British Colonial Strategy and Its Long-Term Impact
In the early to mid-19th century—especially following the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–1842)—the British colonial government began formulating its geopolitical strategy in the Himalayan region. During this period, heightened concern about Russian expansionism in Central Asia fueled the “Great Game,” a strategic rivalry between the British and Russian empires. In an effort to secure the northern border of India, British authorities formalized a number of treaties and agreements, the most notable being the Shimla Convention of 1914, which established the McMahon Line. This line demarcates the eastern sector of the India-China border, running from the easternmost point of Bhutan to the Talu Pass in the eastern Himalayas. Presented by the British as an official boundary between British India and Tibet, the line aimed to consolidate colonial control and serve as a defensive buffer.1 Mapped out with British strategic objectives at the forefront, this boundary reflects the opaque complexities of colonial-era border delineations. Consequently, China has routinely refrained from fully recognizing it, leaving its legal and diplomatic standing in limbo and paving the way for ongoing disputes.
Britain’s historical perspective on border management emphasized the strategic role of infrastructure and advanced military outposts in asserting sovereignty and managing power dynamics in the Himalayas. British officials prioritized building roads, telegraph lines, and rest houses in key frontier areas to enhance connectivity and facilitate troop movement. Documents preserved in archives, such as the India Office Library’s Political and Secret Department Files reveal that infrastructure projects such as the construction of the Old Hindustan-Tibet Road and the establishment of military cantonments in Shimla and Kalimpong were central to British strategy.2
These initiatives not only reinforced territorial claims but also extended British influence into Tibet and Nepal, effectively integrating remote regions into the colonial administration. The colonial strategies employed in the past maintain significant relevance today, as both India and China have mirrored Britain’s historical approach by forging alliances with local elites, employing strategic ambiguity in border demarcations, and leveraging infrastructure projects to extend influence across the Himalayan region.
The deep-seated impact of Britain’s original border demarcations also remains evident in the Himalayan region, where the Line of Actual Control (LAC)—established after the 1962 Sino-Indian War—functions as the de facto boundary between Indian and Chinese territories. Although not internationally recognized, the LAC closely aligns with earlier British-era claims, most notably the McMahon Line. This colonial model of border demarcation was starkly demonstrated by the 2020 Galwan Valley clash along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which resulted in the fatalities of 20 Indian soldiers and an indeterminate number of Chinese forces. The incident, triggered by disputes over territorial claims and infrastructure development near the LAC, exposed the fragility of existing border management agreements, while simultaneously reinforcing the ongoing strategic contest for dominance in the Himalayan region.
In addition, Western countries have often seen the rivalry between China and India as a chance for strategic gain, with American involvement in the area mirroring a complex development of British colonial policies. While British policies focused on infrastructure development and boundaries like the McMahon Line to counter Russian expansion, U.S. strategies after World War II favored leveraging regional tensions, such as Sino-Indian disputes, to maintain U.S. influence and align the region with Western interests. In Nepal and Tibet, the United States has historically supported initiatives countering Chinese influence, such as covert CIA operations in Tibet during the Cold War.
Indeed, the strategic alliances and direct engagement of the United States have, in fact, intensified regional rivalry. China emerged victorious from the 1962 Sino-Indian War, which altered the McMahon Line and paved the way for current tensions in Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh. During the war, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru sought U.S. assistance, attracting American military aid to bolster India’s defense. For the United States, this served both to counter China’s regional ambitions and to integrate India into Western spheres of influence. These dynamics highlight how colonial legacies—restructured and redefined under Pax Americana—continue to stoke tensions between India and China, keeping the Himalayan frontier a central focus of global power competition.
The Strategic Significance of Nepal and Tibet
Nepal and Tibet were integral to British India’s northern defense strategy. Lord Curzon’s forward policy in the Himalayas exemplified Britain’s drive to counter Russian ambitions, intensifying efforts to secure the region. Nepal’s importance lay in enabling the British Empire to recruit Gurkha troops, who later served as mercenaries in the British Indian Army. The Anglo-Nepalese Treaty of 1923 affirmed Nepal’s independence on paper, yet ensured its foreign policy would support British goals. Meanwhile, Britain regarded Tibet as a crucial bulwark against Russian expansion, prompting British political officers in Sikkim and missions—such as those led by Colonel Weir—to guarantee that the Dalai Lama supported British objectives.
China’s annexation of Tibet in 1950 reconfigured the regional power balance, effectively eroding Tibet’s role as a buffer state and instigating new tensions in border management with Nepal and India. Confronted with these shifting geopolitical realities, Nepal and China negotiated agreements in 1961 and 1963 to formalize their 1,439-kilometer frontier. These accords sought to mitigate the uncertainties that arose once Tibet’s intermediary position disappeared, transforming China’s relationship with its Himalayan neighbors in the aftermath of the Second World War. These accords, including the Sino-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, saw Nepal formally recognize Tibet as part of China. Reflecting Cold War power dynamics, these agreements aligned with China’s strategy to consolidate territorial claims and stabilize its periphery. For Nepal, this resolution secured peaceful borders and bolstered its position as a buffer state between China and India, enabling it to navigate relations with both powers strategically while maintaining its sovereignty in a geopolitically sensitive region. For China, this agreement established a stable relationship with Nepal, ensuring that the strategic buffer remained favorable to Chinese interests.
By contrast, India and China have not reached a similar consensus on the McMahon Line, an issue that remains contentious. Alastair Lamb’s comprehensive analysis indicates that China consistently views the McMahon Line as a product of colonialism and refuses to acknowledge it as a valid boundary with India. Neville Maxwell underscores that this unresolved territorial dispute extends beyond geography, being closely associated with strategic stakes like militarization, regional influence, and border security, and cultural dimensions such as Tibetan Buddhist heritage in Arunachal Pradesh and sovereignty narratives. These factors deepen mistrust, entrench national pride, and complicate resolution, reflecting broader geopolitical and cultural rivalries. China is concerned that settling the border dispute would increase India’s influence over Tibet, strengthening historical and cultural links and perhaps promoting Tibetan independence or autonomy. Such a resolution could weaken China’s sovereignty narrative, challenge its control over strategic areas like the G219 Highway, and amplify civilizational rivalries in the region. John W. Garver observes that the Sino-Indian rivalry has consistently involved a contest for influence in the Himalayan region, and strategic factors have kept the border issue unsettled, making the Himalayas a continual focal point of regional security concerns.
Learning from History for a Stable Present
India, referencing colonial historical contexts, has pursued a policy that underscores sovereignty and national security, strengthening its defenses in Arunachal Pradesh. Nevertheless, the mere act of militarization is inadequate; a successful resolution necessitates diplomatic involvement supported by strategic preparedness. By invoking colonial-era maps and documents, India and China have reinforced ambiguous territorial claims, perpetuating interpretive disputes and limiting the scope for constructive negotiations. This persistent reliance on historical precedents highlights an urgent need for more rigorous, transparent diplomacy to prevent misreading and avert potential conflict. While confidence-building measures such as joint military exercises, high-level dialogues, and bilateral agreements offer potential avenues toward mutual understanding, their real impact hinges on a carefully calibrated approach that recognizes the depth of historical sensitivities and the asymmetries of power at play.
While there is no precedent for formal joint military exercises between India and China due to their strategic rivalry, some progress has been made through mechanisms like the Annual Defence Dialogues and coordinated activities under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). These engagements, though limited, reflect the possibility of expanding such frameworks.
A potential bilateral defense agreement would likely focus on specific areas of cooperation, such as joint disaster relief operations, information sharing on terrorism, or limited joint patrols in less contentious border areas. However, mutual distrust, asymmetric power dynamics, and divergent strategic interests constrain the feasibility of such an agreement. For instance, India remains cautious of China’s growing influence in South Asia, while China views Indian partnerships with the Quad and other Indo-Pacific initiatives as counter to Chinese strategic interests.
A more realistic approach might involve incremental steps, such as establishing hotlines to prevent accidental escalation, enhancing transparency in troop deployments, and creating mutually agreed-upon buffer zones in contested regions. These efforts, combined with a robust defense framework on both sides, could reduce the risk of conflict while maintaining a deterrence posture. Ultimately, such measures would need to be carefully negotiated, addressing both nations’ security concerns while promoting stability and reducing colonial-era legacies of mistrust.
The inherited colonial framework—shaped by vague frontiers and tactical maneuvering—continues to cast a long shadow over the region’s geopolitics. Although both India and China must grapple with this legacy, merely acknowledging it does little to break free from the entrenched structures it created. True progress demands a willingness to confront the underlying imbalances and rivalries that colonialism fostered. Establishing clear, jointly endorsed boundaries remains a baseline measure, but dismantling old power asymmetries requires sustained political resolve and a deeper commitment to equitable dialogue. In an increasingly multipolar world, it will take bold leadership and genuine cooperation to transcend the colonial blueprint that still shapes regional security concerns, ensuring the region can finally move beyond the enduring specter of imperial rule.
1 Political and Secret Department Files, India Office Library, London, Vol. 75, Reg. No. 4422/1930.
2 Political and Secret Department Files, India Office Library, London, Vol. 75, Reg. No. 4422/1930.
. . .
Dr. Vishal Singh Bhadauriya, a Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Department of History at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India, is currently exploring the dynamics of Chinese expansionism in the evolving multipolar landscape of Asia under Xi Jinping’s leadership.
Image credit: Pixabay, via Pixabay Content License.
