Having
been there as such is enough.
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.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--