There is a major change in China's description of the Sino-Indian border: the sudden repetition of Sikkim for an unclear purpose

#MCN首发激励计划#

Late last month, Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar said at an academic event that Arunachal Pradesh (southern Tibet) is a "natural part" of India and that the ongoing border negotiations between India and China "will cover this issue." The Chinese side has responded to Jaishankar's statement, but before introducing the response of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we must first understand the meaning of Jaishankar's statement.

1. Why does Jaishankar claim that southern Tibet is a "natural part of India"?
2. Why should the ongoing negotiations on the Sino-Indian border issue "cover this issue"?

The first question is easy to answer, which is nothing more than that India has "since ancient times" the sovereignty of China's southern Tibetan region, that is, the so-called "Arunachal Pradesh" of the Indian side.

The second question is, since New Delhi believes that it "naturally owns" southern Tibet, why does it still "cover this issue" in the Sino-Indian border talks? The reason is also very simple, that is, to force China to "give up" southern Tibet, recognize India's sovereignty over southern Tibet, and "never suffer in the future."

Therefore, the Sino-Indian military commander-level border talks, which are currently underway or are about to be conducted, are likely to involve the sovereignty of southern Tibet, and India will "bundle" the withdrawal of troops and troops with the sovereignty of southern Tibet, and if China does not recognize India's sovereignty over the region, New Delhi will not withdraw its troops.

So, how did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs respond to Jaishankar's remarks? Spokesman Lin Jian's speech was mainly divided into three parts:

1. "The border between China and India has never been demarcated";
2. The Sino-Indian border is "divided into eastern, central, western and Sikkim sections";
3. "The eastern part of southern Tibet has always been Chinese territory," and the "Arunachal Pradesh" established by India is illegal and invalid.

It can be seen from the spokesman's remarks that the Chinese side denied India's sovereignty over southern Tibet, but did not respond to whether the issue was covered by the Sino-Indian border talks. It is worth noting that the sentences (1) and (2) mentioned by Lin Jian's spokesman, that is, "the Sino-Indian border has never been demarcated" and "is divided into eastern, central, western and Sikkim sections".

The meaning here is "very euphemistic" and there is "ambiguity". For example:

Does "never demarcated" mean that all borders have not been demarcated? Or can it be considered that "the Sino-Indian border has never been demarcated" as long as one has not been demarcated?

Is the Sino-Indian border divided into "eastern, central, western and Sikkim sections", and is there no demarcation here? Or is it a general expression that the Sino-Indian border is "divided into several sections"?

There is "ambiguity" in this. Therefore, when the spokesman's statement was made, the "well-intentioned" pointed out that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs "fully stated the Sino-Indian border issue" and "rarely" mentioned the Sikkim section, and also pointed out that this is India's "greatest fear", because Sikkim was obtained by India's annexation of the small country of Sikkim.

On the one hand, we do not know whether the Sino-Indian border has "never been demarcated", whether it means that "all sections" have not been demarcated, and there is no way to know whether the "eastern, central, western and Sikkim sections" refer to the Sino-Indian border or the Sino-Indian border issue.

On the other hand, if the spokesman really refers to the fact that the "Sikkim section" of the Sino-Indian border has not been demarcated, it would be a big mistake. The reason is simple, the "Sikkim section" is precisely the only "demarcated" border between China and India.

1. In 1890, China and Britain signed the Sino-British Conference Tibet-India Treaty, which agreed on the boundary direction of the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border.
2. After India's independence and the founding of the People's Republic of China, "both inherited the 1890 Treaty", on which the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border was determined.
3. This is confirmed by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, as well as diplomatic documents exchanged between the two sides.
4. China has long recognized India's annexation of Sikkim, and does not believe in Baidu's "Sikkim state" to see who it belongs to.
5. If it is determined that the "Sikkim section" of the Sino-Indian border has not been demarcated, it means that China's expulsion of Indian troops from Doklam may be "illegal", because "sovereignty has not been determined", is this not "lifting a stone to shoot itself in the foot"?

Therefore, how can China take the initiative to give up its "sovereignty" over the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border? How can sovereignty that it has clearly acquired become an "undecided conclusion"? Some people may say that this is not putting pressure on India? "I don't admit what was agreed upon before." However, if you think about it, the homeland has not yet been recovered, and the Indian army is still encroaching on it, taking the Dongzhang region of southern Tibet as an example, once penetrating 150 kilometers into the Chinese side, and at this time taking the initiative to give up and obscure the "sovereignty" of the Sikkim section, isn't this a new reason for "opening the door" to India and giving New Delhi a new reason to seize Chinese territory?

Therefore, Lin Jian's speech can only be understood as saying that the Sino-Indian border is divided into "eastern, central, and western sections and the Sikkim section", and because some sections are disputed, "they have never been demarcated", the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has never said that the Sikkim section is "disputed", and "people with good intentions" are patriotic and have become harmful to the country.

Let's take 10,000 steps back, even if China mentions the "Sikkim section" and is reminiscent of India's annexation of the Kingdom of Sikkim, this will make India "afraid"? India will not be afraid of illegally occupying southern Tibet, but will be afraid of annexing Sikkim? China is still there, and it may recover southern Tibet, and New Delhi is still "aggressive"; where is the Sikkim royal family? Who is the enemy of the 1.4 billion Indians with nuclear weapons for them? "Impossible, absolutely impossible." So India is not afraid at all, mentioning the Sikkim section purely because it is part of the Sino-Indian border, and not to "scare" India.