NEW DELHI: As the India-China border standoff swings between warnings and signs of thaw, ET looks into the claims on either side of the Doklam plateau in the Himalayas where the build-up of troops for over two months now has been making headlines.While Beijing maintains that the 1890 pact between Great Britain and China on Sikkim and Tibet has delimited (settled as per Chinese version) Sino-Indian boundary along Sikkim, India refers to a 2012 written understanding between special representatives (SRs) on India-China boundary alignment in the Sikkim sector, and says the 1890 pact is the basis for future agreement for final demarcation of boundary in this region.India's concerns emanate from Chinese action on the ground which have implications for the determination of the tri-junction boundary point between India, China and Bhutan and the alignment of India-China boundary in the Sikkim sector.Both these aspects of tri-junction points and India-China boundary alignment in the Sikkim sector had been earlier addressed in a written common understanding reached between the SRs of India and China on the boundary question in December 2012, when then national security advisor (NSA) Shivshankar Menon was India's SR.Point 13 of the common understanding states that “the tri-junction boundary points between India, China and third countries will be finalised in consultation with the concerned countries”. Since 2012, India and China have not held any discussion on the tri-junction with Bhutan. The Chinese action in the Doklam area is, therefore, an attempt to bilaterally (Bhutan) address the issue, bypassing India in violation of Point 13 of the written common understanding.With regard to the boundary in the Sikkim sector, there are still steps to be covered before the boundary is finalised. This understanding has been reflected in the Common Understanding of December 2012 in point No. 12, which states that “there is mutual agreement on the basis of the alignment of the India China boundary in the Sikkim sector as provided by the convention between China and Great Britain relating to Tibet and Sikkim signed in 1890". Therefore, 1890 Pact is not the final document and rather CAN be the basis for finalisation of Sino-Indian boundary (currently part of Line of Actual Control) in the Sikkim sector.By asserting that the boundary in the Sikkim sector is delimited under the 1890 Pact, China is portraying that Indian troops have crossed into Chinese territory into Doklam from Dokala Pass along the border. However, Doklam is in Bhutan and at a trijunction, yet to be settled by the three sides.During the Eighth Special Representatives meeting in June 2006, the Chinese side had, in fact, handed over a non-paper for separate agreement on the boundary in the Sikkim sector. The non-paper had proposed that “both sides may, based on the above mentioned historical treaty i.e. 1890 Convention, verify and determine the specific alignment of the Sikkim sector and produce a common record”.Both sides may negotiate a final agreement on the boundary alignment in the Sikkim sector to replace the historical treaty. Subsequently, in the SR meeting the Chinese side has made the proposal for finalising the boundary in Sikkim sector, terming it as an early harvest of the SR process, which clearly confirms that the boundary in the Sikkim sector is not yet finalised. "Otherwise, they would not have used this term ‘early harvest’ as we say ‘low hanging fruit’,” Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj pointed out in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday.India is of the opinion that the Chinese side has selectively quoted parts of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s letter of March 22, 1959 pertaining to the India-China boundary in the sector. A full and accurate account of that letter would have also brought out Nehru’s assertion that was clearly based on the boundary alignment as shown in Indian published maps.The Chinese foreign ministry has a different opinion on the Sikkim sector of the boundary, as highlighted by their recent statement. "The China-India boundary in the Sikkim sector has already been delimited by the 1890 Convention between Great Britain and China relating to Sikkim and Tibet (hereinafter referred to as the 1890 Convention. Article I of this convention stipulates that “the boundary of Sikkim and Tibet shall be the crest of the mountain range separating the waters flowing into the Sikkim Teesta and its affluents (sic) from the waters flowing into the Tibetan Mochu and northwards into other rivers of Tibet. The line commences at Mount Gipmochi on the Bhutan frontier and follows the above-mentioned water-parting to the point where it meets Nipal territory.The convention gives a clear and precise description of the alignment of the boundary in this sector. The actual boundary on the ground follows the watershed and its alignment is easily identifiable. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China and the independence of India, the governments of both countries inherited the 1890 Convention and the delimited China-India boundary in the Sikkim Sector as established by the Convention."However, it not just India that claims that China is misrepresenting facts to suits its interests in this region. Key members of the international community are of the opinion that India has adhered to the rule of law and international convention in Doklam standoff. "China is trying to rewrite international rules from South China Sea to Doklam. India's position is based on principle and adherence to international law," said a senior Western official on the condition of anonymity.