 Thank you Sabur and I thank the organizers, good afternoon everyone. So, actually this is my working paper, still I am working on this paper and in this paper I want to discuss about the genesis of border disputes between both India and China and continuity and changes. So, I like to start this paper with theoretical definition of territoriality and borders. Anderson in his imagination communities he describes the question of territoriality as the question of territoriality is central to the emergence of nation states. A clear and rigidly defined territory becomes the political requirement of the nation state. A requirement that itself was partly facilitated by the technological innovations in the realm of cartography. However, once the question of territoriality had emerged it became central to the political imagination of nation states. Territoriality became a political requirement as well as challenge to various existing political regimes and the newly emerging states. It is important to introduce the category of border in the discussion here. Borders are typically modern phenomenon and a result of the emergence of modern nation states. In fact, we cannot imagine a nation without borders. So, borders are the spaces which has a function of demarcation. Borders have often proved to be borders of political imagination as well. Ethni Ballyberg writes in his work Qualities and Other Seen about borders as we know that every border has its own history. Indeed, this is almost a common place of history textbooks. In that history, the demand for the right to self-determination and the power or importance of states are combined together with cultural demarcations often termed as natural, economic interests and so on. It is less often noted that no political border is ever the mere boundary between two states but is always over determined and in that sense sanctioned, reduplicated and relativized by other geographical divisions. This feature is by no means incidental or contingent, it is intrinsic. Without the world configuration function they perform there would be no borders or no lasting borders. Then borders are also led to politicization of another space. These spaces can be considered as frontiers. Frontiers historically were spaces of exchanges, transactions and a domain where legality and illegality flow into each other. The phenomenon of border and politicization of frontiers has led to several conflicts and wars across the world. Malcolm Anderson writes contemporary frontiers are not simply lines on maps the unproblematic givens of political life where one jurisdiction or political authority ends and another begins. They are central to understanding political life. Examining the justifications of frontier raises crucial often dramatic questions concerning citizenship, identity, political loyalty, exclusion, inclusion and of the ends of the state. So it is important to note here that territorial sovereignty earmarked by closely defined borders was alien to many of the societies in the non-Western societies. Both India and China, even their civilizational heritage did not have a clearly defined border in the past. It is the experiences of colonialism and imperialism in the Asia that the origin of border disputes can be traced back to. Colonial states were typically national even in their imperial mould and often employed violent methods to ensure the favorable division of the world. Colonial ideologies and policies is a combination of institutional innovation and use of military means in this regard. Three institutions, the census, the map and the museum together shape the way in which the colonial state emersed its domination. Benedict Anderson writes that entire planet's curved surface has been subjected to a geometrical grid which squared off empty seas and unexplored regions in measured boxes to be filled by explorers, surveyors and military forces. Map has logo penetrated deep into the popular imagination forming a powerful emblem for anti-colonial nationalism being born. This resulted in indistinguishable national and imperial borders between states. So these borders together with other frontiers were extended and replicated into Africa and Asia. The colonial empires of the past and the blocks of the recent past have left deep mark on institutions, law and mentalities of the people. Today's crisis of the nation state is partly because of the nature of location of geographical demarcations which may over-determine borders and on the other hand the degree of national autonomy. These hypothetical super borders might be compatible with given their military, economic, ideological or symbolic operation. So cartography of the British Empire is indelibly marked on the future of the post-colonial states and continues to influence and colour the relations between former colonised countries. The lack of clearly defined borders has therefore as much become source of problem as the borders were to begin with. This has resulted in many circumstances in ambiguity of nationality and identity. The lack of consensus has led these countries to resort to force and forcible annexation of territories. Several formerly buffer zones between these countries have disappeared or annexed. This paper, A Work in Progress, tries to examine the effect of British cartography on relations between India and China. These two nations, irrespective of their long-standing civilisational ties, are mired by border disputes. These border disputes are traced back to the blunders of the imperial Britain in this paper. So India and China were not precise neighbours in the past. There were many buffer states between them Tibet, Sinkiang, Sikkim, Burma, Bhutan etc. So with the colonisation of India by the British, its present lines of demarcation was laid down. British kept shifting boundaries of the colonial India as they expanded their imperial boundary. Late 19th century opened up the necessity of new demarcations. The advancement of Russia into Afghanistan pulled British India into the great game of 20th century. China was already part of this imperial great game as a pawn between Russia and British. So to limit Russians advancement for the British used maps to draw lines as well as to create buffer zones. As part of this imperial design, a triparty conference in Shimla was held in 1913. Actually the three members had to be British, Tibet and China. Tibet was enjoying its independence after the fall of the Qing Empire and revolution in China after 1911. So these three parties came for this convention. But the main purpose of this conference was to divide Tibet into two zones, Inner and Outer, Inner for China and Outer for Britain. But this accord hasn't been signed by China as it disagreed with Britain and Tibet. They both have signed with each other. That's why the result is that now we are suffering. India and China are suffering because China has never agreed to that and it says that Tibet is its integral part. And this map line which is drawn the demarcation line between Tibet and North Eastern India is actually not recognized by China for that reason. So, however, given the imperial involvement, it is not validated by China and later the other regions of Himalayas like Ladakh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh also became contested frontiers. So, independent India could not forgo some of the colonial structures and institutions. At least for all it cannot give up the imperial baggage of the border disputes. India's colonial past left it with many border disputes on all sides. India and China were in good terms and India became the first nation to recognize people's republic of China in the wake of communist revolution. However, the border disputes soon led to friendly relations because of these disputed areas. And these disputed areas are not limited to Tibet alone. It also encompasses Tawang which China calls the present our Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh which China identifies as southern part of Tibet. It calls it as Tawang. So, in 1954, India and China had an agreement on trade and intercourse between Tibet region of China and India. This is popularly known as punch shield and this punch shield principles includes territorial integrity, aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, peaceful coexistence with equal and visual benefits. But all these have been failed. State of affairs between the two countries changed with China's invasion of Tibet in 1959. Then India has granted asylum to Dalai Lama and his followers in Darmashala. The controversy blew up into full scale war in 1962 between the two countries. The border disputes re-roctor have become the central axis and the litmus trace for the bilateral relations in Indochina relations. So, India and China had three major sectors. They have demarcated along their borders. They have identified three major sectors. One is the prominent one is the western. It includes Ladakh and eastern is Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. So, a part of Ladakh which opens into Sinkiang highway. It is known as Aksai Shin. Another one is I won't go much into these details because earlier speaker has mentioned conflicts about the timeline of conflicts and economic treaties which were there between India and China. I will just mention these two because these two are the more controversial disputes on the borders between India and China. So, Ladakh, this Aksai Shin, it's actually a place where there is no human, no one, it's uninhabitable. Because earlier it used to be for the Paravans from Sinkiang and Tibet used to pass through this way. And now later this Aksai Shin is part of Ladakh and between treaty in early 19th century there was war between Sikhs and Chinese. And after that war this Aksai Shin was they have annexed Ladakh to German Kashmir and since then it is with Ladakh, right? But China later on it hasn't included, it hasn't agreed Aksai Shin as part of India just because it gives its direct access to the Central Asia. Or through Pakistan it can just go that side without going through all the way around. It will have direct access from Sinkiang and it can have the old traditional ancient silk route. Then coming to Afghanistan, sorry, not Afghanistan, Arunachal Pradesh, it is known as Tawang. It is operated, it still, till India had its independence by 1938. Till 1938 Tibet used to administer this part whereas Britishers used to say it is under their administration and they haven't paid much attention towards that. But later China claimed that Tawang is also part of Tibetan autonomous region. And China, there is a controversy, recent controversy that China issued stapled visas to two Indians citizens from Arunachal Pradesh. Staple visas means the visa is not stamped on the papers of the passport but it is simply stapled and later you can remove it. Right, that is stapled visas. These contested frontiers had a deep impact on the bilateral relations. The border confrontations led to several violations including number of transactions across the demarcated lines and as I discussed stapled visas and saying this also indicates that there are no friendly relations. Claiming the water resources as disputed sites etc. All of these disputes, frontier relations convert into war like situations. We must be mindful of the fact that bilateral relations are not one-dimensional but multi-dimensional. This includes political, economic, cultural, social and infrastructural exchanges. Trade continues to be a major source of conflict and conflict resolution given that neither of two countries are in a position to impose their will one-sidedly on the other country. So this paper argues that colonial interests of the past are still playing the same role in bilateral relations in which the frontiers became pawn in hands of two countries. In this globalized world, modern nations are enamored by rising nationalism and national interests. The conversion of frontier regions as contested areas and the treatment as such by both the countries should raise critical assessment as these frontier regions lay in ecologically sensitive zones. Given the global catastrophic situation of the ecology in the region and the globe, people of the two countries including people of the frontier regions cannot leave the task of border dispute resolution solely to the militaristic and chauvinistic elements in the government. As long as China's desire of dominating and reigning in territories rich in natural resources is alive, till then it is difficult to have serious engagement between the two countries. To conclude, in spite of impending confidence-building measures, trade and cultural exchanges between the two countries, the two chains of Asia has to solve disputes emicably with larger interests in humanity. One may show the military prowess and build stronger image for the leadership of both national elites in the two countries. It may not necessarily erase the contested nature of the borders and frontiers in this region. It is important therefore to open up other political, diplomatic and civilizational resources for building a peace in the region. With this, I will end my presentation. Thank you.