thanx
nice
so if i understand you correctly
your answer to the original question
do any btcn claves still exist
is
no not a chance
& thats pretty much as we expected & so very easy to
accept
but you raise a new question for us here too
when you mention first in the title
enclaves in tibet
& likewise in the text
bhutan & sikkim enclaves in tibet
& likewise again
sikkimese & bhutanese enclaves in tibet
all of which are presumably just slightly different
ways of indicating the same thing
but then you also immediately follow all these up
in apparently deliberate contradistinction
with the statement
sikkim & bhutan also apparently each had exclaves in
tibet
& that is most puzzling if anyone is actually trying
to follow this
for in the context you have developed here
arent your use of the words
enclaves & exclaves
just different ways of saying & meaning the exact same
thing too
& if you take the trouble to distinguish the ex from
the en words
then shouldnt the distinctions you draw be real
rather than just arbitrary & confused ways of saying
the same thing
or have i misunderstood your intention
also
as a separate question
especially if you do mean to be so indifferent in your
usage
then why not just use the indifferent word or nonword
claves
& save everyone a lot of gratuitous confusion
until you find you actually need to distinguish
exclaves from enclaves
--- Brendan Whyte <
bwhyte@...> wrote:
> My book on Cooch Behar (p423-4) has an appendix with
> information on the
> Bhutan and Sikkim enclaves in Tibet (see below, you
> can buy copies from the
> links at
>
http://www.geography.unimelb.edu.au/research/papers.html).
> No
> maps, as I have never seen one, though several of
> the places can be found
> on a decent map of Tibet. Some are near Mt Kailash.
>
> Sikkimese & Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet ( - c.1959)
>
> Sikkim and Bhutan also apparently each had exclaves
> in Tibet.
here above is the part i mean
end of insertions
The pre-war
> traveller and scholar Swami Pranavananda mentioned
> the Bhutanese enclaves
> in his account of Tibet,
>
> "About 300 (?) years back one famous Bhutanese Lama
> by name Ngava-Namgyal
> got the village of Tarchhen from the Tibetan
> Government for his stay near
> Kailas. Through his influence he had built Nyanri
> and other monasteries and
> gained influence over some other places later on.
> Tarchhen, at the foot of
> Kailas, Nyanri and Zuthul-phuk Monasteries of
> Kailas, Cherkip Gompa of
> Manasarovar, the villages of Dungmar, Ringung, Doh,
> Khochar, Gezon near
> Gartok, Itse Gompa, Gonphu, Gesur, Samar, and a few
> other places in Western
> Tibet, came to belong to the State of Bhutan[1].
> These places are now
> governed by a Bhutanese monk-officer, whose
> headquarters is at Tarchhen,
> where there is a big building owned by the Bhutan
> State" (Pranavananda,
> 1950, 146).
>
> It would appear that about 1640, the King of Ladakh
> granted a number of
> villages in western Tibet to the Shabdrung Rimpoche
> of Bhutan, Ngawang
> Namgyal (b.1594 - d.1651). The villages were granted
> for the purpose of
> meditation and worship. Armington (1998, 17) lists
> the villages as
> "Darchen, Nyanri and Zuthulphuk goembas on the
> slopes of the holy Mount
> Kailas&Other goembas that came under Bhutanese
> administration were Rimpung,
> Doba, Khochag, and De Dzong, all near Gartok". They
> were seized from Bhutan
> by China in 1959 during its repression of a Tibetan
> revolt (Armington,
> 1998, 17).
>
> Sikkim also had two enclaves in Tibet. The
> Hindusthan Standard of reported
> a Chinese invasion of them
>
> "It is learnt authoritatively that Chinese are in
> occupation of two
> Sikkimese enclaves in Tibet in Dopta and Chumbi. It
> is further learnt that
> high level negotiations are going on between the
> Government of India and
> the Government of China so that Sikkim can get back
> her lost territory and
> vacate Chinese aggression" (Hindusthan Standard,
> 1961p).
>
> Ten families had fled to Sikkim proper and a further
> 70 were expected. The
> Maharaja of Sikkim himself was resettling the
> refugees from these enclaves
> on his personal lands. On 8 July a follow-up report
> claimed the enclaves
> had actually been under Chinese occupation since
> 1958 and that the "people
> of Sikkim and India have been kept entirely in the
> dark". Chumbi was
> described as the summer palace of the Maharaja and
> Doptha was "the property
> of one Sigmi Taring, nephew of the present Maharaja
> of Sikkim". Despite the
> three year lag, the Sikkim National Congress called
> on India to "take
> necessary steps for the recovery of these enclaves"
> (Hindusthan Standard,
> 1961r).
>
> Four years later, in June 1966, another report in
> the same paper claimed
> that in early 1959 China had also occupied eight
> Bhutanese enclaves in
> Tibet: Khangir, Tarchen, Tsekhor, Diraphu,
> Dzontuphu, Jangche, Chakip
> [Cherkip?] and Kocha [Khochar?], which had been
> under Bhutanese
> administration for over 300 years. The article
> reminded its readers of
> China's 1961 occupation of two Sikkimese enclaves
> (Hindusthan Standard, 1966o).
>
> In both cases, the strong historical feudal links
> between the two Himalayan
> countries and Tibet suggest the existence of palaces
> or monasteries in
> enclaves of personal property or religious
> sovereignty, if not full
> political sovereignty. Prescott (1976a, 262)
> mentions the Maharaja of
> Sikkim living on "one of his estates in the Chumbi
> valley of Tibet",
> reinforcing a conclusion that these were not fully
> sovereign Sikkimese
> territory before the Chinese takeover.
>
> Another reference to the Bhutanese enclaves was
> found several years ago in
> an Indian yearbook, but it has proved impossible to
> relocate that source.
> No other information has been found on either set of
> enclaves, although the
> unsighted article of Bray (1997) has a promising
> title. Neither have any
> maps been found which locate the enclaves.
>
> If the Indian government, responsible for the
> foreign relations of Sikkim
> and Bhutan, had been aware of the Chinese invasions
> of these enclaves at
> the time, it would probably have been loathe to
> criticise China given
> India's struggle with Portugal over Daman and Nagar
> Haveli, and its own
> 1961 invasion and conquest of Goa.
>
> The similar timing of the sale of Gwadar to
> Pakistan, the Nehru-Noon
> agreement to exchange the Cooch Behar enclaves, and
> the Chinese invasions
> of Sikkimese and Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet would
> make a fascinating
> subject for further research, comparing the
> attitudes of the three
> countries, to the enclaves within them, and also
> comparing India's
> differing policies regarding each case.
> Unfortunately, it is expected that
> few Indian documents, let alone Chinese, regarding
> the Sikkimese and
> Bhutanese enclaves would be available. This is due
> to the extreme
> sensitivity of both countries to their boundaries in
> the Himalayan region,
> the fact that the Sino-Bhutan boundary remains
> undemarcated, and also that
> China continues to insist Sikkim is an independent
> state, not recognising
> the validity of Sikkim's 1974 referendum to join
> India.
>
>
> [1] The as yet unclimbed Mt Kailash, or
> Kangrinpoche, in western Tibet.
> Sacred to Bhuddists, it attracts pilgrims who
> circumnavigate it.
> Manasarovar, or Mapam Tso, is a sacred lake between
> Mt Kailash and the
> Tibet-Nepal boundary.
>
>
> REFERENCES:
> Pranavananda, Swami, (1950), Exploration in Tibet,
> University of Calcutta,
> Calcutta.
>
> Bray, John, (1997), Ladakhi and Bhutanese enclaves
> in Tibet, <page numbers
> of article unknown> in Dodin, Thierry, and Heinz
> Räther (eds.), (1997),
> Recent Research on Ladakh 7. Proceedings of the 7th
> Colloquium of the
> International Association for Ladakh Studies,
> Bonn/St.Augustin, 12-15 June
> 1995. Ulmer Kulturantropologische Schriften Band 9.
> Universität Ulm, Ulm.
> ISBN 3 930983 06 0.
>
>
>
> Dr Brendan Whyte
> University of Melbourne
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com