The Arunachal Question

The 1914 Simla Convention made clear that the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA, today Arunachal Pradesh) was ceded by Tibet to British India—not to China. Beijing’s claim that this territory is “South Tibet” has no historical or legal foundation. In 1914, representatives of Tibet, British India, and the Republic of China convened in Simla to settle questions of sovereignty and borders across the Himalayas. The resulting Simla Convention divided Tibet into “Outer Tibet” and “Inner Tibet,” while also delineating the boundary between Tibet and British India through what became known as the McMahon Line.

Tibet was a sovereign participant. The Dalai Lama’s government sent plenipotentiaries who negotiated directly with the British. China refused to sign. The Chinese delegate, Ivan Chen, walked out of the conference rather than accept Tibet’s autonomy and the agreed borders. The McMahon Line was accepted by Tibet and Britain. This line placed NEFA under British India’s administration, a transfer made with Tibetan consent.

The Tibetan government’s decision was pragmatic and strategic. Tibet lacked the capacity to defend its eastern frontier against encroachment. By ceding NEFA, Tibet ensured British protection of the Himalayan borderlands. Tibet sought recognition of its autonomy from both Britain and China. The Simla Convention was a way to assert its independent agency in international negotiations. The McMahon Line followed natural Himalayan features, creating a defensible boundary that Tibet recognized as legitimate.

China’s refusal to sign the Simla Convention is decisive. By rejecting the agreement, China forfeited any claim to the territories defined within it. The line was drawn between Tibet and British India, not between China and India. Beijing’s later insistence that Arunachal Pradesh is “South Tibet” ignores the fact that China was not a party to the cession. Tibet ceded NEFA to British India, not to China. China’s suzerainty claims were contested. The Simla talks revealed that Tibet did not accept Chinese sovereignty, and Britain treated Tibet as an autonomous actor. International recognition followed. British India administered NEFA, and independent India inherited this boundary.

Beijing’s claim rests on a revisionist narrative that denies Tibet’s agency in 1914. Yet the historical record is clear: Tibet acted as a sovereign entity. Its government negotiated and signed the Simla Convention. China’s absence invalidates its claim. Having refused to sign, China cannot retroactively assert rights over territory ceded by Tibet. India’s inheritance is legitimate. As the successor state to British India, modern India rightfully administers Arunachal Pradesh.

The Simla Convention was not a colonial imposition but a negotiated settlement in which Tibet exercised its sovereignty. NEFA was ceded to British India with Tibetan consent, and China’s refusal to participate left it outside the agreement. To call Arunachal Pradesh “South Tibet” is to erase Tibet’s historical agency and to distort the legal record. China’s claim is not only historically unfounded but also morally untenable—it denies Tibet’s voice in its own history and undermines the legitimacy of India’s borders.

• Nephew of the Dalai Lama, Khedroob Thondup is a geopolitical analyst.