CO129-383 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 450

445

4

Messrs. Leveson and Litton in the joint survey of 1905, to be beyond the pale of civilisation (“hua wai") and to be independent of China, and therefore "no objections would be raised by him to Burmah taking them over." These villages are antagonistic to the Chinese and do not fear to say so. On this section of the river there are two villages, the large one of Gawyawn (Chinese, Shang Lou) and Chikgaw (Chinese, Chika), which exchange presents with the Tatang fuyi. In a former quarrel between the Chinese and the Lungpang group of villages, to which they then belonged, the inhabitants sought and obtained peace by agreeing to exchange presents, as a sign of friendship. Both villages deny that they are in any way subordinate to Tatang. Being friends we exchange presents once in three, four or five years" is what the Gawyawm headman said when I recorded his statement. The inhabitants of Shijang (Chinese, Hsieh Chiang), a group of Lashi villages situated up a small side valley, also deny the Chinese claims.

We come now to the IIpimaw (Chinese, Pien-ma) group of villages. The stream that flows near these villages is the tangjam Hka. The people say that they have paid tribute to the Chief of Tengkeng for several generations, at first at long intervals and then with more regularity. These villages and Tangtung and Gawlam on the left bank of the Upper Ngawchang River were formerly under the Lungpang chief, but after a quarrel many years ago the inhabitants appealed to the Tengkeng fuyi for protection and help, which he gave them, and thereafter made them pay tribute. The inhabitants of all these places are Lashis; they all speak Chinese, and there is a school maintained by the Chinese Government at Hpimaw. The few Lisu hamlets in the mountains south of Hpimaw also claim to be under China as the inhabitants came originally from the Salween side of the divide, and there are other Lisu hamlets in the headwaters of the Ngawchang River which also pay tribute once in three years to the Chief of Tengkeng. In some villages the people state that disputes are referred to that functionary for settlement, while in others they say that they never do so. Beyond collecting tribute, the fuși does not appear to exercise any real control over these villages, or to actively administer them. Kangfang (house of toll) is a purely Chinese hamlet, where a few Chinese traders in coffin-wood congregate during the open season. The Tengkeng fuyi has a toll-collector there, who takes one plank in twenty for his North of Kangfang are the Lisu hamlets referred to above, perched high up on the mountain tops.

master.

The claims of the Chinese are thus:-

(a.) The claim of the Tientan headman to the Chipwi valley, which it has been decided cannot be considered.

(b.) The Tenkeng furi's claim to the Hpimaw group of villages to Tantung and Gawlam and to the Lisu hamlets near Hpimaw and about the headwaters of the Ngawchang River.

(c.) The Tatang fuyi's claim to Gawyawm and Chikgaw in the middle Ngawchang valley, both of which are based on a periodical exchange of valueless presents.

(d.) The Mingkwang fuyi's claim to the two villages of Lagwi on the Mangshang Kha, a tributary of the Hparè stream, the ground for this claim being also an exchange of presents once in "six to ten years."

(e) The same fuyi's claim to the villages of Iparè and to those lower down the Hkansheng valley as far as the Kyetmaw Kha west of Htawgaw village.

Claim (a) has already been rejected, and I do not think the Chinese can substantiate claims (c), (d), and (e). The claim to Hparè is as much a fiction as the Chinese claim of suzerainty over Burmah in 1886.

The Tengkeng chief's claim (b) is the only one that deserves consideration. As regards (d) and (e) the joint report says: "We are of opinion that nothing can be clearer than that there is no Chinese control either in Hparè or Tzu Chu," the latter being the Chinese name for Lagwi. With this I entirely agree. As regards Hparè, the report is emphatic: "It is perfectly clear that the Chinese suzerainty, much more control, over Hpare and the Kun Ma (Hkansheng) valley is an entire myth." At the enquiry," the Chinese deputy refused to cross-examine or even to listen and got up and went away."

The claims of the Chinese are thus reduced to very small proportions, viz., that of the tribal chief of Tengkeng. With respect to this claim we cannot blink the fact that he has right ou his side. Although his claim is not a very strong one, yet it is stronger than ours, for we have none, except perhaps the right of every country to obtain a frontier that will secure it from military and political aggression.

3. Terms on which we may negotiate with the Chinese.--I have been directed to give my opinion regarding the terms on which we may suitably negotiate with the Chinese Government for the delimitation of the frontier.

As it would help to increase our prestige, I recommend that a serious effort should be made to retain the watershed boundary either by-

(a.) Leasing from the Chinese Government the tract of country claimed by the Tengkeng chief, in perpetuity, as was done in the case of the Mong Wan assigned tract (triangle) in the Bhamo district;

(b.) By leasing it, also in perpetuity, from the chief himself, with the aid of the good offices of the Chinese Government; or

(c.) By compensating the fuyi liberally for its loss by paying him a lump sum of money.

(b) Would, perhaps, be the best course, as it would be less likely to wound the amour-propre of the Chinese Government and the fuyi, it being an established fact that for sentimental reasons the Chinese have the greatest aversion to surrendering any territory, however small and valueless it may be.

The Chinese claim to the Hpimaw group of villages may honestly be considered to be more a family than an Imperial one, and a sum of 1,000 rupees a-year might, consequently, be offered for the total extinction or the transfer of the fuyi's rights to us on a lease. The above sum would err on the side of liberality, but in order to secure a speedy settlement the amount might be increased to 1,500 rupees or even 2,000 rupees. If a lump sum would be acceptable, 15,000 rupees might be offered.

We should lay stress on the fact that there has been no actual administration on the part of the fuyi; that when Hpimaw village was burnt last year by him the people came to us for help; that the tract is valueless from a revenue point of view to both countries; that the fuyi will get more money from us than he can ever hope to collect; that the villages being on this side of the divide, there will be constant feuds and disputes between the inhabitants and our people, as there always have been in the past, which will lead to friction between the two countries; that the inhabitants are only barbarians (for whom it is known the Chinese have the greatest contempt); that the boundary is both a natural and ethnological one, as it separates the Lashis and Marus, who come from the same stock as the Burmans, from the Chinese and Lisus; and, lastly, that the boundary is, undoubtedly, the best one for both countries. If there are places on our frontier where the Chinese have entered upon debatable ground, as I hear they have done at Tawnyo, east of Lashio, in the Shan States, and may have done elsewhere, it might be used as a lever to induce them to accede to our demand respecting Hpinaw. If, in the course of negotiations, the Chinese should bring forward complaints as to our action in tearing up their appoint- ment orders and confiscating their gifts and tokens to headmen, our reply is that they were guilty of sending emissaries into British territory, viz., the Chipwi and 'Nmaikha valleys, who forged petitions from the illiterate "barbarians" therein to the Chinese Government praying to be taken over by it, when they have no such desire, thereby perpetrating an extraordinary breach of international etiquette. No course was, therefore, open to me hut to obtain possession of all these tokens, official caps, &c., and to forbid our subjects to accept any further orders and gifts from any Chinaman. Had I taken these things from some of the headmen and let others retain them, it would have been accepted by the latter as a sign that I recognised the Chinese claims to their villages.

If these arguments should fail and the Chinese still cling to their petty clairos on this side of the great natural line, I propose an alternative boundary which is equally as good and will exclude the Hpimaw tract from the territory to be taken over by us. The line 1 recommend follows the crest of the range of hills (marked A, B, C on the annexed map*) which lies parallel to and west of the Salween divide. It starts from the high peak called Hsi-Chiang ho Shan (12,000 feet) and separates the basins of the Mangshang (Lagwi or Tzu Chu) and the Shangtawa streams on one side from that of the Changzaw Kha (? Pi Ho) on the other. Further north it forms the watershed between the Hpienlaw Kha on the west and the Ngawchang River and its tributaries on the east. It here attains its maximum elevation, the highest point being

a peak of 13,600 feet known to the Marus as Chiyen Bum. From here northward, the frontier follows the top of the water-pent of the Ngawchang Kha, which finally sweeps eastward in the shape of a bow and joins the Irrawaddy-Salween divide north-east of the Lisu village of Hpawtè. The Ngawchang Kha, which is a very swift stream and

Not reproduced.

#

¿

[1974 -2]

0

Page 450Page 451