IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/chnrpt/v47y2011i2p71-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why the Sino–Indian Border Dispute is Still Unresolved after 50 Years: A Recapitulation

Author

Listed:
  • Neville Maxwell

    (Visiting Fellow, Contemporary China Centre, Australian National University, Canberra. E-mail: nmaxwell@hinet.net.au)

Abstract

In its dying days the British Empire in India launched an aggressive annexation of what it recognised to be legally Chinese territory. The government of independent India inherited that border dispute and intensified it, completing the annexation and ignoring China’s protests. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, acquiescing in the loss of territory, offered diplomatic legalisation of the new boundary India had imposed in its North-East but the Nehru government refused to negotiate. It then developed and advanced a claim to Chinese territory in the north-west, again refusing to submit the claim to negotiation. Persistent Indian attempts to implement its territorial claims by armed force led to the 1962 border war. The Indian defeat did not lead to any change of policy; both the claims and the refusal to negotiate were maintained. The dead-locked Sino–Indian dispute and armed confrontation are thus the consequence of Indian expansionism and intransigence.

Suggested Citation

  • Neville Maxwell, 2011. "Why the Sino–Indian Border Dispute is Still Unresolved after 50 Years: A Recapitulation," China Report, , vol. 47(2), pages 71-82, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:chnrpt:v:47:y:2011:i:2:p:71-82
    DOI: 10.1177/000944551104700202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000944551104700202
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/000944551104700202?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:chnrpt:v:47:y:2011:i:2:p:71-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.