hard to follow all your dreaming & claiming as usual
but are you not saying that all you can really confirm once again are just more & more
dead claves
& perhaps some foreign owned real estate
the question was
do any claves exist there
& i still think the answer is no
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> Thanks Chris... here is what I dreamt up about the subject:
>
> a. There were seven Bhutanese exclaves.
> b. Their names were:
> - Taharen (also: Darchen / Tarchen and [to the Chinese: Daerjing)
> - Tsehher
> - Diraphu
> - Dzung Tuphu
> - Jangeke
> - Chahip
> - Cooha
>
> c. Darchen was the administrative capital of the region, located
> at 80'20" E and 30'55" N, about 100 yeards from the foothills of Mt.
> Kailash. Kailash is about 100 miles directly north of the
> northwesternmost tip of Nepal - a good 300 to 400 miles from Bhutan,
> regardless of whether you are a walking or flying crow. According to
> literature, Darchen under the Bhutanese consisted of a temple, a "poor
> restaurant" and a teahouse.
> d. To the Bhutanese, theses possessions were collectively known as
> "Northern Kangri".
> e. In 1949, Bhutan's entered into the treaty with India about
> which you read in a couple of messages earlier, under which it agreed
> to be "guided" by India (not subservient to India) with respect to its
> foreign relations. The treaty replaced the earlier one that it had
> with the UK, which had quit India. Under the treaty, the Bhutanese
> sought out Indian assistance in getting a complaint lodged with China
> about the Chinese interfering with the Bhutanese government's
> official courier to the area, and for preventing the courier from
> seeking protection of the Indians at the Indian Trade Agency offices
> in Tibet.
> On 19 August 1959, India issued a letter of protest to China about
> this matter on Bhutan's behalf.
> f. Shortly after the complaint was filed, Chinese soldiers
> occupied the exclaves. Another complaint letter was requested and was
> issued, but to no avail.
> g. Shortly after that, Bhutan closed its border with Tibet (it is
> still closed to this day). It withdrew the Lamas from the embassy
> (called a "trade mission" by British envoy Williamson in his map of
> Lhasa) and the exclaves and essentially abandoned them. (I've heard
> that the former governor from the exclaves is alive today and living
> in Bhutan).
> h. Bhutan also possesses a Stupa near Kathhmandu. It may be only
> extraterritorial - I've not been able to ascertain that.
> i. Bhutan also possesses or possessed two plots of land in
> Kalimpong, India, which were left to it when the rest of what was
> known under British rule as "British Bhutan" - an area SW of Bhutan
> and S of Sikkim, which Britain annexed in the 1860s in retribution for
> Bhutanese acts that caused the Duar War. A Bhutanese post office
> operated there in the early to mid 1960s. On these plots there are
> what are known as the Old and New Bhutan Houses. They were owned by
> the royal family, which I hear placed one or both of them up for sale
> sometime in the last couple of years. I do not know if they have been
> sold or whether the sale means Bhutan had effectively abandoned these
> plots, too. A measure of the sovereignty Bhutan exercized over these
> plots can be traced from the aftermath of a murder committed on one of
> the plots. The alleged murderer was not subject to Indian
> jurisprudence... the Bhutanese caretaker who served the royals in the
> late 20th centure wrote me in early 1992 that the Bhutanese officials
> spirited the fellow across Indian territory to Bhutan proper to face
> justice in Bhutan.
> j. RE: Dewangiri. It's not a "strip of land", but more like a
> square that jutted into the Bhutanese foothills when it was Indian.
> It is the site of a Bhutanese fort from which the Bhutanese caused the
> British a bitter humiliation in the Duar War. The area is now the
> territory that surrounds the Bhutanese town of Deothang to its south -
> in days past the town name was spelled "Dewathang". You can see the
> relationship in the names. The Indian constitution prohibits the
> government of India from giving away national territory. The fact
> that Dewangiri was returned indicates that it was never considered
> part and parcel of India - perhaps only "occupied" despite having been
> "annexed".
>
> Dream on Mr. A.
>
> LN