Editing McMahon Line (section)

==Background==
[[File:British Indian Empire 1909 Imperial Gazetteer of India.jpg|thumb|right|Map of the British Indian Empire from the ''[[Imperial Gazetteer of India]]'', 1909 showing the Outer Line as the border of Assam.{{efn|In a report to the Government of India in 1903 the Chief Commissioner of Assam, while pointing out the imprecision of the boundary, notes that the boundary and the "outer line" ran along the foot of the hills.{{sfn|Mehra, The McMahon Line and After|1974|p=10}}}}]]
[[File:1907-east-bengal-assam3.jpg|thumb|right|1907 map of East Bengal and Assam from the ''Imperial Gazetteer of India'' showing the Outer Line as the border]]

[[British India]] expanded east of Bhutan in the early 19th century with the [[First Anglo-Burmese War]]. At the end of the war the [[Brahmaputra]] valley of [[Assam]] came under its control and over the next few decades British India extended its direct administration over the region in stages. The thickly forested hill tracts surrounding the valley were inhabited by tribal people, who were not easily amenable to British administrative control. The British were content to leave them alone. In 1873, the British drew an "Inner Line" as an administrative line to inhibit their subjects from encroaching into the tribal territory within its control.<ref>
{{harvp|Banerji, Borders|2007|p=198}}: ".. with the growth of commercial interests (mainly tea plantation and Umber), in the second half of the nineteenth century, the British Government became apprehensive of uncontrolled expansion of commercial activities by British merchants, because that could bring them into conflict with the tribal people. To prevent that possibility, the government decided, in 1873, to draw a line—the 'Inner Line'—that could not be crossed without a proper permit."</ref><ref>{{harvp|Lin, Boundary, sovereignty and imagination|2004|p=26}}: "The tribal peoples, notably the Abors, Daflas, Mishmis, Monpas, Akas and Miris, apart from some occasional episodes of subordination to Assam or Tibet, were for all practical purposes independent."</ref> The British boundary, also called the "Outer Line", was defined to mark the limits of British jurisdiction. But it was not significantly different from the Inner Line in this region.<ref>{{harvp|Lamb, The McMahon Line, Vol. 2|1966|pp=313–315}}: "It [the Outer Line] followed the line of 'the foot of the hills' a few miles to the north of what became the course of the Inner Line."</ref>

The British wanted peaceful relations with the [[People of Arunachal Pradesh|Himalayan tribes]] who lived beyond the Outer Line.<ref name=Curzon>
{{harvp|Mehra, The McMahon Line and After|1974|p=11}}: Quoting [[Lord Curzon]], the Viceroy of India, from 1905: "We do not want Mr (J C) White or anybody else to present us with a North-east frontier problem or policy. There being no problem beyond that of remaining on peaceful and friendly terms with our neighbours and quietly developing our relations ... there is no occasion for a policy."
</ref> However, British influence was nevertheless extended to many regions, through treaties, trade relations, and occasional punitive expeditions in response to "outrages" committed against British civilians.<ref>
{{harvp|Banerji, Borders|2007|pp=198–199}}: "These British expeditions often came into conflict with the tribal people living in the hill tracts and retaliated with punitive measures.... These punitive expeditions beyond the Outer Line gradually extended British political control to areas that were later to be incorporated into the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA)."
</ref><ref name="Lamb sphere of influence">
{{harvp|Lamb, The McMahon Line, Vol. 2|1966|p=312}}: "While the tribal hills were not inside the limits of British territory, yet it was felt that they fell within the sphere of British influence, and that the Indian Government was fully entitled to take what action it saw fit there to protect its interests. There seemed no need, however, before 1910 to have this situation confirmed by any international agreement."
</ref>
There is evidence that the British regarded the Assam Himalayan region as a geographical part of India irrespective of political jurisdiction.<ref name="geographical part" /> Guyot-Réchard sees them as having extended "external sovereignty" over the Assam Himalayan tribes.<ref>
{{harvp|Guyot-Réchard, Shadow States|2016|pp=56–57}}: "Delhi and London's vision followed an imperial logic: the eastern Himalayas should be a buffer between India and its neighbourhood. Confronted by Chinese expansionism, their aim was limited to achieving external sovereignty over the region – that is, to ensure that no foreign power would intrude into the eastern Himalayas, and that local people would have 'no relations or intercourse with any Foreign Power other than the British Government'."
</ref>

=== Forward policies of early 1900s ===
By 1900, Chinese influence over Tibet had significantly weakened and the British became apprehensive that Tibet would fall into a Russian orbit. In an effort to preclude Russian influence over Tibet and to enforce their treaty rights, the British launched an [[Younghusband Expedition|expedition]] to Tibet in 1904, which resulted in the [[Convention of Lhasa]] between Tibet and Britain.

[[Qing China]] became apprehensive about British inroads into Tibet and responded with its own forward policy. They took complete control over the southeastern [[Kham]] region of Tibet (also referred to as the "March Country"), through which passed the Chinese communications to Tibet. An [[List of Qing ambans in Tibet|assistant amban]] (imperial resident) was appointed for [[Chamdo]] in western Kham to implement the new strategy. Over a period of three years, 1908–1911, the amban [[Zhao Erfeng]] implemented brutal policies of subjugation and [[sinification]] in the Kham region, for which he earned the nickname of "Zhao the butcher".{{sfnp|Mehra, The McMahon Line and After|1974|loc=Chapter 6. (pp.&nbsp;67–79)}}

Zhao Erfeng's campaigns entered the Tibetan districts adjoining the Assam Himalayan region such as [[Zayul]], [[Pomed]] (Bome County) and [[Pemako]] (Medog County). They also encroached into parts of the adjoining tribal territory. This alarmed British officials in the region, who advocated the extension of British jurisdiction into the tribal territory.{{sfnp|Mehra, The McMahon Line and After|1974|loc=Chapter 7}}<ref>
{{harvp|Mehra, Britain and Tibet|2016|p=272}}: "Mounting Chinese activity in the Assam Himalaya (1907-11) invited reactions in terms of explorations by the British culminating in the Abor expedition (1911), the Mishmi and Miri missions, the Aka and Walong promenades (1911-12) and the Bailey-Moreshead explorations (1913-14) around Tawang."
</ref><ref>
{{harvp|Van Eekelen, Indian Foreign Policy and the Border Dispute|1967|p=167}}: "When China attempted to reassert control over Tibet around 1910 her troops penetrated into the Walong area and placed boundary markers there. Appreciative of the danger of further encroachment, the governor of Assam in 1910 advised the Viceroy to press forward beyond the limits which "under a self-denying ordinance" contained the frontier."
</ref>
The higher administration of British India was initially reluctant to concede these demands,<ref name=Curzon/> but, by 1912, the Army General Staff had proposed drawing a boundary along the crest of Himalayas.<ref>
{{harvp|Mehra, The McMahon Line and After|1974|pp=223–225}}: "All in all, the frontier line proposed by the Army top brass from west to east, was to follow the watersheds of the Subansiri, with its tributaries the Kamala and the Khru, the Dihang as far as its major gorge and all its tributaries south of that point, the Dibang and its confluents and the Lohit and its tributaries. The proposed line, it was pointed out, 'corresponded very closely' with the one suggested by the Government of India in its letter of 1911."
</ref>
The British appear to have been clear that they were only extending the political administration of their rule but not the geographical extent of India, which was taken to include the Assam Himalayan region.<ref name="geographical part">
{{harvp|Van Eekelen, Indian Foreign Policy and the Border Dispute|1967|p=167}}: Quoting the Secretary of State for India in 1913, "It should be observed that Tibet is nowhere coterminous with the settled districts of British India, but with a belt of country which, though ''geographically part of India'', politically is partly a no-man's land inhabited by aboriginal savages, partly the territories of states [Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim] ...." (emphasis added)
</ref>

=== Tawang tract ===
{{expand section|date=August 2021}}