Did Pakistan Cede the Territory of Shaksgam to China?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Did Pakistan cede Kashmiri Territory of Shaksgam valley to China?
Debunking propaganda from a laymen's perspective

Myth: Pakistan ceded the Trans-Karakoram tract or Shaksgam valley to China in the Trans-Karakoram pact thus showing utter disregard for Kashmiri sovereignty or its own sovereignty.

Fact: Pakistan did not ‘gift’ any Kashmiri land to China. In reality, it actually gained 1942 square kilometres (750 square miles) from the Chinese in the 1963 Sino-Pakistan boundary agreement. In fact, the Trans-Karakoram Tract, that Delhi claims has been ‘gifted’ by Islamabad to Beijing, was never under Pakistani control that they could have vacated it and given it to China. The Pakistan-China Treaty is in the public domain, as are the resulting maps with demarcated boundaries that clearly illustrate Pakistan gaining the aforementioned amount of area and adding it to Gilgit-Baltistan rather than the other way around.

So let's get to the root of the issue and understand how it all started.

The original territorial demarcation issue was between China and British India, which arose as a result of 1846 Amritsar treaty that left the border with China unmarked. British authorities assigned W.H. Johnson, a survey officer, to propose a line which was to be sent to the Chinese government for negotiations. Authors Christopher Snedden and Alastair Lamb state that Mr. Johnson was unhappy with the working conditions under the East India Company and sought to join the court of the Maharaja of Kashmir instead. To impress the Maharaja, he increased the size of the state of Kashmir in the map he created by including Aksai Chin and Shaksgam Valley in Kashmir, both of which were under Chinese control at that point in time.

British authorities in Calcutta were annoyed by the decision to demarcate the border in a manner that showed Chinese controlled territory as being a part of British India and Johnson was disciplined by his superiors and his map rejected. The Maharaja, however, thought that Johnson had magically increased his territory by drawing a few lines on the map and thus, as a reward, he was offered a job by the Maharaja and appointed Wazir or Governor of Ladakh in 1872.

The line he created is called the Johnson Line and, as mentioned above, was rejected by British India, let alone accepted by China. The East India Company then appointed Sir Claude MacDonald to create the new official British line which he did. The new demarcation by Sir Claude MacDonald did not include the Chinese areas that W.H Johnson had included in his demarcation to curry favor with the Maharajah. The British sent it to the Chinese on 14th March 1899 with the following proposal:

1. China will withdraw all claims to Hunza valley
2. British India will withdraw all claims to Shaksgam/Raskam and Taghdumbash

This is the McDonald Line. The Chinese did not respond, prompting the British to inform them that their silence was taken as assent and Britain would act accordingly, which Britain did.

Fast forward, Partition happens, Pakistan and India become free, fight a war and divide Kashmir. But this is where the problem starts. Instead of taking up the McDonald line, the Indian government officially adopted the Johnson line because the increased land (Or rather lines on a paper) impressed Nehru as much as it had impressed the Maharaja. India made it official in 1954 on their published map.

Pakistan obviously did not have to tow Mr. Nehru's ridiculous line. Pakistan recognized the McDonald Line......And that's all.

Actually, that's not all. When Pakistan cited historical evidence and the historical connection of Gilgit-Baltistan to regions in Hunza, the Karakoram watershed, K-2 (Half), Shimshal Pass etc, Zhou EnLai (the then premier of the Peoples Republic of China) acknowledged the validity of those arguments and Pakistan obtained those territories from China and made them part of Gilgit-Baltistan.

Pakistan further asserted that traditional grazing grounds of the Hunza people be made part of Gligit-Baltistan because their loss would cause the people of the region huge distress, given the impact on their traditional way of life. The Chinese Premier, after reviewing the proposal with Xinjiang province and getting the assent of the Uyghur in China, agreed with the Pakistani proposal on making these lands a part of Gilgit Baltistan.

All this area combined totaled 1942 square kilometres (750 square miles).

And that's not all, Pakistan also took care to add a provision to secure Kashmiri sovereignty in the future, pending a resolution of the dispute. Article 6 of the treaty between China & Pakistan states:

"The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the boundary as described in Article. Two of the present agreement, so as to sign a formal boundary treaty to replace the present agreement, provided that in the event of the sovereign authority being Pakistan, the provisions of the present agreement and of the aforesaid protocol shall be maintained in the formal boundary treaty to be signed between the People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan"

If you still don't understand how groundbreaking this deal was, imagine this. China went to all out war against India for this line which they absolutely refused to change. Whereas for Pakistan and Kashmir, China ceded 750 square miles and also recognized that a future sovereign Kashmiri government could renegotiate this border when they were free.

Noted Indian Lawyer and Author on Kashmir, AG Noorani Noted this in his article, aptly named "Map Fetish".

https://web.archive.org/web/2020050...e.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30164084.ece



Anwar H Syed in in China and Pakistan: Diplomacy of an Entente Cordiale wrote:


George L. Singleton reconfirmed Pakistan’s claim as shown in the excerpt below:


Pakistani FM, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto also wiped the floor with the Indian delegation when they raised this issue in UN Security Council dated 26 March 1963:


So, in conclusion. The Indian argument that Pakistan violated the UNSC Resolutions on the Disputed Territory of Jammu & Kashmir or that it betrayed/sold out the Kashmiris by 'giving away their land to China' is invalid and baseless.

For more details and references used, please see below:

Question #13 by Kashmiri Academic Dr. Makhdomi


https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/question-number-13/

Map Fetish by AG Noorani
https://web.archive.org/web/2020050...e.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30164084.ece

Facing the truth by AG Noorani
https://web.archive.org/web/2020050...hehindu.com/world-affairs/article30211220.ece

Who Ceded Land by Dr. Ahmad Rashid Malik Director of the China-Pakistan Study Centre (CPSC) at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad
https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016/06/26/who-ceded-the-land/
=========================================================

Disclaimer: This is a compilation of a series of tweets by @DerArschloch reproduced with his permission. I've only done some minor formatting.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1258186885857456128

 

[Areesh]

Pakistan can never do anything wrong. Pakistan is perfect. Pakistan is God.

- PRTP GWD

True. Except the God part

 

[Nefarious]

Thanks sharing. All cleared up

 

[xeuss]

I think the disagreement arises on how both parties view the transaction.

India considers the whole of Jammu & Kashmir as its own, based on the claims of the erstwhile Raja, who acceded to India. The Raja claimed the borders as depicted by current state of J&K in India, even though he never actually held possession or control of certain territories, including Shaksgam Valley and Aksai Chin.

Pakistan on the other hand, made no such claim. For it, the northern areas ended at the claim of the Mir of Hunza valley. If I recall correctly, the Shaksgam Valley was part of the claim of the Mir of Hunza but never officially demarcated with the Chinese, and therefore likely controlled by China.

Therefore, when Pakistan and China demarcated they border in the Northern Areas, the valley ended up with Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think the disagreement arises on how both parties view the transaction.

India considers the whole of Jammu & Kashmir as its own, based on the claims of the erstwhile Raja, who acceded to India. The Raja claimed the borders as depicted by current state of J&K in India, even though he never actually held possession or control of certain territories, including Shaksgam Valley and Aksai Chin.

Pakistan on the other hand, made no such claim. For it, the northern areas ended at the claim of the Mir of Hunza valley. If I recall correctly, the Shaksgam Valley was part of the claim of the Mir of Hunza but never officially demarcated with the Chinese, and therefore likely controlled by China.

Therefore, when Pakistan and China demarcated they border in the Northern Areas, the valley ended up with Pakistan.

Legally, demarcation agreements by the British supersede anything the local rulers (Maharaja's etc) accepted, given that the British were the primary authority in British India. The point being made here is that the Johnson Line, which India & the Maharaja accepted is superseded by the McDonald line, which was the official demarcation of the border in this region between British India and China.

India can claim Aksai Chin all it wants, but that should be treated separately from the J&K dispute with Pakistan.

 

[Green Arrow]

I think there was very good old thread on this topic on PDF which explain this whole issue beautifully. It was started by @Chakbamu few years back.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@Chak Bamu

Do you have a link to the thread being referred to? Maybe combine the two?

 

[xeuss]

Legally, demarcation agreements by the British supersede anything the local rulers (Maharaja's etc) accepted, given that the British were the primary authority in British India. The point being made here is that the Johnson Line, which India & the Maharaja accepted is superseded by the McDonald line, which was the official demarcation of the border in this region between British India and China.

India can claim Aksai Chin all it wants, but that should be treated separately from the J&K dispute with Pakistan.

True, but that is pretty much how the issue is viewed in India.

The situation is further complicated by the role of the Mir of Hunza. Hunza was considered a vassal of the Raja of J&K, even though he never paid any tribute, but at the same time, had independently entered into an agreement with the British for protection against the Russians and Chinese.

So the Raja of J&K considered Hunza under its rule, and that is what India bases its claim on.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

True, but that is pretty much how the issue is viewed in India.

The situation is further complicated by the role of the Mir of Hunza. Hunza was considered a vassal of the Raja of J&K, even though he never paid any tribute, but at the same time, had independently entered into an agreement with the British for protection against the Russians and Chinese.

So the Raja of J&K considered Hunza under its rule, and that is what India bases its claim on.

India bases its claims on a lot of things. What we're discussing is whether Indian claims have any validity.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

India bases its claims on a lot of things

Recently their SC jumped into the bandwagon.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1554482/f...egarding-sc-allowing-govt-to-hold-polls-in-gb

I think there was very good old thread on this topic on PDF which explain this whole issue beautifully. It was started by @Chakbamu few years back.

Are you talking about this one!!!
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indias-claims-of-pakistan-ceding-territory-in-1963-are-false.45349/

 

[beijingwalker]

中巴边界条约具有临时性质，第六条规定：双方同意，在巴基斯坦和印度关于克什米尔的争议获得解决以后，有关的主权当局将就本协定第二条所述的边界，同中国政府重新进行谈判，以签订一个正式的边界条约来代替本协定，该主权当局如系巴基斯坦，则在中国和巴基斯坦将签订的正式边界条约中，应该保持本协定和上述议定书中的规定。因此也不排除如果将来巴国失势，印度要控制克什米尔的时候，中国会利用这条公路出兵克什米尔，占领部分地区后再和印度重新划界。
The treaty on China's border with Kashmir is tentative, the clause 6 stipuates if the part of Kashmir which borders China always belongs to Pakistan, China will remain bounded by this treaty and won't seek change of the border, but if the ownership of the land and the border changed, China will no longer recognize the treaty and the border needs to be redrawn.

Basically it means that if Pakistan lost its part of Kashmir to India, the border treaty will automatically become invalid and China will demand her part of Kashmir.

 

[xeuss]

中巴边界条约具有临时性质，第六条规定：双方同意，在巴基斯坦和印度关于克什米尔的争议获得解决以后，有关的主权当局将就本协定第二条所述的边界，同中国政府重新进行谈判，以签订一个正式的边界条约来代替本协定，该主权当局如系巴基斯坦，则在中国和巴基斯坦将签订的正式边界条约中，应该保持本协定和上述议定书中的规定。因此也不排除如果将来巴国失势，印度要控制克什米尔的时候，中国会利用这条公路出兵克什米尔，占领部分地区后再和印度重新划界。
The treaty on China's border with Kashmir is tentative, the clause 6 stipuates if the part of Kashmir which borders China always belongs to Pakistan, China will remain bounded by this treaty and won't seek change of the border, but if the ownership of the land and the border changed, China will no longer recognize the treaty and the border needs to be redrawn.

Basically it means that if Pakistan lost its part of Kashmir to India, the border treaty will automatically become invalid and China will demand her part of Kashmir.

I was aware of this clause, and it is easily understandable if Pakistan was to lose its part of Kashmir. But what would happen to the LAC with India in the event Pakistan were to take over Kashmir. Would the LAC no longer be valid and China would withdraw from the area it controls?

 

[beijingwalker]

I was aware of this clause, and it is easily understandable if Pakistan was to lose its part of Kashmir. But what would happen to the LAC with India in the event Pakistan were to take over Kashmir. Would the LAC no longer be valid and China would withdraw from the area it controls?

That part of the border has nothing to do with the one with Pakistan, China used to have some historical claim over Hunza Valley and later China relinquished the claim, many in Chinese social media say that was because China wanted to maintain a good relationship with Pakistan.

Hunza (princely state)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunza_(princely_state)

Hunza ruler acceded the valley to Pakistan, not India, so if India took over Kashmir, China , as the former suzerain state , will at least take Hunza valley if not more, India can never get the whole Kashmir.

 

[Areesh]

I think the disagreement arises on how both parties view the transaction.

India considers the whole of Jammu & Kashmir as its own, based on the claims of the erstwhile Raja, who acceded to India. The Raja claimed the borders as depicted by current state of J&K in India, even though he never actually held possession or control of certain territories, including Shaksgam Valley and Aksai Chin.

Pakistan on the other hand, made no such claim. For it, the northern areas ended at the claim of the Mir of Hunza valley. If I recall correctly, the Shaksgam Valley was part of the claim of the Mir of Hunza but never officially demarcated with the Chinese, and therefore likely controlled by China.

Therefore, when Pakistan and China demarcated they border in the Northern Areas, the valley ended up with Pakistan.

The point of this thread to expose the lie or fallacy that India has feed to its people

The fallacy is that Pakistan gave up land of erstwhile Kashmir state that was under its control to China without utter regard or consultation with people of Kashmir hence Pakistani claims on Kashmir shouldn't be taken seriously

This is nothing but a lie and that is the point of this thread basically

 

[Lincoln]

I actually never knew about the details of this. Thanks for the share.