First, India has damaged the existing consensus and border treaty at its own will.

The Sikkim section of the ChinaIndia boundary was delimited in 1890 in the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet, and the boundary demarcation is recognized by both China and India. Successive Indian governments repeatedly confirmed in the past that they recognize this part of the boundary, and no disputes previously occurred. Based on this treaty, China constructed border roads within its own territory. Also based on this treaty, India built fortifications along the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary. Now, India’s entrenchments and abundant blockhouses in this region have overwhelming superiority over China in terms of border defense.

Actually, India’s excessive military construction activities have seriously violated the Agreement Between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of India on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility Along the Line of Actual Control in the ChinaIndia Border Areas, signed in 1993, and the Agreement Between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of India on Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field Along the Line of Actual Control in the China-India Border Areas, signed in 1996. Thus, it is India’s excessive military construction activities that have posed serious threats to China’s security.

The current standoff in the Donglang area is caused by Indian troops’ trespassing into the Chinese territory. It is a breach of the 1890 convention and a gross violation of international law, going against the promissory estoppel. It also completely contradicts the Modi administration’s call to establish an international order “based on international rules.” Even if India believes that the 1890 convention was not fair, it can’t selectively accept and break the convention unilaterally. It can never claim rights years later using a map produced by Britain and trample on the 1890 treaty at its own will.

We can take a look at the map. After the 1890 convention was signed, the British were soon dissatisfied with the first clause in the treaty. While the clause states that “the boundary of Sikkim and Tibet shall be the crest of the mountain range separating the waters flowing into the Sikkim Teesta [River] and its affluents from the waters flowing into the Tibetan Mochu [River] and northwards into other rivers of Tibet. The line commences at Mount Gipmochi [currently known as Mount Ji Mu Ma Zhen]on the Bhutan frontier and follows the above-mentioned waterparting to the point where it meets Nipal [Nepal] territory,” the British believed that the features of Mount Gipmochi as the starting point of the boundary were not obvious. Thus, between 1907 and 1913, Britain published a map showing the boundary starting at Batangla, 6 km north of Mount Gipmochi, believing that its features were more prominent as the dividing crest.

India’s basis for trespassing into Chinese territory probably comes from this map. One of the reasons offered by the Modi administration is that India, China and Bhutan have different opinions on the boundary tri-junction. India and Bhutan hold that it is more reasonable to place the southeastern starting point of the Sikkim section of the ChinaIndia boundary at Batangla, rather than Mount Gipmochi. Thus, the Indian troops’ “entry” into Donglang is legal.

However, although the border between China and Bhutan is yet to be demarcated, due to obstructions set by India, it is clear that Mount Gipmochi is located south of Donglang, and Donglang belongs to China. In the 1890 convention, the boundary trijunction of China, India and Bhutan is Mount Gipmochi, which was put down in black and white. Although this point has no specific latitude and longitude, due to the boundary between China and Bhutan not being demarcated, a point is a point. It can never be expanded to a plane. On this issue, India is quibbling due to its concern for its own security.

Most importantly, Britain’s production of the map was undoubtedly a unilateral action. The map is not a necessary part of the 1890 convention, and China has no obligation to abide by it. The Indian troops’ trespass into the Chinese territory has in effect invalidated the 1890 convention and made the China-India boundary issue even more complicated. Actually, the Sikkim section, as a mutually recognized boundary section, facilitates border trade between China and India and offers a safer route for Indian pilgrims to Tibet.

However, the Donglang standoff has not only invalidated the whole China-India boundary demarcation and influenced bilateral trade and the route for Indian pilgrims to Tibet, but also granted the Chinese Government the right to renegotiate the legal status of Sikkim and its administrative division. China has the right to ask India to