Wed Sep 24 03:00:00 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary and a news article based on the provided text:

**Summary:**

An article in The Hindu disputes the Chinese narrative that the India-China border was not properly defined. It argues that historical Manchu maps (1721, 1761) show that Tibet was never conceived as extending south of the Himalayas, meaning Tawang (now part of Arunachal Pradesh) was not considered Tibetan territory. Similarly, the maps show that the region north of the Hindu Kush-Karakoram mountains (Aksai Chin) was never claimed as part of Eastern Turkestan. Later, the Republic of China (RoC) attempted to claim Indian territory, but admitted the maps were imprecise. The Chinese Premier Chou En-lai also acknowledged the RoC maps were incorrect. The article suggests a resolution based on historical alignments (1899 and 1914), potentially with a territorial swap to address security concerns. The article also refers to a three-part series in the same newspaper.
**News Article:**

**Historical Maps Challenge China’s Border Claims, Argues *The Hindu* Article**

**New Delhi – September 24, 2025** – A new perspective on the long-standing India-China border dispute has emerged in *The Hindu*, challenging China’s historical justifications for its territorial claims. The article, published today, argues that historical Manchu maps contradict the narrative that the India-China border was never properly defined.

Drawing on detailed analysis of Emperor Kang-hsi’s map (1721) and Emperor Ch’ien-lung’s map (1761), the article contends that these documents demonstrate that the Manchu rulers, and therefore the then Republic of China (RoC), did not consider Tibet to extend south of the Himalayan range. This implies that Tawang, now a part of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, was historically recognized as separate from Tibetan territory. The article claims corroborative evidence comes from the RoC delegate’s statement during the Simla Conference (1913-14).

The piece further asserts that similar historical cartography undermines China’s claims in the Aksai Chin region. According to Emperor Ch’ien-lung’s map, Eastern Turkestan did not include the desolate area south of the Kunlun mountains, challenging the basis for Chinese territorial assertion in that sector.

The article criticizes the later actions of the RoC in the 1940s, when, feeling emboldened by World War II, they began claiming large tracts of Indian territory, but that the new maps lacked historical basis. The then Chinese Premier Chou En-lai acknowledged the RoC maps had mistakes.

The author, a former civil servant, suggests a potential path forward, building on a series of articles which ran from September 5-9, advocating for a resolution based on the 1899 and 1914 alignments. Such a resolution, the article argues, could involve a territorial swap to address legitimate security concerns on both sides. The author advocates a solution that is “..reasonable, equitable and friendly…and which is…consistent with dignity and self-respect of both countries.”

The article is likely to spark renewed debate and analysis of the border issue, which remains a point of contention between the two nations.

Read More