You weren't - it was gone by then.
Best I can do for you was that you were in a former Bhutanese exclave.
Or, if you are a purist, and consider that it still is Bhutanese, then
you were in an occupied Bhutanese exclave. Which do you prefer?
Len

--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Wolfgang Schaub"
<Wolfgang.Schaub@c...> wrote:

> Darchen! Unbelievable! Never had I thought that I was in a Bhutanese

exclave

> when I circled around Mt Kailash in September 1994.
>
> Darchen consisted - at that time - of an assembly of Tibetan

dwellings, a

> "poor" caravanseray-type restaurant/hotel and the idea of a toilet

located

> over a small stream, open to the curious views of the locals (How do

they do

> it, those Westerners? Is it true that theis is longer than ours?)
>
> Close-by, behind a wall, the Chinese began building a "true" hotel.

At least

> they had been able, to that point, affixing a metal plaque at the wall
> describing in glorious language what their intentions were.
>
> There were also Tibetan (prostitutes?) who believed they should

behave and

> clothe like Chinese - ridiculous - deplorabe?
>
> Now, as I hear, they are building a road around Mt Kailash, to

attract more

> tourists. I see with pleasure that tourists will fly in Through Lhasa,
> travel without acclimatization to Darchen, step out of their car on

the pass

> behind Mt Kailash - 5600 m high - and collapse. What a nice

experience must

> that be!
>
> Good luck to Darchen. You won't survive.
>
> Wolfgang
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von L. A. Nadybal
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2005 06:41
> An: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [BoundaryPoint] Bhutan Exclaves in Tibet
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> --
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "BoundaryPoint" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> --