The British Plenipotentiary Proposes Solution of the Boundary Problem, 17 February 1914
British statement on the limits of Tibet. Communicated by Sir Henry McMahon at the Meeting of February 17, 1914
Dated February 17th, 1914
Annexure I
At the meeting of the Conference held on the 12th of January my Honourable Colleagues laid upon the table statements of their evidence in regard to the respective frontiers claimed by them, and requested that I would consider their claims and communicate my decision.
These voluminous documents, together with other public records which have reached me from various sources, have been perused with the greatest care and the following points appear to merit special consideration in the settlement of the Tibetan question now at issue:
A. Well authenticated records both Chinese and Tibetan, including the China-Tibet Treaty of 822 A.D. and the Chinese maps of the Tang Dynasty, indicate historic Tibetan frontier such as are shown by the red line on the skeleton map which I now lay upon the table. My Tibetan Colleague has produced evidence of Tibetan rights and privileges, of varying degree, throughout the whole of the territory shown within this red line. The line appears indeed to outline the frontiers of Tibet as a geographical and political unit.
B. The Edicts of the Emperors Kang-hsi and Chien-lung provide evidence of changes in the political status of certain portions of Tibet, and it is clear that a measure of Chinese control was established during the 18th Century. At that period a pillar was erected in the neighbourhood of Batang, and it is clear that that pillar, together with the watershed on which it stands, then marked, and has generally continued to mark, a well-defined line between the sphere of periodical Chinese intervention in Tibet, and the sphere in which Chinese dictation was of a purely nominal nature. These two spheres are divided by the blue line on the map, and I propose that they be designated as the zones of Inner and Outer Tibet. It is clear that these zones are on different political bases and that they require separate treatment.
C. The campaigns of various Chinese officials during the last half century considerably modified the historic status of Inter Tibet; at various times semi-independent states, which had come under the more direct control of China, reverted to the Lhasa Government; other states again were the scenes of Chinese military operations and temporarily lost their independence; lastly the inhabitants rose and drove out the Chinese not only from the Outer zone but from the whole of Tibet.
D. Such was the state of affairs when this Conference was summoned. The historic limits of Tibet had not been respected by the Chinese, and the historic rights of the Chinese had in consequence been ignored by the Tibetans. A state of war existed which proved a burden to the people of the country, and a menace to the neighbouring frontiers. It is my most earnest desire to assist my Honourable Colleagues in making an end to these troubles and in finding some settlement, which will restore to the whole of Tibet continued prosperity and peace.
E. My Chinese Colleague has requested that, in defining the geographical limits of Tibet, I should suggest also some solution of the political difficulty. The blue and red lines indicated on the map demonstrate the solution which I propose for the geographical problem. As regards the political difficulty, I am of opinion that it will best be met by recognizing the established autonomy of Outer Tibet, whilst recognizing also the right of the Chinese to re-establish such a measure of control in Inner Tibet as will restore and safeguard their historic position there, without in any way infringing the integrity of Tibet as a geographical and political entity.
A. H. McMahon, British Plenipotentiary,
The 17th February 1914,
Delhi
From: The Boundary Question Between China and Tibet: A Valuable Record of the Tripartite Conference between China, Britain, and Tibet Held in India, 1913-1914. Peking: 1940, 88-90.