line. In 1962, Zhou refered to the ML to indicate where was the LAC laying in 1959.

What Zhou meant in 1962 is that India had to stop encroaching Chinese lands, it had to go back to the ML, where both sides controlled in 1959, and started negotiating the border issue from there.

He didn't mean he was taking the ML as a legal boundary. India is still occupying a large part of Chinese terrotory and illegally building military and migrating people from outside of occupied terrotory. This makes situation more difficult and dangerous. If you look at the history, you will understand a lot. The British Indian's Outter line laid in parallel with the south border of Nepal, at the foot of the Hymalayas. Later they moved a little bit north, and a little bit north. Tawang track, for example, is traditional Tibetan terroritory, and 6th Dala Lama was from there. India in fact doesn't have any legal ground in this border dispute. After these years, it is time to get facts straight. Xingdong (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Zhou sent a note to Nehru on 7 November 1959 that defined the LAC as, "the so-called McMahon Line in the east and the line up to which each side exercises actual control in the west." Then in 1962 Chinese forces advanced south of this line and Nehru asked Zhou if the LAC had moved. Zhou responded that the LAC is "basically still the line of actual control as [it] existed between the Chinese and Indian sides on 7 November 1959." Why does Zhou give the date 7 November 1959? Because this is the date of his previous note! In other words, the LAC stayed in the same place even though Chinese forces were well south of the line at the time of the 1962 exchange. Kauffner (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Practical significance of the McMahon Line—— McMahon Line is neither "official boundary" nor "effective boundary" and even the line of actual control not. It is roughly the same line of actual control, India's unilateral claim of the border.--天下第一菜 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You realize that you need sources before these kind of generalities mean anything? "Line of Actual Control" was originally Zhou Enlai's phrase. Now it is enshrined in treaty. Either way, it was never, "India's unilateral claim".Kauffner (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The main article and the sub-heading "Drawing the Line" is almost surreal. The main article in the first line states "Tibet which was not the official representative of the Peoples Republic of China". Of course Tibet was not then "the representative of the PRC", because the PRC did not exist before October 1949!! Then the second paragraph states that Sir Henry McMahon wad the Foreign Secretary - he was not. Then it is stated the McMahon Line was found contrary to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 and in 1921 it was "renounced". Does this refer to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 or the Simla Convention of 1914? Renounced by whom and on what authority? The three parties to the Simla Confernce in 1913-14 were Britain, China and Tibet (yes, Tibet!) and they were represented by their Ambassadors Plenipotentiaries (that is, authorised to enter into negotiations on soverign basis and to conclude agreements). The credentials were checked by each and were accepted and the Conference began. After about 8 moths of negotiations, the draft agreement was tabled on 22nd April 1914 and was signed/initialled by the three Plenipotentiaries on 25th April 1914. The Simla Convention was repudiated by China on 27th April 1914. Thereupon, with the full knowledge of the Chinese Ambassador, Mr. Ivan Chen, the bi-partite Anglo-Tibetan Agreement including the provision on the McMahon Line was signed on 3rd July 1914. At no stage during the deliberations on the Simla Agreement of April 1914 or the Anglo-Tibetan Agreement of July 1914 or the even in the months and years that followed did Mr. Chen or the Chiense Foreign Office raise any objections to the Mcmahon Line. These are matters of record, supported by official documents. For authentication, one may refer to Dr. Alastair Lamb's volumes on the McMahon Line, Dorothy Woodman's "Himalayan Frontiers", Margaret Fisher & Robert Huttenback's "Himanlayan Battleground" and Amar Kaur Jasbir Singh's "Himalayan Triangle". For those seriously interested, further references may be furnished as to what the then Chinese President and the Chinese Foreign Ministry said or did (or failed to say or do)with respect to the Sino-Indian border and specifically about the McMahon Line in the following months and years. It is high time that the main article was thoroughly reviwed on the basis of published documents about the Simla Conference of 1913-14 and the McMahon Line that emerged from it. Pidiji (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the PRC correction. To help improve the authenticity and therefore the credibility of the article, further corrections would be useful and I suggest a few for the section "Drawing the Line" - (1) Tawang is not "Tibetan territory" but is the site of an important Tibetan Lamaist monastery around which some estates of the landed gentry of Tibet came up. This was admitted by the Tibetan Plenipotentiary to the Simla Convention in 1913-14; (2) The point about the "Outer Line" along the Himalayan foothills is entirely erroneous as the Bengal Frontier Regulations of 1873 had an "Inner Line" more or less along the foothills (depending on the sector)as there were frequent clashes between the tribals of that area and the local cultivators, with looting and burning, and the Inner Line was an administrative measure to prevent any such clashes. The "Outer Line" was more or less according to the alignment given in the McMahon Line, as may be seen from the surveys conducted around that time and incorporated in the Survey of India map of 1874 that roughly covers the area between Longitudes 87 Deg. 50 mins. East to 96 Deg. East and Latitudes 34 deg. 20 mins North to 28 deg. 20 mins North;Tawang is shown at approx. 92 deg. 30 mins.Longitude, 27 deg. 30 mins. North.(3) It is true that Tibet refused to accept the Sikkim boundary drawn up between Britain and China and that really shows up that as sovereign or suzerain China could not make Tibet agree (irrespective of the merit or demerit of that boundary). (4) Younghusband did have a Treaty in 1904 with Tibetan officials with all the necessary seals (the Dalai Lama had escaped to Mongolia at that time, but that is a different story)and this Treaty was recognised in the subsequent Treaty between China and Britain with respect to the trading posts within Tibet and facilities for British officials manning the Trading posts (incidentally these facilities continued up to 1954, when independent India relinquished these posts in a fresh Treaty with PRC), (5) the pillage, looting and burning by the Chinese forces under Chou-Erh-feng in the eastern boundary areas on Tibet between 1910-12 was enough to make Tibet realise the usefulness of having peace and stability in that area and she now possibly felt that Britiain could play a moderating/mediating role - hence the Simla Conference in 1913. The principal aim of the Simla Conference was to settle the eastern boundary of Tibet with China in the middle of claims and counter-claims over that border. The rest is history. One could go on and on but it is requested that reliance may be made at least on Dr. Alastair Lamb, Dorothy Woodman and Margaret Fisher's books to give some solid credibility to the article and sections. Pidiji (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

As far as records indicate, the people in and around Tawang used to give donations for the upkeep of the Tawang monastery and this was admitted as such in course of the Simla Conference of 1913-14 by Lochen Satra, Ambassador Plenipotentiary of Tibet, and again later by the Tibetan authorities (prior to 1950. There are several books by scholars on the deliberations at Simla and later British-Tibetan exchanges. Such donations and gifts may be distinguished from taxes and tributes - Pidiji (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Usually when there are such claims and counter-claims being made, the balance of evidence has to be examined as also any understandings or clarifications accepted by both sides, here British India and later India, and Tibet, up to 1950. There are two aspects, one the donations, contributions, gifts etc. made by the local people for the upkeep of the Tawang monastery and education and training of the lamas, and the other, some agricultural holdings by Tibetans near and around Tawang (it would be appreciated that apart from traditional and customary acceptance of the frontier, it had not been specifically designated or delineated - far less demarcated - in 1908) and the taxes if any imposed on them. That may have been the situation in 1908 when Capt. Lightfoot visited the area. However, in 1914 at the Simla Conference, this aspect of status of Tibetan landholders in Tawang was discussed and sorted out between Sir Henry McMahon and Lonchen Satra, the Tibetan Ambassador, by exchange of notes (as any authoritative account of the Simla Conference will show up) and this understanding was also accepted later by the Tsona Dzongpon of Tibet. Pidiji (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It was signed by Sir Henry McMahon and Lonchen Satra on behalf of the Tibetan Government and was clearly accepted by the Tibetian government as per references.171.76.52.67 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McMahon Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2017/stories/20030829001604900.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822215146/http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm to http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822215146/http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm to http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2017/stories/20030829001604900.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on McMahon Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=b5dab68p4rrp8fd8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912194623/http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Treaties/Tibet/Schedule1914.htm to http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Treaties/Tibet/Schedule1914.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013172913/http://hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2018/stories/20030912002104800.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2018/stories/20030912002104800.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130118142756/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-3/natarajan.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-3/natarajan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McMahon Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122230449/http://news.21cn.com/junshi/pl/2008/11/18/5490785.shtml to http://news.21cn.com/junshi/pl/2008/11/18/5490785.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kampanyarchivum.hu/files/300/8/3/10-3-106.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There is an RfC about the definition of the McMahon Line here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Following the comments above, we should use the actual McMahon line as the lead image (I think the complete McMahon line is in two different maps). The two maps are at the bottom of the page currently. Chaipau (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: The line of control today is not necessarily the McMahon line. Chaipau (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the Survey of India map of 1888, which counts as an official map of India. Where is the "Outer Line"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The "Outer Line" is always the international boundary. In this case, the red line. Look for a spot called Odalguri just below the red line. Google search for "Udalguri". This was the trading center for goods that came down the Tawang track. In 1910, the outer and the inner lines were coincidental in the north and it ran along the foothills. The 1888 map agrees with the 1911 map in the main page as far as the boundary is concerned. Chaipau (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I have asked for a ruling on Neville Mawell's book at WP:RSN: []. Chaipau (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

We have lots of speculation and WP:SYNTHESIS going on. I would like to see a source state that the map shown on the Imperial Gazetteer is the Outer Line or Inner Line or whatever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"Inner lines" are inside the boundaries. That is why they are called "inner" lines. There was an inner line between Assam and Nagaland, for instance, which is not shown in the maps, except for maybe the "Eastern Bengal and Assam with Bhutan" map, where you could make out part of it. Please read Mehra p9-10 carefully. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, even granting that the line shown here is the "Outer Line", the map says "Boundary undefined" in 1888, whereas the sources claim that it was fully laid out in 1873 or 1875. So something still doesn't fit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

It is important to note that just to the east of Bhutan was the Tawang tract. Tawang was a part of Tibet but the people who lived there were Bhutanese who were influenced by Tawang Buddhism and not tribal people. The foot of the hill was a trading zone, called Kariapar duar, that was not wholly part of the Ahom kingdom. So this tract did not become a part of British India till about the 1840s. The main point is that not all those who lived north of the outer line were tribal people. Chaipau (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

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