The geopolitics of naming of places in the northeast Indian border state of Arunachal Pradesh is one of the Chinese strategic geniuses for expanding its territorial sphere of influence in Tibet and the Himalayas. The Sino-Indian dispute over the Indo-Tibetan border emerged with the disappearance of Tibet as a strategic buffer between China and India. Soon after the occupation of Tibet, China started to expand its influence in the Himalayan regions.

Chinese strategists projected Tibet as its palm and Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Arunachal Pradesh as five fingers. By controlling Tibet, China asserts its claim over Monyul (a Tibetan term for 'lowland'), also known in British India, and then India over the North Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA), later Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese claim over  Arunachal Pradesh was based on its sovereignty claim in Tibet which it forcibly occupied in 1950.

Since 2017, China's Ministry of Civil Affairs has released a list of 60 geographical names of Arunachal Pradesh with a view to "standardizing place names" in the official map of China. Many in the Indian strategic community have seen it as a Chinese aggressive behavior against India. In response to that, India is likely to rename 30 places in Tibet. 

Outline of geopolitical dispute

Chinese strategists and diplomats are creating many fronts for protracting the Sino-Indian border conflicts to make space to expand its sphere of influence in the Himalayas. The historical manipulation of Tibet's relations with Monyul is a front that China plays against India on the China-India border dispute over the Indo-Tibet border. China has misinterpreted the history of Tibet's relations with Monyul to assert its territorial claim in the region.

According to the White Paper published by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India (GOI) in 1962, the Chinese delegate produced 30 documents in Chinese and Tibetan from the period 1680 to 1953 to support their claim over Monyul during the Sino-Indian border talk in Rangoon, Burma. For instance, the 5th Dalai Lama’s edict of 1680 was one of the documents that China showed during the border talk. China was using independent Tibet's historical documents to claim the Indian territories.

Historical relation between Tibet and Monyul 

The political administration of Monyul was directly controlled by Tibet during the Gaden Phodrang government of Tibet, which was founded in 1642. The 5th Dalai Lama became the spiritual and temporal ruler of Tibet. In 1680, the 5th Dalai Lama issued an edict and assigned Marag Lama Lodoe Gyatso and Namkha Drukdhak, a chief of Tsona Dzong to consolidate the political administration of Monyul. And, the Dalai Lama tasked Marag Lama Lodoe Gyatso to build a monastery in Monyul. Lodoe Gyatso took the personal initiative to build the Tawang Monastery himself. Subsequently, it became a centre for the spiritual and political powerhouse of Mon, which was directly governed by Lhasa, the capital of Tibet.  Under the direction of the 1680 edict issued by the 5th Dalai Lama, the Tawang Monastery governed the political administration in the Mon Region. At the same time, the government of Tibet introduced the thirty-two Tsho (32-units) administrative system in Monyul and appointed heads of respective units. Today, China is charting most of the place names in the region based on this administrative arrangement.  

During the early 20th century, British surveyors had seen the Monyul region as being of geopolitical significance to British India. Tibetan and British delegates discussed and demarcated the boundary between Tibet and the North East Frontier of India. The Simla Convention was signed and sealed by Tibetan plenipotentiary Lonchen Gaden ShatraPaljor Dorjee and the secretary of the government of British India, Sir Arthur Henry McMahon, in 1914. Finally, the McMahon Line was drawn as the border between Tibet and British India.

At the Simla Convention, an independent and sovereign state of Tibet legally ceded the Tawang region to British India.  However, even after the Simla Convention, the government of Tibet exercised de facto power over Tawang. In 1951, under the leadership of Major Ralengnao Khathing, India took full control of Tawang.

China’s claim over Arunachal Pradesh

By contrast, the People’s Republic of China regards the McMahan Line as an illegal boundary between Tibet and India. This assertion was officially recorded in the book titled Premier Chou En-lai's Letter to the Leaders of Asian and African Countries on the Sino-Indian Boundary Question on November 15, 1962. Chinese Premier Chou En-lai stood firm on the issue, presenting that “in the eastern sector, the area disputed by the India Government north of the traditional customary line has always belonged to China. This area comprises Monyul, Loyul, and Lower Tsayul, which are all part of the Tibet region”. Since then, China has asserted its claim over Arunachal Pradesh.

Decoding Chinese strategic genius

Despite historical records on Tibet's Monyul relations, China regards the McMahon Line as an illegal boundary between Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh. To assert it, the PRC claims that the Simla Convention was signed with the "Local Authorities of Tibet" (En-lai 1973). The term "local" government of Tibet was imposed by the PRC for the first time during the signing of the Seventeen Points Agreement in 1951 dealing with China's pretext of negotiating over the Tibet affair. Chronologically, the Simla Convention was convened in 1913-1914. The delegates of British, Tibet, and China participated in the convention on an equal footing. The term 'Local Authorities of Tibet' was deliberately used by the Chinese strategists and diplomats in 1951 to control Tibet through soft power diplomacy. When it failed, China used military power to occupy Tibet.

After China's occupation of Tibet, Beijing began to assert its claim over Arunachal Pradesh. Today, China is playing the politics of the name game with India based on the historical relations between Tibet and the Monyul region.

(The author is a research fellow at the Tibet Policy Institute, Dharamsala. He holds a PhD in International Relations from the University of Madras. Views are personal. He can be contacted at tsewangjeshong@tibetpolicy.net )

Read more at: https://www.southasiamonitor.org/index.php/indo-pacific-china-watch/why-china-playing-name-game-india-arunachal-pradesh.

@SAM