893.00 Tibet/12–1649: Telegram
The Ambassador in India ( Henderson ) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 17—7:12 a. m.]
1564. Following information re Tibet obtained from members British High Commission here (see also Embtel 1555, December 14). They request that information originating with Richardson and Dayal not be discussed with Indian representatives.
- 1.
- Richardson, GoI agent Lhasa, believes Chinese Communists likely move into Tibet next summer but British regard this view with considerable reserve. His view probably reflection of prevailing opinion [Page 1094] Lhasa where threatening broadcasts Peiping radio had created so much alarm. Richardson discounts difficulty of travel from Jyekundo to Lhasa and estimates travel time no more than 2.5 months. Also asserts infiltration Communist agents into Bhutan, Nepal and India is relatively simple. His view is force of 20,000 should be sufficient overcome any likely Tibetan resistance. His last information before leaving Lhasa contradicted earlier reports fall of Jyekundo which he now believes has not yet been taken over.
- Despite Richardson’s views re timing Communist invasion, British here apparently feel difficulty of terrain, problem of adjustment to extreme high altitudes and constant winds, difficulty of feeding troops, lack of material or accessibility resources to exploit, preoccupation Communists with internal problems all combine render dispatch of Chinese military expedition unlikely in near future and to make alternative infiltration and gradual conquest from within more attractive.
- 2.
- Dayal, Indian political agent Sikkim, whose arrival here from Lhasa delayed until today, had long talks with Tibetan Government during which he tried in vain dissuade them from writing Mao Tse-tung (Embtel 1437, November 21) to assert Tibet’s independence so provocatively and from renewing claim to inner Tibetan areas. Tibetans asked Dayal for extensive GoI help including aid in building army from reported 13,000 to 100,000. Richardson believes it possible to raise army of 50,000 but help would obviously be needed in equipping it.
- 3.
- Dayal was particularly interested in protection Indian trading posts Gyantse and Yatung.
- 4.
- Right of GoI maintain resident mission Lhasa was never clearly recognized by China who had only agreed permit visiting mission from time to time. UK believes, however, GoI should maintain resident mission and if challenged by Chinese Communists deal with situation in light then situation.
- 5.
- Relationship between Tibet and Nepal continues nominally at least to be governed by Treaty of 185641 which was concluded without Chinese participation. This treaty contains provision to effect that Lhasa is holy place of worship for which reason Nepal will grant all assistance in its power against any foreign invaders. This provision has apparently never been invoked successfully but Tibetans would be very likely attempt to do so if Chinese Communists march in.
- 6.
- Roberts, Deputy High Commissioner, confirmed UK which has also been considering sending official mission Lhasa next spring unlikely [Page 1095] to do so for reasons similar those given in Embtel 1558, December 15. However, no final decision has been reached. Should British go ahead they can leak their correspondence with Himalayan Committee London which will show UK long considering dispatch of mission, thereby demonstrating it was not being sent merely because of development of Chinese Communist threat.
Chinese Ambassador tells me in extreme confidence he is convinced from sources in Lhasa that Dayal has been attempting negotiate treaty defining borders between India–Bhutan and Tibet. He believes such treaty if concluded would give India or Bhutan large slices territory adjacent to Bhutan and Kashmir some of which have been illegally occupied by detachments Indian Army for last 5 years. Although I have indirectly questioned both Indians and British, I have not been able find any confirmation. Ambassador maintains no treaty at present defining Tibet’s southern and western frontiers with India and Bhutan although for many years maps prepared in India and China show practically identical boundary lines.
Sent Department; Department pass London.
- Signed March 26, 1856, C. U. Aitchison, comp., A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanad’s Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries (Calcutta, Government of India Central Publication Branch, 1929), vol. xiv, footnote, pp. 41–42.↩