The Sino-Indian Boundary Issue continues....

Central Sector: The dispute in this sector is of both perceptions and of grazing rights and land tenure/revenue records. Indians generally have believed for centuries if not millennia that the Himalaya Mountains constitute the northern boundary of cultural India. And broadly speaking, they do. But not precisely, in the sense used by the modern nation-state with European-type precise boundaries. The societies who live in the mountains can be broadly classified as of 'Indian-type’ or of ‘Tibetan type’, though there are some whose cultures are a combination of both, such as in Lahul, for example.

But again generally, the ‘Tibetan type’ communities are those living at higher altitudes and pursuing an agri-economic lifestyle derived from or identical to the agri-economic lifestyle of the Tibetan plateau.

Where such communities live on the southern side of the main Himalayan crestline and close to a major pass leading to Tibet they have in some places been part of the Tibetan socio-administrative system. These tend to be the small problem areas in the central sector.

The problem is similar to the early 20th century conviction of the Tibetan authorities regarding Sikkim, that areas such as Lungthu-Nathang on the southern side of Jelep La were Tibetan, because socio-culturally they were a part of the adjoining Chumbi valley of Tibet. Indians from the plains may indeed interpret the main crest-line of the Himalayan range as the
definitive boundary, as defined by the line of the main passes that have been used for centuries by travellers between India and Tibet, but in precise terms on the ground the social and administrative realities could be a little different. At the same time, these dispute areas can be negotiated and agreement reached.

To be continued.....