Talk:Simla Convention

"Unsigned"

MainBody has also added "unsigned" to the lead sentence. It is hardly necessary because the issue of signatures is discussed in detail in the following paragraph. "Unsigned" is also a misrepresentation of the situation, because two parties had effectively signed it (via the bilateral declaration). Goldstein clearly recognizes that the bilateral declaration was operationalised, when he says:

Although this was not a real treaty, British India then felt justified in pursuing its relations with Tibet in accordance with the "autonomy" stipulated in the terms of the unsigned Simla Convention, and continued to do so for the next thirty-five years.

So the two parties that signed it, stuck by it. "Ambiguous", the present description in the article, is more accurate and balanced description of the situation.

Let me also note that Goldstein's grip on facts is wanting when he says "It [Britain] also obtained from Tibet a vast territory east of Bhutan". That "vast territory" did not belong to Tibet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nirmal C. Sinha, in one of the sources cited in the article, says:

A tripartite agreement signed by two parties is not necessarily invalid ab initio. If there is nothing repugnant or contradictory in the text of a tripartite agreement, such agreement is fully enforceable between two signatory parties so far as the liabilities and rights of the two parties are concerned. In the text of the Simla Convention the rights and liabilities of the two parties are very clearly stated: and the fact of third party having left the conference table could not and did not affect the position of the other two parties.

He also adds:

It is a mark of Chinese diplomacy that in their non-official publications as also in the writings of sponsored scholars, the legality of the signature is not much discussed. There is a heavy and noisy propaganda in the non-official and demi-official writings that the treaty was not signed at all and that initials were not good enough to make these as strong as signatures.

So it looks like Goldstein is uncritically accepting the Chinese propaganda.

On Wikipedia, we are committed to representing the scholarly consensus as far as possible. Especially for the lead sentence, we can't push up one particular source, which does not even specialise in the subject, and argue that it should prevail. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Section April 2009 continued in March 2021

For the previous discussion see the section, see § April 2009.

Now archived at Talk:Simla Convention/Archive 1#April 2009

In trying to figure out how to clean up the chaotic footnotes in the middle of the page, I noticed this edit made by PBS (I hope you are still around?), and this section of the talk page.

Some comments here before I start cleaning up.

• The citation to Maxwell is pointless without a page number or a quote. We can't figure out what it is referring to.
• Calvin's is student research and so it is also a substandard source.
• Sinha is perfectly fine, but the page numbers don't make sense. But all that it is being used for is the fact that the draft convention was signed by three parties but the final convention by only two parties. That fact can be sourced easily in myriads of places.
• Reading through the discussion above, I see that the people were exercises about two things (1) the McMahon Line wasn't negotiated with the Chinese representative (2) the Chinese representative only got to see a small-scale map. I will try to find better sources for these, but I also think they should be stated in the main body of the article, not buried in some footnotes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I am still around. I will have a look at this in the next day or so. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have not got time at right now to address all the points you mention (and I will look at them over the next day or so) however a quick look at the link you provided above to one of my edits explains the Neville Maxwell citation. Some one removed the long citation from the References section. Probably because the of link rot, without checking for an archived version), see here. That Maxwell is a web page explains why there are no page numbers. -- PBS (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PBS. I have another problem, whenever you want to look into it. The text says:

During the Simlar conference a small scale map of the Tibetan Indian border was provided as an annex to the proposed agreement, the annex was not discussed by the Chinese, and the details on a large scale map of what would become known as the McMahon Line were not furnished to the Chinese for their consideration.

References

The text is wrong, and it doesn't say what the source is saying. There was only one map used in the tripartite discussions, which is part of the official record. It can be found at the top of this page of Claude Arpi. It shows only two lines: a red line, which represents the boundary of Tibet (against India, Burma, China, Mongolia, Xinjiang and what have you) and a blue line, which shows the line between Inner and Outer Tibet. The "red line" and the "blue line" are referred to in the text of the Convention as well as practically every source disucssing it.

The "large scale map" representing the "McMahon Line" was only used in Tibet-British bilateral discussions. It is doubtful if the Chinese representative ever saw it. But its miniaturized version was part of the tripartite map.

The map sitting at the bottom of the page right now, uploaded by somebody called Abcabc1980 seems to be a doctored version. I have never heard of so many colours being used. So I am going to remove this map, and replace it by one of Hugh Richardson's maps. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have revised the text now. I would appreciate if you can look over it.

I still don't like this Calvin guy who claims that the McMahon Line was an "appendix" to the Tibet-China boundary. He was probably looking at the same kind of doctored map that we had here. I will find a better source soon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Interjecction: Move od this talk page conversation from the section "April 2009" down to here

Interjection I have moved this talk page conversation from the section #April 2009 down to here for two reasons. A conversation 11 years old should be archived by now. Placing new commentry in so old a talk page section at the top of the talk page could easily be missed by other intersted parties. So moving it to the bottom in chronological order makes it more visible to any hypothetical interested parties. -- PBS (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I need to make it clear to you and to any one else who is reading this exchange that I have not made a substantive edit to this article since Revision as of 11:57, 27 February 2012 (which was a largely a revert to a previous version) and since then there have been many other edits to the article so although I can help I will not necessarily be the person to answer you questions. However there is a useful tool that you can use to find out information (such as full citations) that may originally have been in the article but have subsequently been accidental (or purposefully) removed. See "Wikipedia:WikiBlame". Now to go through you points all of which seem to be items I was involved with.

1. Maxwell is dealt with. Is the link adequate?
2. "Calvin's is student research". Yes and no. He Calvin was at the time a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy and the paper was written for and published by the "[U.S.] Marine Corps Command and Staff College", and it carries a lot of citations. Is there an information supported by that paper to which you object to being inaccurate? If so what?
3. Sinha. Someone has messed with the citation format since I first added then eg "Sinha, pp. 5,12 (pdf pp. 1,8)" seems to me clear enough, what is it with the page numbers as they are now that "don't make sense"?
4. The "nb 1" note above is cited as "(Barnard 1984)". This is a mistake it should have been ("Calvin 1984)"
   • Calvin, James Barnard, "The China-India Border War", Marine Corps Command and Staff College, April 1984 (cited 38 times in Google Scholar)

   And that seems to contain the quote verbatim (with the line break difference of "be-come" changed to "become"). As I wrote before the paper contains a lot of citations in this case Calvin cites: Lamb, Alastair (1964). The China-India Border. London: Oxford, p. 145.

-- PBS (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources don't matter a great deal. As long as they are established facts, many sources can be found. It is only the POV commentaries that are specific to particular sources that are an issue, and, in those cases, we need to exercise caution as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Calvin might have been a good officer of the Marine Corps, but that doesn't make him an expert on obscure British colonial history. (See my comments at Talk:Sino-Indian War#Sources.) The same goes for Maxwell. He was a journalist based in India during the 1950s and 1960s. Both he and his newspaper, The Times, seem to have had preconceived notions of what was going on with the Assam Himalaya (Arunachal Pradesh) and their entire coverage is corrupted as a result. For instance, in 1963, apparently The Times printed a map putting it into China. Olaf Caroe was pained to remark:

Of all the National dailies that appeared today-some of them have rather good maps, particularly the Daily Mail-not one of them repeated this error. Why on earth The Times, which has always prided itself on being so well informed on foreign correspondence, should publish a thing which definitely supports Chinese claims against a member of the Commonwealth, I think I must leave it to the audience to judge.

Coming back to Calvin, I do intend to replace him with a better source which doesn't make any claims about an "appendix". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hugh Richardson's map of the Simla Conference lines

Thanks for pointing out Calvin's citation to Lamb. (It is in Volume 1, funnily, whereas the Simla Convention itself is discussed in Volume 2.) Calvin is right that the term "appendix" was used by Lamb but the map Lamb shows is the standard map (as on Claude Arpi's web site) and no such thing as an "appendix" is visible.

Checking Mehra (McMahon Line and After), I find that the discussion started on 17 February 1915, in the fourth meeting of the Conference, where McMahon made a statement on "Limits of Tibet" and placed on the conference table a map showing the "red line" as well as the "blue line". We can see these lines on Hugh Richardson's map on the main page as well as here, as dashed red line and dashed blue line. And we can also see here the Chinese counterproposal (light blue line), claiming all the area up to the bend in the Brahmaputra river as part of China (not Tibet). So we can see that the Assam Himalayan region was very much in the frame and wasn't some kind of an appendix.

I was also greatly amused to read about the "British trick", which was apparently a Chinese complaint, but one which Lamb agrees with. Mehra points out that the boundary claimed by China was the same one that the Russians had proposed during the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1907. There is no mention of any Russian tricks or Chinese tricks in Lamb's writings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the Encyclopedia Britannica claims that the McMahon Line runs from the border of Bhutan till the "great bend in the Brahmaputra River". Purely an accident that it matches with the Chinese claim? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

I originally wrote this article because of the mention of it in the British press back in 2008. When I looked it up on Wikipedia there was no mention of it. So I wrote the article with what was easily available on the internet. There is a badge that is sold in Britain which reads "I didn't vote for them", and most people of voting age in the Britain do not vote for the party or parties that form the Government, so I have no dog in this fight. In many ways it demonstrated the decline of the Britain as a global power and the corresponding ascendency of China. It amused me at the time that the HMG (Her Majesty Government) thought it worth throwing this bargaining chip onto the table for a perceived small financial benefit. I bet HMG would be pleased to still have this chip to play, given the souring relationship between London and Beijing. There were two issues at the time which puzzled me:

1. Why was there little to no reported noise out of the "Tibet is a country" lobby?
2. Why was there so little noise from the Indian government? Because although the borders in the region do not now affect Britain's interests directly they do affect India's.

In hind sight I ought to have realised that this issue would excite some POV slants. However I think that the article has been reasonably balanced most of the time, but I am no expert and I have no direct access to detailed academic papers on the subject. As you seem to do so, I am happy to let you fix any mistakes, but please follow the advise of "Assert facts, not opinions" (and "Let the facts speak for themselves"). -- PBS (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PBS. I didn't notice that you had written the article first. I admit it is remarkably free of POV, except what got introduced through lobbying in April 2009.

As for "Tibet is a country", I noticed that when the British Indian government first acquired a border with Tibet in 1816, they called it the "Chinese Tartary". So the "Tibet is a country" ship has long sailed away. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nirmal C. Sinha article

This note in the Bulletin of Tibetology (BOT) explains the history of the article. It was first published a Presidency College publication in 1974, then in BOT in 1977 and republished in 1987 with additional notes. I propose that we should use the 1987 version uniformly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the 1987 version publicly available online? -- PBS (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, all the issues of Bulletin of Tibetology up to 2013 are available on 'Digital Himalaya'. In fact, the version that was being linked was the 1987 version even though the citation said otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then it makes sense to use that version. -- PBS (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Unequal treaty"

This page has been categorised as an "unequal treaty" (supposedly imposed on China). That is completely silly. China came to Simla of its own accord, because the British were trying to get it back into Tibet from they were driven out. And they didn't even sign it in the end! Nothing has been imposed on them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

British actions in Tibet- 'expedition' or 'invasion'?

I feel that calling the British incursions into Tibet an 'expedition', as has been historically the case, is unjust and misleading. The Younghusband 'expedition' was through violent force, and many Tibetans lost their lives. I am aware that the name 'Younghusband expedition' is generally regarded as the standard historical term, but I feel that it is misleading in nature and a remnant of British colonial attempts at downplaying the events that transpired. Would it not be more suitable to label it the 1903-4 British incursion (or invasion) and have a link that ties it to the so-called Younghusband Expedition's wiki? I have already attempted this, but the change was revoked. If I am wrong, could someone explain their reasoning? Many thanks. Taishō219 (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)