User talk:FacetsOfNonStickPans/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Your GA nomination of Shaheen Bagh protest

The article Shaheen Bagh protest you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Shaheen Bagh protest for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shaheen Bagh Protests

The article Shaheen Bagh Protests you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Shaheen Bagh Protests for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Femkemilene -- Femkemilene (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

NDTV Templates merger proposal

Template:New Delhi Television Limited

• Template:New Delhi Television Limited (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NDTV Personnel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:New Delhi Television Limited with Template:NDTV Personnel.
Seems redundant as personnel list is already available in NDTV template. Tharun S Yadla (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Tharun S Yadla, commented on the proposal. Good call. Good work on all the other templates as well! DTM (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shaheen Bagh Protests

The article Shaheen Bagh Protests you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Shaheen Bagh Protests for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Femkemilene -- Femkemilene (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's quite a long review, so let me know if you need more time than 7 days. Happy to wait two weeks. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! DTM (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shaheen Bagh Protests

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shaheen Bagh Protests you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Femkemilene -- Femkemilene (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Help me

Can you vote keep on Sanjeev Tyagi AFD. I improved it so much. --Vansh tyagi24 (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Vansh tyagi24, while it is indeed a good effort, for me to vote keep, now that you have asked me, you will first have to help me re-write Wikipedia's policies. DTM (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The above was a joke. Light humour. Just to clarify despite the sarcasm tag. DTM (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

strike DTM (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Vansh tyagi24: Maybe a few years later? —wrt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeev Tyagi. Till then the Crime Patrol (TV series) page can be worked on. It is already taking shape nicely. DTM (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

First try at translation

Isu Razi Pass from sv:Isu Razi Pass. It is not all that easy! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A good start. Good choice; small and manageable to start with. Noted the robot created part.

I should also be trying to get more familiar with going through and navigating other language wikis too! DTM (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Another Special Report?

DTM,

Are you interested in doing another one of these for the February edition? Deadline would be about February 25, for the Feb 28 issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would be interested. I have also listed the article under the submissions page. DTM (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre Archive

Of all of Modi's topis... this one is the best. Hope it stays on. But Himachal Pradesh is the wrong place to wear it. Buddhist country. He should do so in Hyderabad, where the Xinjiang refugees were settled and forgotten about ever since. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Yes I noticed the traditional Himachali pahari topi as well. Manmohan Singh's clothes were never commented upon as far as I can remember; he was always in the same formal PM attire of course... "forgotten about ever since" while some people are fighting for the right to be forgotten Xinjiang refugees or Rohingya refugees? DTM (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Modi actually had a normal cap on during the beginning. DTM (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Topi has a special meaning in South India.[1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Some 2,000 of these Kazakhs eventually crossed the Sino-Indian border and reached Ladakh in Kashmir, where the British authorities prevented them from making permanent settlement. In mid-1943, the Nationalist government instructed its diplomats in India to contact the leaders of the exiled Kazakhs and determine whether they were willing to return to their homeland in northern Xinjiang. Chiang Kai-shek urged Sheng Shicai to find a way to help the Kazakhs return home. ... Yet, the exiled Kazakhs refused to return to Xinjiang, and authorities in New Delhi eventually allowed them to settle in Hyderabad and Bhopal. Nonetheless, officials in Chongqing were generally convinced that their effort to aid the exiled Kazakhs, however belated and unsuccessful, had helped to bolster their image among Muslims both at home and abroad. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC) This is another round: The journey to Ladakh was arduous; one descendent of these refugees mentioned that his father had told him the original number who emigrated from Chinese Central Asia was 5000, but only 500 survived the journey. These refugees arrived in Ladakh in October 1949, and their numbers included such important political figures of Central Asia as Isa Yusul Alptekin, the former Secretary General of Sinkiang, and Mohammed Amin Bogra, the former Deputy Governor of Sinkiang (Kak 1978:37). In Ladakh the so-called "Sinkiang refugees" are remembered clearly as many of them settled briefly in the region. The Sinkiang refugees spoke Uighur and reportedly did not know Ladakhi... The needs of the Sinkiang refugees benefited many in Leh, who bought horses and sheep cheaply from those refugees who had brought livestock. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3 Oh! This is an entirely new area for me. Will have to pay more attention. As for the topi's; Modi had three topi's on that day, in this image is the third cap of the day. On top of that, he held up Tibetan artwork! Prime Minister Modi participates in 'Abhar Samaroh', at Sissu, Lahaul and Spiti district in Himachal Pradesh on October 03, 2020 with the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh. (this can find place in the Tibetan art article maybe other than the CM and PM) edit:tibetan art or buddhist art? I should been paying more attention, so much happening; so many links and translations and symbolisms here; with the Atal Tunnel being the very real aspect of the day!! Topi has a special meaning in South India > Which meaning are you referring to? DTM (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC) It could be just Himachali art. No evidence of "Tibetan". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3, this is Thangka, clearly Tibetan Buddhist. DTM (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Or yes yes, I agree, maybe Himachali Buddhist. DTM (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Well, everything is "Tibetan Buddhism" in the generic sense. But, was the art Tibetan or Himachali, I have no idea. (By the way, what is called "Tibetan Buddhism" was transmitted from India to Tibet via precisely this region, the Sutlej valley, during the time of Yeshe-O. This is known as the "second transmission". The first one was destroyed by Langdarma, resulting in the Era of Fragmentation.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC) By the way, the entire Ngari Prefecture (West Tibet) has about 100,000 population. That is a third of Ladakh, which itself is sparsely populated by Indian standards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC) While the first reference above, of Lin Hsiao-ting, says that some settled in India, the second doesn't. (of course one is Kazakhs and the other Sinkiang refugees). The second reference you have used (Fewkes, Jacqueline H), I can't see how long the Sinkiang refugees stayed in India/British India other than the words "settled briefly in the region". The Wikipedia article for Isa Alptekin says that Alptekin fled the Communist takeover of Xinjiang through the Himalayas, reaching Ladakh in Indian-controlled Kashmir and going into exile in Turkey. Buddhist adoption in Asia, Mahayana Buddhism first entered China through Silk Road. Related to the comments on Buddhism. Placing them within Wikipedia, this "Buddhism#Spread_to_East_and_Southeast_Asia" leads to "Silk Road transmission of Buddhism", which is what you are referring to, i think. However, I wrote this line "scholars point to the spread of Buddhism to Tibet from India through the efforts of Tibetan kings, Songtsen Gampo and Trisong-Detsen as the first significant contact" in the India–Tibet relations article. These don't seem to fall into place. There is so much about Tibet on Wikipedia. I am not sure why I am surprised with this revelation. DTM (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC) The Kazhaks were also Sinkiang refugees. In the second part of the 19th century the Kazakh's lands and people were divided between the Russian and Qing Empires. They are still in India (in Hyderabad and Bhopal, but probably mixed up by now). The 1950 refugees probably included both Uyghars and Kazakhs. This book provides some useful info ("Ili" means Khotan), even though it isn't clear about whether the two rounds were part of the same rebellion or whether they were separate. As for "Tibetan Buddhism", the Songtsen Gampo times were the "first transmission", which died under Langdarma, as I mentioned earlier. The second transmission happened at the time of Yeshe-O. Wikipedia doesn't have any coverage of this. Even the Yeshe-O page is not very enlightening. But you can google for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC) References Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism Ok, I guess the fact that you were "surprised" by the Second Transmission is significant. The dominant narratives of "Tibet" and "Tibetan Buddhism" completely ignore this development. That is not surprising given the fact that "Tibet" has about 3 million people whereas Ngari (West Tibet) has only 100,000. So Ngari's history gets drowned out. Yet West Tibet had a huge empire (Zhang Zhung) almost equal in power to Lhasa in the first millennium AD. How was that possible? We don't know exactly because it was so far back in history. But the sense I get is that Zhang Zhung was symbolically based close to Kailas (as it was the centre of the universe) but it extended through a large part of the Himalayas including the areas of present day Nepal, Kumaon, Garhwal, Himachal, Ladakh, Baltistan and Gilgit. A language called Zhangzhung and the Bon religion provided a thread that tied them all together. Now the Zhangzhung language is completely dead. But the languages spoken by "Bhotiyas" all over India and Nepal are variants of it. After the Era of Fragmentation, a Tibetan prince called Nyimagon (a great grandson of Langdarma) escaped to West Tibet and tried to recreate this kingdom. This got to be called "Ngari". But after his death, the kingdom got divided into three parts among his sons: Ladakh, Zanskar and Guge. Nyimagon and sons could not conquer Baltistan in the west and Bashahr in the east. So, those two states became the frontier. Ladakh was the most populous among three offshoots and it was most likely the dominant power politcally and militarily. But Guge was dominant religiously. Guge's primacy in religion got established when Yeshe-O renounced kingship and became a lama, I suppose, the Head Lama of Guge. During his time, Rinchen Zangpo went to Ngari and translated many texts into Tibetan. He also founded a "New Tantra School" of Buddhism (a term used by Ryavec), which only exists in Ngari, not in Central Tibet. He was followed by Atisha, who went to Ngari first and then moved to Lhasa. This is considered the renaissance of Buddhism in Tibet. Given all this history, I am not confident that the Himachali Buddhism is "Tibetan Buddhism". In fact, it isn't clear at all what is supposed to be "Tibetan" Buddhism. The Gelugpa school, to which the Dalai Lama tradition belongs to, doesn't exist at all in Himachal or Ladakh or perhaps even in Ngari. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Oh, I might also add that there is no relation whatsoever between the "Silk Road Buddhism" and Tibetan Buddhism, except for the fact that the Qing at one time adopted the Gelugpa order, probably for political expediency. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC) References

Maps

Colombo proposal

This CIA report dated November 1962, has a new map of Indian and Chinese posts in 1962 in the first few pages. (You have to enlarge it). Very nice, all the rivers are marked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Since both Indian and Chinese posts are marked in black, at least in this version, it is difficult to say outright if certain posts are Indian or Chinese, take for example the black dot closest to Burste. Otherwise yes, it is a fine map and document. Speaking of Samzungling and destroying dams; Operation Chastise and its bouncing bombs is a really fine Wikipedia page; especially the detailing in the section #List_of_aircraft_involved related to — "Attacked target? Hit target? Breached target? Returned?". DTM (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. I neglected to note the date "1 October 1962". This cannot possibly be the full situation on that date, e.g., the Indian Galwan post is not shown. I think that almost all the posts shown in Chinese-claime territory are Chinese posts. But we can't be sure.

I would prefer not to discuss any military operations at this stage, but I think the Chinese posture in the Galwan Valley is more defensive than offensive. There are much better places for actual fighting than the Galwan Valley. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the Colombo proposal and the attempt to broker peace is quite an event! DTM (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, those were the days when "non-aligned" meant something. This thesis has a whole chapter on it:

• Upadhyaya, Priyankar (1987), Nonaligned states and India's international conflicts, Jawaharlal Nehru University/Shodhganga

Happy New Year! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! DTM (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think as per the changes to India and the Non-Aligned Movement, the term has matured well in some ways. DTM (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre-archive

Indian maps 1947 1954 1959 Two Three maps of India here. 1947: The first map of independent India. 1954: The first map of India with defined borders. 1959: The MEA map after China declared its 1956 claim line. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC) added another map. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Both the maps do the wrong thing in the Demchok sector. The 1947 map excludes the Demchok village (even though notionally, because of the colour-wash). It crosses the Indus river at a place called Lagankhel, where the Indus describes a little semi-circular bend around little hillocks. The 1954 map includes the Demchok village , but seems to run along the Indus river till Lagankhel and Chibra. It is hard to tell because of the thick line along the border, but it seems to fair to say that the the Jara La and Chang La passes on the right bank of Indus don't seem to have been worked out yet. On the other hand, Chepzi seems to have been excluded already in 1954. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC) It seems to me that the 1947 map showed whatever boundaries were on the books of the Survey of India at the time of independence. They didn't have time to do anything else by then. But if the British maps showed multiple lines in different maps, they picked the outermost one to be safe. The northern boundary was along the Kunlun Mountains (Karaksh River up to Shahidulla, then Suget Pass and the Yarkand River.) This is what is still shown as the "traditional boundary" on the CIA map. Even though China had claimed up to the Karakoram Pass, the British didn't concede it without a formal settlement (Macartney-MacDonald Line). But the internal maps of the British only went up to the Karakoram Range. That is why you see the interior lines stopping well short of the exterior boundary. In the south, the entire Parang River valley (the "Tsotso district") was included. That is very strange! I don't think any British map would have done that. So, west of Demchok, independent India was completely unsure of the boundary. The 1954 map was based on the local administrative records. It pulled the northern boundary down to the Karakoram Range, removed some of the fat around the Lanak La pass, cut the Pangong Lake in the middle (at the Khurnak Plain), disected the Spanggur Lake, included the Chibra grazing grounds on the right bank of Indus, and came down to the Charding Nullah on the left bank of Indus. (So the border was different along the two banks of the Indus!) I can't be sure but I think the Tibetan Demchok was excluded. (Compare the distance from Tashigang in the 1954 and 1959 maps.) To the left, Chepzi might have been included at this stage. (No reason not to, because the British maps had included it). Then it cut back to what the GoI calls the "Zanskar Range" in the southwest (the Mount Gya etc.) This is the most accurate representation of the ground situation on the day of independence! What happened between 1954 and 1959 has not been described anywhere. But it seems that the GoI got caught up in watershed boundaries. That meant that the Tibetan Demchok got included, as well as the Jara La and Chang La passes on the right bank of Indus, and Chepzi got excluded. This seems some decent sources. Even though the maps look identical between 1954 adn 1959, there seem to be subtle differences. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC) I would just mention that the "1947: The first map of independent India" could also be referred to as one of the last maps under a British dominated Survey of India, since at the time we can assume the survey was still led and manned by a number of British/Anglo related backgrounds. The page Surveyor General of India helps clarify at least the chiefs of the survey during this time. 1941–1946: Sir Edward Oliver Wheeler 1946–1951: George Frederick Heaney 1951–1956: Ian Henry Richard Wilson So at least the first two maps here — 1947 & 1954 were made under an Anglo chief. Then again, would the maps have changed in any way if it were an Indian Surveyor General during those years. Many foreign surveyors may have been more beneficial for India's cartographic needs with immense charted out on ground experience in India. Either way, these set of maps, including a 2011 survey map, make a nice timeline along with the added description. What impact would the PM have on these Surveyor Generals and the Survey during these years? Was the Surveyor General just a symbolic role? Wouldn't Nehru's political idea of Ladakh influence the maps at the time? DTM (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Yes, I ran into a paper by Heaney, JSTOR 1790313, but I didn't realize he was the Suvery General. He mentions that India was short of surveyors (but Pakistan was apparently in better shape!). Re Nehru, yes, declaring the boundary is always a political decision, not the surveyors'. That was the case even during the British times. The surveyors only provided the raw material (geographical information) for making the decisions. But who decided which boundary is generally not known. For example, who pulled the boundary back from Chepzi and why? Somebody said recently that India needs a "Boundary Studies" specialism. All this stuff needs to be investigated and documented. There is a lot of vodoo geography flying around, like the 1959 LAC and such, and even extremely qualified and responsible people believe this crap. By the way, Hoffmann's Chapter 2 devotes a considerable amount of space to India's border-making, and he also wrote a journal paper on it: doi:10.1080/02634938708400591. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC) And, you are a GENIUS! I would never have looked at the 2011 Road Map. I was getting pissed off that they had "restricted" the state maps of Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand, but the Road Map seems to have all the information about all of them! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3, talking of restricting the state map of Jammu and Kashmir; "Indian" map services, both govt and private, blank out the edges of Ladakh (though outer border roughly shown in each) — MapmyIndia — mentions Demjok; but no detailing Survey of India — Restriction in JK clearly visible. Bhuvan — detailing hidden And funnily — the 1947 watershed colour-wash you talked about in the first survey map is the same as what is depicted today on the government Survey of India online platform. So we have one more map in the series and all it does is that it takes us back to 1947. A complete circle. Even cartographically, the mist (colour-wash) remains!!! DTM (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC) As for Chepzi, did someone sell/gift/swap it to/with China in the same way as what Pakistan did to Shaksgam Tract? DTM (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC) I put a quote from Arun Shourie's book Self-Deception: India's China Policies on Sino-Indian border dispute just now— that also helps explain Chepzi. DTM (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Another reason "there is a lack of institutional memory in various agencies...". Then this Indian Express article is relevant — lists 23 contested LAC areas and categorises them into (1) Indentified by JWG 1990s (2) Exchange of maps 2000 (3) Comparison of maps 2003 (4) By action of Chinese troops. DTM (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Shourie is a good polemecist. But where is he now? Maybe he ran out of energy to rant. Chepzi was an unforced error. Nehru Gov was caught up in its own ideology of watersheds and withdrew from Chepzi. They probably thought it was a good trade for Demchok. But China wants it all. No trading. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Trading, gifting, surrendering, giving, selling — I don't think a map has been made of this as yet. Again points to what you mentioned — "Boundary Studies". Then again there are online geography related courses related to GIS, Mapping, and Spatial Analysis etc, but no LAC specific, Ladakh Kashmir specific. No online course for the Kashmir conflict in general even etc. (Udemy and all allow you to upload your own courses. I dreamt one day I had an online course on all these topics :D) DTM (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Discussion Your map is up again on Ajai Shukla's blog. Meanwhile your "favourite map" is in the Kongka Pass page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3, thank you for all these comments and maps. I will go through them now. (I was taking a break from my talkpage for sometime :D) DTM (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC) You have got ESP! I was just checking to see if you were back a little while ago. Anyway, now I have more focused maps for you to look at. -- Kautilya3 (talk) ESP!! — this reminds me of the 1817 quote "the possession of great power necessarily implies great responsibility." DTM (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC) On second thoughts, ESP is really really annoying. (and this is hypothetical since I don't have it of course) DTM (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC) If you don't have it, you couldn't possibly get annoyed! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC) The US Army version of the map And, look, what I found when I searched for "Kongka La". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3, the most shocking thing I can see other than the map itself is the stamp and production notice! Ministry of Culture, GoI and DAVP Min of IB Government of India! (straightout I can see Tri junction too; I have noticed this labelling on very few maps. It also has Dumchele which I would also have glanced over until a week or so before.) So what I understand is that this book is a 1939 edition. It has a digital Ministry of Culture stamp means it is in some library (offline or online/Central Secretariat Library, GoI — CSL stamp). Since the map is a DAVP Min of IB Government of India produced!!!... someone stuck that page into the book one day and Luciano Petech sure doesn't know about it I assume. But I don't understand why the page is looking so old. All this aside, this is a really good map, similar to File:Aksai Chin Sino-Indian border map.png. DTM (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Actually he may have himself — Luciano Petech. He was very well alive. DTM (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC) And photograph/colour page are sometimes made of different paper which explains the variation. DTM (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Could this be put into the Dumchele article? DTM (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC) No need to be shocked, just be amused! Somebody had borrowed the book from the library and stuck this map in it. Perhaps they were even using it as a book mark. The book got returned to the library. Some library clerk assumed that the map was part of the book and stamped it. Fifty years later, the copyright expired and the scanner dutifully scanned it in. Now we have a beautifully preserved map available for Internet searches. In fact, I might even hazard a guess that it must have been Sarvepalli Gopal. Who else would read this obscure book on Ladakhi history with such diligence? After the war, he must have taken a lot of heat for having told the Army that the Thagla Ridge belonged to India. He quit and went off to Oxford. So all his library books got returned en masse, along with their valuable bookmarks! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC) By the way, this map also shows that the ceasefire line on Raki Nala was nowhere near Burtsa. It was slightly beyond India's Patrol Point 10. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC) I found and uploaded a US Army version of the map. It is not as precise but gives the same information, in particular the lines on the Raki Nala. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Henry Strachey

One of Strachey's maps

I have figured how to read Henry Strachey's maps. Strachey was the boundary commissioner for the main part of Ladakh in 1847. Thomson went to the northern Ladakh (Shyok, Karakoram range etc.), and Cunningham seems to have stayed in Leh and surrounding areas, doing background research.

The Governor-General asked the Chinese/Tibetans to join for the boundary delimitation, but they didn't oblige. Instead, the Tibetan bosses alerted all the border villages not to let any outsiders in. Remarkably, this helped for boundary delimitation! Wherever Strachey wasn't allowed to go was part of Tibet, as claimed by them in 1847.

Strachey didn't mark the boundary on his map (remember that boundary definitions are political decisions), but he noted down elevations of most places he went to. They used to measure elevation by the rough method of taking the boiling point of water. So he could only note elevations for the places he could physically go to. "14,9 Chumur" means an elevation of 14,900 feet. The actual elevation is supposed to be 16,700 feet according to Wikipedia. The next place with elevation on his map, a little south of "Chabji", is "14,3 Kyungtsang". The map shows all the routes he knows about, but we can easily infer the route he took from his trail of elevation numbers. The dashed red line probably indicates a foot path, or a route he didn't traverse, or both.

"14,1 Demchok", the so-called "hamlet divided by a rivulet", is marked with two red dots. The next place south of it is "Tagle 14,3?". That number is either a guess or obtained from Moorcroft & Trebeck. Dumchele is not marked. There was no village there at that time, just a grazing ground. Rather the village was "Chibra" on the right bank of Indus. The river that flows by Chibra, which I will call "Chibra stream" comes down from Chang La, which is simply marked as "La". Chibra and Dumchele are separated by a mound. Between 1847 and now, the Chibra stream developed a large strand that went around the mound and formed a large lake near Dumchele. So, I expect that the old grazing ground is now submerged. China built a shopping mall next to it (economic warfare?) and built a military base at the old Chibra. In preparation for the 2020 standoff, it installed a missile site as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Edward Weller's map, 1863

In the Changchenmo Valley, he went up to "16,0 Kyam" and then turned south. He noticed a route through the Kongka Pass, but doesn't seem to have explored it. The "16,5 Gyapshan" that he marks is inexplicable. If he did cross the Kongka Pass, he would have noticed the Kyapsang River, but he didn't. His route to the south is marked on the US Army map. It follows the "Nyingri" river, crosses the Kyungang La/Chungang La and enters the Pangong basin. He turns right at Mitpal/Migpal and goes to Nyagzu. Is this then the boundary?

Years later, a man called Wellby also tried to gate crash into Tibet in this area. He states that Nyagzu is a place well worthy of note, for it neither lies in Ladakh nor in Tibet. He goes up to Migpal. "Although ignorant of it at the time, we discovered afterwards that we were in reality lucky not to have already met with opposition to our journey." So, Migpal wasn't policed strongly, but it was considered Tibetann territory! Edward Weller's map says as much. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

While Strachey was in 1847 and Edward Weller in 1863; I vaguely understand that outsiders not being allowed into Tibet was hyped; there were permanent British residents and trading posts etc.... (though this quote below talks of 1900s and not pre-1900s)

The popular image of pre-1950 Tibet is of a remote land seldom visited by outsiders. But more than a hundred British officials served in Tibet during the early part of this century. [...] An Agency was also maintained at Gartok in Western Tibet, [...] Their isolation, and the lack of trade, meant that they had the time to study a variety of aspects of Tibet...

References

Khurnak

Pangong Lake map by Strachey

I suddenly looked at a lighter-coloured version of Strachey's map (perhaps it was the original colour anyway). My attention was drawn to the legend on it. So, it turns out that Strachey did mark a more-or-less precise border on his maps (orange, red, or pink shading depending on the kind of territory). Strachey's border on Pangong excludes the Khurnak Plain, even though it includes the rest of the Nyagzu stream and its valley.

The Khurnak Fort is "on the boundary" on Strachey's map, as Alastair Lamb has famously said. The Indian guys disagreed, but can't see why.

• Just to the north of Panggong lake Strachey's map located right on the boundary line the deserted and ruined fort of Khurnak...(Lamb, The China-India border 1964:71–72)
• The Changlung Lungpa valley shown in India included also Khurnak fort which Lamb mistakenly thinks was placed on the boundary line.(Rao, The India-China Border 1968:28)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

And, the map was drawn two years before Mehta Basti Ram returned the Khurnak Plain to the Tibetans. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Mordo

Near Chushul, Strachey marks Mordo with a sign. Is it a Lhakang or a Lhato? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Chapel or Demon Tower... the mark looks fully coloured with only black, so on that basis a Lhato. If the faint line at the top is discounted, could even be a pullu, though that is far fetched. DTM (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. When you get time, try to find some more demon towers. I wonder what they were meant for? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I created a commons category for "Lhato" (commons:Category:Lhato), there are quite a few related pictures. There is a slight confusion in commons. People have used Lhato and Chorten interchangeably at some places (Example commons:Category:Chortens in India). Chorten redirects to Stupa; and Lhatos are definitely not stupas in their purpose. Lhato itself is a redirect to a location rather than what we are talking about.

Lhato, (transl. god place) are "structures which mark the presence of spirits of place". source

This translation is interesting since God does not equal Demon (?) or were demons nice then... (edit, because if it is God, then the Lhato is a place to come close to, whereas if they represents demons, it is a place to stay away from) DTM (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Strachey himself says:

Thogji Chenmo, the Great Benevolence, is the name of the Lha, or local deity, who has his Lhato or dedicated turret, on the N. side of the larger lake [somewhere near Tso Moriri], which itself must be called by the same name for want of any other.

No idea how "demons" came into the picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting paper (which you have also referenced in the Demchok articles). It has an explanation of Lhato:

A lha tho is a small structure made of stones for propitiating the gods, very often decorated with branches on the top

The usage of the word propitiating (defn: to make peace with somebody who is angry by trying to please them) gives a hint about the usage of demon. Lha refers to "divine, pertaining to the gods of the sky" aka local deity as above. DTM (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Strachey 1858

Something new from Henry Strachey:

• Schlagintweit, Hermann; Schlagintweit, Robert, eds. (1859), Official Reports on the Last Journeys and the Death of Adolphe Schlagintweit in Turkistán, A.W. Schade – via archive.org

Read the section 3 please and then we can discuss it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

pre-archive

Dumchele I expect that the old grazing ground is now submerged. — there are still some grazing areas as well as the submerged area — Claude Arpi quotes another author (Romesh Bhattacharji, Chief Commissioner of Customs/ Narcotics Commissioner.), — "The right bank, just as is the left bank of the Indus, is dotted with scrub and tsama with many grazing grounds. Directly to the east of this lake and just about 4 km away is the large Chinese market of twenty shops of Dumchele... About 6 km behind it is the large and spacious shelf of the Chang La (5,300 m) through which the Chinese have built a truckable road to Dumchele." Romesh Bhattacharji's book Ladakh: Changing, Yet Unchanged talks about Dumchulle 10 times!! even the shopping mall you mentioned!! — In 1972 when I first saw Dumchulle, across the Indus, there was nothing there. Since then it has become a shopping magnet for Ladakhis, who are welcome across the LAC. Today the market is called the Dumchulle Shopping Mall and it is so white and so long that it is easily visible from 3 km away on the Koyul-Tagyarmale-Dungti-Loma road. (Strachey's map looks so good in full resolution, they don't make printed maps like this today!)DTM (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Regarding Tibet not allowing Britishers, you need to see Younghusband Expedition. (That page still needs a lot of work but still you can get a sense. That was the turning point, both in British relations with Tibet and the Chinese imaginaries.) As for the Dumchele grazing ground, there may be some little corners but it is hard to find any campsites on satellite maps. (Campsites are quite easy to spot because people burn stuff to keep warm and the place gets a thick coating of black ash. In addition, they also build noticeable walled enclosures to keep their flocks.) Besides, I expect that all the Changpas would have taken to running shops. The pay is a lot better! Since you have found Bhattacharji, please read what he says about Koyul. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC) An Atlas published in 1997 doesn't think Dumchele was in Chinese-claimed area. Neither does the 2006 edition of the Times Atlas. I have no idea what is going on. When did they occupy it then? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Can you please point me to one of the campsites in Ladakh where this occurs —Campsites are quite easy to spot because people burn stuff to keep warm and the place gets a thick coating of black ash. I have never noticed this! DTM (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC) A place in Koyul Lungpa valley, another, in the Demchok sector, another, Khurnak Fort. You can watch it in 3D and you will find it even more prominent. The first time I found it, I was quite shocked. But then I realized they have been living there in the open, day after day, for centuries. What else can they possibly do? May be a Chinese effort to contain it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC) References Kautilya3 and DTM I don't know the context of your discussion. But what a coincidence. Yesterday, I was trying to find Dumchele on google map, but could not locate it. It is shown here on the MAP2 of this article by Lt Gen HS Panag the father of Gul Panag. In Demchok sector China controls area north of Indus river and India controls area south of Indus river. Except that the extreme southwest small area of Demchok sector, housing the Dêmqog village, is also controlled by China as it is hard to access from India side due to high glaciated mountains. This are also has "Hot Springs" not to be confused with the more famous Hot Springs, Chang Chenmo Valley near Spanggur tso. Both Hot Springs are disputed. Mapcarta shows Demchok, Dêmqog and Hot Springs in much better way. Chinese also control the post at higher Lhari Peak overlooking Demchok and Indian area. Per General Panag's map, I was expecting to find Dumchele in the area marked with "Ladakh" circle in this google map. I did not find Dumchele there. If you zoom on Ladakh, you can see Indian and Chinese posts and tracks on either side of Indus. Other side near the tail of S bend is Chinese post with 3 outposts. No Dumchele in google map. However I found Dumchele on mapcarta, it is the large lake with no name on google map. I went back to google map, you can zoom on google map here and see buildings and structure, perhaps this is the Dumchele smuggler's mall. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Hello friend, next time you need to look up something, try Wikipedia first, OpenStreetMap next, and Wikimapia third. Google Maps doesn't have interesting places. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks Kautilya3 re tips on OpenStreetMap and wikimapia. Happy Diwali in advance. Cheers! 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC) The missing Namka Chu Nyamjang Chu and Tawang Chu On the other side of the border, here is the map drawn by Morshead and Bailey of Nyamjang Chu in 1913. Namka Chu, which flows between Le and Pangchen (Zemithang) is completely missing, as is Sumdorong Chu. But this was the information that McMahon used to draw his line. "Mila Katong La" is shown wrongly, where Bum La Pass actually is. And there is a river flowing to its north (joining Tsona Chu on the right). McMahon assumed that there was a "Mila Katong La Range" between these two and he claimed that it was an "ethnic frontier" (between the Tibetans and Monpa). It might well have been an ethnic frontier at this place (which is in the "catchment" of Tsona Dzong), but it was not on the Nyamjang Chu river. There, the ethnic frontier was further north (at Trimo, I think). Morshead and Bailey probably thought that entire the Nyamjang Chu valley would be claimed (because the watershed was obviously to the north). So they didn't bother to accurately note the area where the border finally fell. It is through such little mistakes that wars are made. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC) It goes to the credit of The Economist that already in September 1959, it showed the border running along the Thagla Ridge, whereas the Indian Army didn't know even 1962! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC) The Chukangs Survey of India map of Demchok area Just beyond Bailey's "Mila Katong La" (which we now call Bum La), there is a place called Chukhang. Near Chang-La and Jara-La passes (Demchok sector), there is also a place called Chakhang (also spelt Chiakang, Chinese spelling Qiekan?). I always wondered why these names were similar. Finally found this: On each of these roads is a custom house or Tsukang called the eastern and western Tsukangs. Agents of the Tsöna Dzongpöns reside at these places, who collect a tax of 10 per cent on all merchandise brought from Mönyul to Tsöna. So, this is Tibetan for Sanskrit Śukānga (tax department). Many Tibetan names are Sanskrit or Prakrit words that have been spelt in their funny ways. Meanwhile, the Chinese built a new village called Jiagang next to G219. They also laid a highway called Jiagang-Xiekan highway. Baidu says: 80 kilometers west from Jiagang Village, you can reach the border trade point Dumuqilie. You know what "Dumuqilie" is, don't you? Care to create a page for this village? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Maybe "Jiagong" is the old Churkang, which you can find in the Survey of India maps. Its name also sounds like a toll-house, but it was on the road from Tashigang to Rutog. Perhaps it was from the time when Tashigang was part of Ladakh? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Another interesting political question here. If Tawang was part of Tibet/Tsona, why did they have to pay tax to sell stuff in Tsona? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC) I am trying to decipher what you wrote! — Chukhang in the eastern sector Chakhang in the western sector 80 kilometers west of Jiagang Village is Dumchele Then you write Maybe "Jiagong" is the old Churkang where the spelling of "Churkang" is different from "Chukhang" and "Chakhang"; also where the spelling "Jiagong" is different from "Jiagang". In short, the article to be created is Jiagang. And within Jiagang, it can be mentioned, maybe, that Chakhang is the same place. That just leaves the political question. DTM (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Jiagang, Ngari Prefecture finally this makes sense; now all that is left is to connect it to the history you mentioned. DTM (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Irrespective of the variations in spellings and possibly pronunciations, what is common to them is that they are all situated on the Tibetan side of border passes. Thanks for creating the Jiagang page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC) "Dumuqilie" is Dumchele. That is where the trading point is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3, I am going to be archiving this section. Have I overlooked anything major with the Jaggang article? While I have come across a line or two here and there, nothing substantial. I guess this can be archived now. DTM (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Sure, go ahead. But you keep talking of a "Chakhang" or "Chakgang". I have never heard of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC) You wrote above there is also a place called Chakhang, but on the eastern sector. This section was started with the header "The Chukangs". Either way, the minimal information about all this seems to have pointed in one direction. I think the Jiagang article looks quite decent. DTM (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC) References Long Yogma and Chushul You probably had enough of maps, but here is an important piece. From Omachanda Handa, this is the description of the last stages of the Dogra-Tibetan War. At Rodakh [Rudok], the rebel troops [Ladakhis and Tibetans] reorganised themselves and resorted to hit-and-run tactics that infuriated Divan Hari Chand [commanding the Dogra troops]. Well-equipped [and] 6000 strong, they moved on to Drangtse, where they entrenched themselves in a strategic stronghold at Long-Yogma. "Drangtse" is probably Tangtse. Long-Yogma is marked on Strachey's map, northwest of Chushul. It is now being called "Loi Yogma" and the Indian government plans to build the Chushul ALG there. For days light skirmishes continued that killed 300 Dogra men and left many more wounded. At last Thangpa Joldan (Sonam), a resident of Nubra, suggested Diwan Hari Chand that if the nearby canal could be dammed and the impounded water released to flood the enemy entrenchment, their courage and ammunition, both could be dampened. The plan was implemented and the result was instantaneous and decisive. The enemy surrendered. The only "canal" that could have been dammed is this one. Called Har Lungpa, it flows into the Chushul plain and joins the Tsaka river (also called Chushul river). This would imply that the "rebels" were ensconced in Chushul, even though it has been branded "Rodakh". That is why the resulting treaty has come to be known as the Treaty of Chushul, even though it was most likely signed in Leh. So, despite the claim that the frontiers would remain the same as before, some territory did change hands. Part of "Rodakh" came into Ladakh! By the way, the Chinese seem to have withdrawn their claim to the Thakung Heights. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC) It is also interesting that the Nubra man was siding with the Dogras, against the combined forces of Ladakhis and Tibetans. Chewang Rinchen was also a Nubra man. Now, the Nubra people want their own district. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC) You probably had enough of maps — not at all! DTM (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC) The Tibetan generals did not have authorisation to invade Ladakh. In the Chinese Amban's report to the Emperor, "Nothing whatever is mentioned concerning the Tibetan army's foray into Ladakh, and the language used strongly implies that the Dogras were attempting to invade Tibet again... But Peking could read between the lines, as the Imperial reply conveyed by Court Letter from the Grand Council, made amply clear:... "It is my fear that the Kalons posted there took advantage of their fortunate victory to win Imperial awards and to make use of their position as a pretext for further action, with the result that the aborigines [Sikhs and Dogras] and barbarians [Muslims] were frequently offended. Consequently, they were given ground for complaint and therefore contemplated revenge, allying themselves with other barbarians and thus giving rise to fresh complications. All these considerations should be taken as a warning." This explains why the combined Tibetan-Ladakhi force lost, even though the Dogras had only a couple of hundred men with them. The Tibetans only stayed on the border: Drangtse (Tangtse) and then "Rodakh" (Chushul). The Ladakhis were encouraged to stage a rebellion, but they couldn't dislodge the Dogras for some six months, when the reinforcements arrived. Then the Tibetans got driven out of Drangtse and defeated at "Rodakh". The Nubra man was helping the Dogras because the Tibetans had occupied their land (Drangtse) and probably extracted provisions from the Nubrans. So, my conclusion is that Chushul was conquered from Tibet by the Dogras. All the wooly language used by the commentators has clouded this fact till now. The Chinese amban sheepishly avoided all mention of it. But the Imperial Court figured out what had happened and gave a warning to the "Kalons". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC) PS: Sukhdev Singh Charak (commissioned by the Ministry of I&B) is worse. He says the Tibetans were ensconced at Drangtse at the "western end of the Pangkong lake" and their defensive post was at "Lung-wu" (Long-Yogma?), which is "a place between Rudok and the Pangkong lake". Sure, if Pangong lake is at Drangtse and Rudok is at Chushul, then Long-Yogma is between them! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Fisher et al. interpret "Lung-Wu", so-called by the Chinese Amban, as "Klun-gyog-ma" in the Ladakhi chronicles, an area between Rudok and Pangong Lake, probably just within the Tibetan border. "Klun-gyog-ma" is evidently Long-Yogma. The mention of "Rudok" is apparently from the Ladakhi chronicles. Even if we take "Rudok" to be the Spanggur Gap, Long-Yogma can be regarded as being between it and Tangtse. So, there is no problem there. Fisher et al. interpret the Ladakhi chronicles reasonably well: The Tibetans retreated along the Indus River trade route, making a brief stand where they could. They set up their camp in the Pangong Lake area,[*] and the pursuing Dogras set up camp a few miles away. The Tibetans received reinforcements numbering about 5,000[t] and a battle was fought at Chushul, possibly on the site of the present Indian airfield. The Tibetans were defeated and retired to their camp. Fighting raged indecisively for about ten days. The war was brought to an end only when the Dogra forces managed to dam up a stream and flood the Tibetan camp, after which the Tibetans surrendered. There are only three places where a large number of troops can encamp. In the Tangtse-Durbuk valley, the Loi Yogma valley and the Chushul valley. So, in the first stage the Dogras were at Tangtse and the Tibetans at Loi Yogma. In the second stage, the Dogras moved to Loi Yogma and the Tibetans retreated to Chushul. In both these places hit-and-run operations are feasible. So if the Chronicles said it, it must have been true. The Tibetans seem to have had numerical superiority and the Dogras superiority in fire power. So, a strategem was needed to decide the battle. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) References Unfotunately, my theory has been punctured by Moorcroft and Trebeck, who travelled from Durbuk ("Durghuk") till the end of the Chushul Valley, saying it was all in Ladakh. Apparently they went to get kiang, but didn't manage to catch any. The village [of Man] and river of Pangkung [flowing in at Likung] are in Ladakh, and [as] was the route we traversed; but the country on the other side of the lake [vague!] belongs to Rodokh. We were here met by reports, that an armed force had been stationed on the Gardokh frontier to oppose our entrance into that country, and that a party from Rodokh were at Chushul to arrest our Kashmiri interpreter, Maksud, and Lagrukh, a servant of the Banka, who had been sent with us as guide. The reports turned out to be false, but it is significant that people believed them. Apparently, Rudok had the liberty to send armed contingents to arrest people in Chushul, but still, it doesn't seem like Chushul could be counted as being part of Rudok. According to Alastair Lamb, Moorcroft said that the border was between Chushul and Punjoor (Spanggur), basically where it is today. (This is not in the book, but in some report available in the India Office archives.) So it is odd that Handa and Charak write as if Chushul was already part of Rudok. The only possibility is that that the Gyalpo of Ladakh might have made a deal with the Tibetans by ceding these parts in return for their help. If such were the case, it lasted only a few months. I can't see how the Tibetans can claim Chushul to be their "border village". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC) If the border was at Spanggur Gap then I guess Chushul may be regarded as a "border village", albeit being on the Ladakhi side of the border. So, it seems that the present LAC is more or less at the right place. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Please have a read through the Tangtse page now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC) The French have reached the Tungste article too and a very important part, the rock art. DTM (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks. I can't find the French page and neither can Wikipedia. Can you provide a link? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3: This is a misunderstanding caused by the way I framed the sentence. I was referencing the English Wikipedia article we all are currently editing and the sources used in the rock art section. Both the sources are linked to the French — one is a "Franco-Indian Archaeological Mission in Ladakh" (Mission Archéologique Franco-Indienne au Ladakh) and the other a French journal "Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines". What you managed to find out about the Pangong fault, the "Pangong River" and how it had been dammed to form the Pangong Lake is fascinating. (I wonder when the Gods decide to undam it letting the waters of the Pangong river flow once again). DTM (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Ok, I will try an experiment and get Wikipedia to translate this page into French. We will see what happens. Regarding the dam theory, I don't actually believe it, but all the geologists say so. I rather think that the dam might have been there from the beginning, but the rainfall has gradually reduced until the waters couldn't cross the dam any more. (The rise of the Himalayas means that the continental side of it goes under a rain shadow. You can see it all over Tibet and Ladakh: massive river valleys housing the now puny streams.) So, I am afraid the gods can't do anything short of demolishing the Himalayas. If that happens, all of India will probably get demolished too. Not something to contemplate! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC) References Your experiment is part of making all Wikipedia articles available in all languages! DTM (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Sort of. "All languages" would be a bit much, but at least those languages we care about. But all we can do is to translate it and leave it to them to see if they will fix it as needed. (I am sure machine-translated pages sound as awful in those languages as they do in English.) But regarding the other topic, geology is certainly the key to understanding the geography of Ladakh. All those massive river valleys are in geological faults, which means that the mountain ranges that bank on them are on different plates, and they might have formed at different times, with completely different characteristics in the types of rock, soil types, vegetation etc. Especially, the Indus Valley. The term "Indus suture zone" suggests that that is where the Indian plate and the Asian plate are joining. But I can't understand the geology sources well enough. There are loads of technical terms. They didn't teach us any geology in high school or college, which seems to be a big deficiency in our education system. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Here is a passage for your amusement: The Pangong transpressional zone granitoids (Figure 2) are subdivided into the (i) Tangtse - Darbuk leucogranites (lgr), a suite of biotite leucogranite dykes and garnet-muscovite-biotite leucogranite, Kfs-megacrystic muscovite-biotite leucogranite and biotite leucogranite sheets; (ii) the Muglib migmatite complex (mig), which consists of biotite granite leucosomes and hornblende-biotite melanosomes; and (iii) the Tangtse orthogneiss (d), a hornblende-biotite diorite. I am much enlightened :-) I suppose it is Google's fault that it can bring up such gibberish that was never meant for our eyes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3, adding to the amusement, I randomly Wikied three of the words. It seems that while the meanings are a little bit more understandable, even parts of the meanings need one more level of explanation. granitoids— Granitoid — "A granitoid or granitic rock is a variety of coarse grained plutonic rock — granite or similar — which mineralogically is composed predominantly of feldspar, quartz and mica." leucogranites—Leucogranite—"Leucogranite is a light-colored, granitic, igneous rock with almost no dark minerals. Alaskite is a synonym" melanosomes—Melanosome—"A melanosome is an organelle found in animal cells and is the site for synthesis, storage and transport of melanin, the most common light-absorbing pigment found in the animal kingdom." So some law and order does develop. Seeing this, it seems that at least three levels of meanings will be needed for a common person to even comphrehend what is being said! While you were "enlightened", my mood has lightened. :) DTM (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC) The butterfly effect of you starting the geology conversation — Ritesh Arya — a mighty good flap indeed. DTM (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Tangtse?

I was predisposed to thinking of it as the "Battle of Chushul" (for which references are aplenty), but I wasn't reading the narratives carefully. The very top quotation in the previous section was saying that the Tibetans were entrenched at Tangtse, not the Dogras. So, the battle was at Tangtse. Why did anybody call it the "Battle of Chushul"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Drangtse Kharpon and the Khurnak Plain

There is no mention of the "Battle of Chushul" in Shakbpa's books. But there is this intersting passage:

While this trade agreement was being negotiated [in 1853], a letter was sent to Dangtse Kharpon [Drangtse Kharpon], a representative of Thanedar Bisram stationed at Od in Rudok, which read: "The Tibetan and Ladakhi leaders have concluded negotiations regarding our common borders. We have agreed to adhere to the same border demarcations that existed previously. You are requested, therefore, to hand over Od to the Tibetans and to look after your own territory." It was signed by Thanedar Bisram and dated the fourth day of the third month of the Water-Ox year (1853).[43]

I never heard of Thanedar Bisram but he is well-attested. So, he sent a letter to the Kharpon (local official) of Tangtse, asking him to hand over "Od" to Rudok. The only "Od" I know of, on the border between Ladakh and Rudok, is the Ote Plain, now known as the Khurnak Plain.

So, after the war, Tangtse took control of the Khurnak Plain and, following elaborate negotiations, it was handed back! Godwin-Austen was right after all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Even more crazily, when Strachey went there in 1847, it was still under the control of Drangtse! By the time of Godwin-Austen, it was handed back. Things were happening under the British noses, and nobody bothered to tell them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It gets even better. The "Thanedar Bisram" is Mehta Basti Ram, a well-known governor of Ladakh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This version of the letter is even better:

Two similar letters of agreement have been signed concerning the border between Ladakh and Tibet according to legal traditions. The three, Ladakh, Tibet, and the Sikhs are completely equal. Thus, in the future, each should hold their own territory; there should be no pretext for conflict over the (Rutok)ö border.

Fourth day of the third month of the Water-Ox year (1853)

Thanedar Bisram

The o-with-diarsis "ö" is apparently pronounced as "od" by the Tibetans and "ot" by the Ladakhis. (Compare Yeshe-Ö.) Stracahey spelt it as "Ot". Later British converted it to "Ote".

"Sikhs" is a mistranslation. The Tibetan original would have been "shen-pa" (Singh people) which would cover both the Sikhs and Dogras. But it is interesting that the Dogras elevated the Ladakhis to an equal status with them.

It would be interesting indeed to find out what were in the other "two similar letters". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Found a good discussion of the Kongma–Parma–Yogma terminology in Strachey. (See [2].) They mean Upper–Middle–Lower.

So the "Chang Parma" valley means the "Northern Middle" valley. Pretty sensible. Also the Nyagzu in the middle of the valley can now be parsed as "Nyak Chu" (the middle river). "Nyak" is another word for middle. The British writers have claimed that the Pangong Lake to the east of the Khurnak plain was called "Nyak Tso". Hedin says none of the Tibetans he spoke to knew that term. They knew "Tso Ngombo" (blue lake).

Coming back to Drangtse, it is now clear to me that the major battles of Tibet-Ladakh-Mughal War wer also fought right here. No wonder you found rock art with chariots. One can imagine that the good old Dardic-Tibetan wars would have also been fought here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The unravelling of Indian claims

So here we go. I find the Indian claims quite flaky. They were mostly based on the testimonies of the British, who were clueless as explained above.

China was in bad shape. They lost the Opium Wars. The Dogras had captured Ladakh and, even though the Ladkhi ruler submitted to China, China was unable to help. Thankfully, the Tibetans were strong enough to defend themselves, but China didn't want to get into trouble with the British and warned Tibet to back off. So Tibet did. The "century of humiliation" had begun. It took another couple of decades for the Tibetans to gather up the courage to negotiate the border and it appears that the Dogras were graceful and returned whatever territory they had occupied. But Tibet did not enforce its claims strongly. All those areas that were in dispute (in the sense that Ladakhis might have had access to them) continued to be free to access. The Brits ran all over the place in there, hunting, toouring and exploring. The impression got created that all this was Ladakhi territory. But nobody knew for sure.

Then India comes stomping along. It claims all the territory that the British had claimed and more. (For example, the eastern bank of the Indus River in the Demchok sector was never claimed either by the Ladakhis or the British. The Demchok village was not claimed by them either. But India did, and it stationed troops there. China might tolerate Ladakhis accessing it, but not India to put up troops saying all this is "our land" and pushing back the Tibetans.) A British guy went to Demchok in 1946 and he says,

On what was unquestionably Kashmiri territory numerous [Tibetan?] flocks were grazing. It was evidently the concern of no one, least of all of the kotwal, to safeguard the interest of either country. The truth was, of course, that it did not matter, as the people did not care a doit for political restrictions. After all, they were Tibetans, irrespective of what side of an arbitrary frontier line they lived.

India needed to dig into the Kashmiri records and find out what territory was actually being claimed by them. Apparently, the border was discussed between Mehta Basti Ram and the Tibetan representatives. How come nobody mentions it? Even when the Indians did find the records, they misinterpreted them. For example, the 1908 settlement report showed no people living in Demchok, and the 1921 census showed 2 families. Clearly this was not the Tibetan Demchok village. Yet, India assumed that this meant both the Demchok villages were Ladakhi territory. The Tibetans claimed Dumchele as early as in 1904. (This was the first time they were having a dialogue with the British, after the Younghusband Expedition.) But the Indians never bothered to investigate it.

So, on the whole, the Indian claim line is quite half-baked and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I have a few points:

1. You wrote that there is no mention of the "Battle of Chushul" in Shakbpa's books. However Shakbpa does mention a TIBETAN LETTER OF AGREEMENT, 1842. This was the part of the "treaty of Chushul" (two letters exchanged by both sides). source: POLITICAL TREATIES OF TIBET(821 to 1951)
2. The "treaty" of Chushul was two letters exchanged by either side rather than a single signed document?
3. In the article Dogra–Tibetan War, the source citing the Treaty of Chushul doesn't actually have the quote, (at least i can't find it in that source)
4. Integration of the Dogra–Tibetan War into Sino-Indian border dispute is incomplete. While Sino-Indian_border_dispute#Aksai_Chin clearly mentions that one of the earliest treaties regarding the boundaries in the western sector was issued in 1842 it does not mention where that boundary lay, even if it was/was not the same as post Second Anglo-Sikh War.
5. Your conclusion that the Indian claim line is quite half-baked and doesn't stand up to scrutiny reminds me of the term fog of war. Having definite facts and finding them, the facts we are looking for and are interested in, documented on paper at the time would be surprising.
6. This brings us back to the needed boundary study you had mentioned. A nice sequence of visuals of the border for every year. If there is uncertainty for any of the years, then that can very easily be mentioned/depicted rather than taking it as a stumbling block. Like this youtube video at 11:08, just more detailing and accuracy, and maybe zooming in onto the ladakh region, in print format, with nice colouring and all...

DTM (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

New articles — Mehta Basti Ram, List of Governors of Ladakh province DTM (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, two letters were exchanged. In fact, it may be wrong to call it a "treaty". It was called an "agreement". Fisher et al. claim that there was another agreement signed later in the name of Sher Singh and the Chinese emperor but don't have a citation for it. Shakabpa says there was no Chinese involvement. It might have been propaganda generated by the Chinese in recent times.

But the name of "Chushul" doesn't occur in Shakabpa's writings. This is not really "fog of war", but rather the "fog of historian". If you read the Ladakhi chronicles, they are crystal clear.[3] Both the sides were encamped in Lung Yogma and the fighting happened there as well. It is possible that the Tibetans were using Chushul as a supply base, but there is no other significance to be attached to Chushul.

By the way, Rdo-khug as well as Hdor-khug are likely to be Durbuk, whose original name was written in English as "Durghuk". (note added)

As for the new pages, the list of governors can go in History of Ladakh. Mehta Basti Ram can have his own page, as well as Mehta Mangal. (Any idea what "Mehta" means?) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The term "Chu-sul" occurs on page 254. This was an account given by a man called "Tshe-brtan", who apparently fought in the Dogra War. But I think "Chushul" is used in a generic way here, to mean the area. And, read the rest of his account too, which will bring many smiles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mehta DTM could be Your Excellency DTM... anyway. I didn't quite understand why you asked the meaning of Mehta until I saw the list of governors/thanedars and the two Mehta's which you have also mentioned.

I think the most important sounding (I haven't gone into detail as to what his demarcation actually was) line I read while making the table of administrators was "He (Mehta Mangal) demarcated the boundary between Ladakh and Tibet." His name should definitely be in the background section of the Sino-Indian border dispute article if the line is true to its word. DTM (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Mangal Mehta, wazir of Ladakh during 1860-65, organized the revenue settlement of the whole area. His successors, including Johnson (1870-1881) and Radha Kishen Kaul (1882), made the necessary revisions. In the regular revenue assessment reports the names of areas and villages and the amount of revenue collected from each of them, which is now claimed by China as having been under their administrative jurisdiction for centuries, were included. The report of 1908 mentioned 108 villages including Tankse, Demchok and Minsar and mentions Aksai Chin, Lingzi Tang where rights of pastures and salt collection were exercised, as parts of Tankse ilaqa. [...] The assessment report of Ladakh tehsil of 1909 stated,’ There have been no boundary disputes on the Lhasa frontiers and the existing boundary seems to be well understood by the subjects of both the state and the Lhasa Government’.[...] In 1865) Mehta Mangal had prepared a11 original sketch map showing the routes and stages up to Shahidulla in the north and Minsar in east in which Demchok was shown as the eastern boundary post.

-India's northern frontiers and China, (pahar to the rescue again) edit & GoI report DTM (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Nubra

Shyok valley

Fancke's map

Nubra means the "western realm". But west of what? Cunningham fudges it seriously by saying "the north-western district of Ladak, includes all the country drained by the Nubra and Shayok rivers". It is certainly not a "northwestern district of Ladakh", it is rather its north-eastern district!

Unless we imagine Nubra being governed from somewhere near Durbuk, it is hard to make sense of Nubra being called "wetern". Durbuk being at the V-shaped bend of the Shyok river, we can imagine the western branch being called Nubra, and the eastern branch (which is unpopulated) having no name. "Dumra" covered both, and often "Dumra" is used to refer to Durbuk itself:

Prince Tshe-dban-rab-brtan fled to Spi-ti, passing through Ldum-rå and Dran-tse. (p.130 of Francke)

Unless Durbuk was the capital of Dumra, it wouldn't make sense to do so.

And here is a very interesting description of Ladakh:

This is the tale of the former king of La-dvags (Ladakh) and of the war with the Sin-pas. During the time of the father-king the following (districts were inhabited by) his subjects : [the region] from

• the Hdu-zi pass (Zoji pass) upwards,
• from the Chos-hbad [Chorbat] pass of Sbal-ti-yul [Baltiyul] upwards, and
• from La-hdar [Lahul?] in Zans-dkar upwards;
• [the region] within the Se-hdu-la pass [Karakoram or Shahidulla?] of Ldum-ra (Nub-ra), and
• within Pho-lon-hdra-hdra [?] of Byan-than [Changthang].

All those [who lived there] were the subjects of the father-king of La-dvags. Besides the father-king none could give orders to them. (p.250 of Francke)

The reference to "Se-hdu-la pass" makes it clear that both the wings of the Shyok river were included in Dumra. Incidentally, Francke's map of Ladakh includes Shahidulla. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

French elegance

That map of the Shyok Valley above was created using https://umap.openstreetmap.fr. I couldn't figure out what layer he used to get it in that understated elegance. I wonder what more can be done with this tool? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a really good tool for marking osm. Thanks! DTM (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I tried out umap some more in relation to Geography of Ladakh#Rivers_and_valleys. Combining the different tools attached to OSM gives a lot of scope for mapping!

DTM (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for sending India, Pakistan and China under a pralaya. I am sure they deserve it!

I suppose the "French elegance" background is not available any more?

What I really want to do with this is to draw stuff: rivers, roads, caravan routes, mountain ranges etc. Imagine having Pir Panjal Range actually marked on a map, so that we know where it is! Or even Karakoram, for that matter.

When I tried a pilot, it worked ok but I couldn't figure out how to undo any mistakes. Nor could I figure out how to continue a line that I suspended for some reason. I can't mark the whole thing in one sitting! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I forgot the "French elegance" layer for a moment, above attempts are probably closer to "Indian jugaad". A very nice French OSM layer is still there in umap.

I added maplink outlines of Karakoram, Ladakh and Zanskar ranges in their respective pages. Pir Panjal range needs to be marked on OSM. I can give that a try. Once on OSM, which allows ample editing, transferring the points to umap becomes easier. So a very nice map can be made of all four ranges and more.

As for what you had in mind related to drawing caravan routes and other things on the map... the vision goes far. DTM (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

OSM has installed a new "layer". Even though it is not as good as the French elegance, it is a lot better than the other layer I used before. So I made a map with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Locating Ladakhi history

Locating Ladakhi history [4] by John Bray has a nice historical map of Ladakh, which is worth reproducing. And, the article is a nice overview of Ladakh's history too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I have started reproducing the map drawn in John Bray's book (which is a good one!). Do you think the base I have taken is alright? I have made each point clickable, so even if the maps' dimensions are reduced and labels are removed... it could still work... still needs some thought? Once done, this map could very well go into the History of Ladakh article.

This has given me the idea to do a monastery map using OSM in a similar way to Template:Central Park map in which images have been placed for each label. DTM (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, looks nice. I would prefer the gray background if possible, which would make the lettering easier to read. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

This does seem to be taking shape. While I did change the base map, it isn't entirely grey as is visible. As far as I could make out that requires the setting up of a new location map; I will leave setting up a new location map for another time. I think this should be clear enough? Only that the overlap in Shey seems un-elegant. DTM (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Great work, DTM! I am truly impressed.

Can we add some points of our own? For instance, it is scandalous that we don't mark Hunder, the capital of Nubra. We also need to put Durbuk and Tangtse, and perhaps Turtuk. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Kargil

Mulbekh

Dah

Sanku

Panikhar

Kishtwar

Rangdum

Khalatse 5

Lamayouro

Wanla

Tingmosgang

Alchi

Likir

Lingshed

Chiling

Leh

Phyang

Deskit

NUBRA

Padam

ZANGSKAR

Shey

Stok

Thikse

Matho

Hemis

Chemre

Gya

Spituk

Udaipur

Darcha

Manali

Kibber

Kaza

Karzok

PURIG

RUPSHU

LAHUL

SPITI

L A D A K H

Stok Kangri

Kang Yatze

Saser Kangri

Shilla

Nun Kun

Pangong Tso

Nubra

Shyok

Shyok

Indus

Indus

Rohtang Pass

Kunzum Pass

Shingo La

Taglang La

Chang La

Khardung La

Bara-lacha la

Tso Moriri

Hanle

Skardu (C)

3

2

4

D

1

B

E

A

Drangtse

Cho–Sod

Rudok

To Rudok

Tashigang

To Tashigang

To Hanle

To Gartok and Taklakot

Teram Kangri

Sia Kangri

Saltoro Kangri

Bilafond La

Galwan River

FacetsOfNonStickPans/Archive 7 (Ladakh)

Clickable map of points taken from the local map of Ladakh drawn by Ea Rasmussen, Moesgaard Museum/University of Aarhus. The highlighted yellow area on the base map is the administrative area of the Union Territory of Ladakh.

• Aqua highlight labels represent Gompas or monasteries that paid the highest taxes in the 1850s — Hemis (with Hanle) Rs 900; Chimra Rs 900; Thigse Rs 500; Pitak Rs 500; Gawan Rs 900; Lama Yuru Rs 900. (see Strachey's 1851 map of Ladakh for similar location spellings i.e. Chimra/Chemre etc)
  
• Route marked in red arrows ( ) depicts routes of Zorawar Singh's Ladakhi and Balti campaigns. Arrows 1 to 5 depict the start from Kishtawar in 1834, through Warwan to Suru Valley, then north to Dkarste and from there turning south east to Khalatse. Arrows A to D depicts the conquest of Balti, reaching Skardu and back. Coloured labels represent southeast–wards conquests heading into Tibet and ending at Taklakot.
• Col N. Kumar led Indian teams climbed Teram Kangri II in 1978 and Sia Kangri and Saltoro Kangri in 1981.

Kautilya3, are there any Wikipedia policies against what you are suggesting? If new points are added, one thing that will change for sure is the caption. Or, if you want to stay true to the original, add the extra markers in a different shade. I have never given too much thought to copyright rules in relation to maps. DTM (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we add some points of our own? — What would Strachey do?
I just couldn't resist adding this DTM (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, we just need consensus on some formula which avoids flooding the map with inconsequential places. I don't know exactly how our original artist picked his places. He probably read through the history and located all the places he encountered. But then he also added some places which don't have historical prominence, like Kargil and Deskit, for completeness sake. He might have also had difficulty locating other places like Durghuk and Drang-tse. But how did he miss Hanle (Wam-le) mentioned in the founding document? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I have flooded the map enough. I still have energy to work on this after a gap (unless someone else wants to of course), so suggestions are more welcome. I think it is best this conversation is shifted to the talk page. DTM (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:Map of Ladakh

 – DTM (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Tuggu Nuggu

Godwin-Austin says (in writing about Thakung):

Towards the shore of the lake rise two very conspicuous isolated low rocky knobs, a mile apart, and between these is the confluence of the Chushal stream and the Pangong Tso. The next morning I walked across and ascended the most eastern eminence, having the strange sounding name of Tuggu Nuggu. This had formerly been a fortified post; the level space at the top was enclosed by a low stone wall, while a detached outwork had been built on the low spur that ran out on the east side ...

The terrain map certainly shows two "eminences" flanking the Chushul river. But can one of them be called the "most eastern" eminence? Both of them are pretty blank on satellite maps. No sign of any fortified post. On the other hand, the most eastern eminence of the Thakung plain now houses the Indian post. So what do you think? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Godwin-Austin says further down:

One and a half mile beyond Tuggu Nuggu low spurs abut upon the lake in cliffs of 150 to 200 feet high...

These are the Thakung Heights. So Tuggu Nuggu is indeed the Thakung post. The Gazetter of Kashmir and Ladak got it wrong. There goes its reliability. (It is basically like a Wikipedia of the 19th century.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Chinese claims

1947 ROC claim line in Ladakh

Finally for some Chinese maps. See my notes in the Wikipedia Commons. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes finally! A lot of detail in that annotation. The title of the paper struck me with the usage of the phrase "corrosive compromise". The abstract says ...the findings point to the need to correct the epistemic criteria used to reproduce claims of an unambiguous boundary between India and China by both countries, in order to ensure abatement of similar outcomes.

The author is trying to clarify the LAC!? DTM (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The author is investigating the respective claims of the two countries, but obviously he focuses almost entirely on China because that is where fictious claims come from. I can send you a copy of the paper.

What struck me the most about this particular map was the innovative solution of treating the Qaratagh-su as the origin of the Karakash River. In this manner they tried to circumvent the geographic problem of both the Galwan river and the Karakash river originating at practically the same place. One mound this way or that way would send the waters into the Indian Ocean or the Tarim Basin alternatively.

The ROC claims are quite important because that is where the present disputes originate from. The ROC obviously knew about the MacDonald Line but they couldn't ask the British for it. Why not? Why not indeed! The reason they needed Aksai Chin was to send troops into Tibet. The British would have easily figured that out. If Nehru and Krishna Menon had their heads screwed right, they could have easily predicted the whole damn thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the Gazetteer, this tributary (Qaratagh-su) carries "nearly as much water as the Karakash itself". So, which stream we call Karakash is merely a matter of convention. (Johnson had treated the "East Karakash River" that originates in the Kunlun Mountains as the main river and our Karakash as a tributary.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is a nice collection of maps and a good write-up at Globalsecurity.org. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we beat China when it comes to centuries of humiliation, they just had one. We had so many! Many other civilizations would lay claim to topping the table of humiliation :D

Kautilya3, personally I hate the word humiliation used in terms of wars such as 1962. What happened in 1962 cannot be termed as humiliation. Soldiers dying is not humiliation. There are ample negative connotations that can be used instead. DTM (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you started talking about 1962. But 1962 was "humiliating", not because soldiers died, but rather because Assam collapsed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Remains of the Day, Remains of the Colony

Ghulam Rasool Galwan

You remember that movie, don't you? The loyal butler, completely devoted to the service of his master, firm in his belief that he is playing a historic role in facilitating international affairs? Whereas his masters were only appeasing the Nazis, all leading to the doomsday that befell the whole world?

Well, I read Ghulam Rasool Galwan's biography, Servant of Sahibs. It gave me the same feel. Except that this guy had no clue about any historic role in international affairs. He did it for a job, and for the thrill of it. He certainly had a lot more fun than Anthony Hopkins, earned a lot more money (relatively speaking), and became a big shot by the end of his life.

A lot of people read the book last year, and there were quite a few Internet book reviews as well [5][6]. Everybody was full of admiration for this poor boy, who accomplished much and became famous.

The western scholars say "no". It is all an example of colonial subjugation.

The singular focus of the book on Rassul Galwan's growth through colonial labor, combined with the authenticity imposed on him and his account through a number of textual and editorial devices, suggest that Servant of Sahibs may be read credibly as a text that aids the colonial establishment in utilizing a discourse of Native authenticity in support of a somewhat discredited discourse of benevolent colonial labor relations.

Martijn van Beek too apparently endorses this reading:

His life, at the time of publication in 1923, was displayed to show the blessings of empire and to illustrate the civilizing effect of contact with Europeans, as has been noted by other scholars (Butz and MacDonald 1995).

So these people know better than us what colonialism means? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There was no "doomsday" here, but the next closest thing. The first trip Galwan made in 1899 or 1890 was with Francis Younghusband, the purpose of which was to "induce" the Chinese to occupy the land between the Karakoram Range and the Kunlun Mountains so that the Russians couldn't get their hands on it. That was the foothold that the Chinese got, which eventually brought them to Aksai Chin and finally the valley that is named after Galwan himself. Whether all this will lead to a doomsday, no one can say yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I really did not this expect this twist when I started reading this section. You started so pally, oh hi DTM do you remember this movie.... and then slowly and suddenly you connect Galwan to a doomsday story which involves Russia, China, the British empire, Tibet, master servant relations/ colonial subjugation...and what a movie too... but yes, this added background to Galwan is really interesting in light of recent events. Hearty applause. Maybe I could try adding the Galwan route on the map. DTM (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Slowly and suddenly, indeed!

Attenborough's Gandhi. Watch it from 1:17. What is Gandhi doing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Watch it from....you didn't write where to stop, so till the end... I remember seeing the movie Gandhi long back, big names attached to it, Attenborough and Kingsly, but I have to see it again (along with with the Hopkins one, I remember this even less).

What is Gandhi doing? — Gandhi is fighting. Fighting for the world he sees as correct. Since his methods work, since things happen, he sticks to his methods and they evolve along that path. DTM (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? Maph karen, apni aur maine aisa koi prachar nahin kiya. What prachar?

Mein unhe uljhan me dalna chahta hoon, jo hamein ghulam samajhte hain.

Dhanyavaad?!? Maph kijiye mere bevakufi ke liye?

Mein chahta hoon unke nazariya badalen. Na hi, unhe hum maren, us kamzori ke liye jo hum sab mein hai.

[Pregnant silence]

Nobody has evolved on his path. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Some more stuff from a "trustworthy source" in Zhonwen

China-India border dispute: Ladakh, Aksai Chin and the Tibet factor

Tibetan traditional residential area

[You wonder what that is? read on]

The Aksai Chin area is located in the eastern part of the Kashmir Valley [wow! some valley!], covering an area of approximately 37,250 square kilometers. It belongs to the Hetian County of Xinjiang and the Ali area of Tibet in China.

Ladakh is a traditional residential area for Tibetans.

At the end of the 17th century (1684) Ladakh signed a contract with Tibet to recognize Tibet as the suzerainty [Gosh! I thought the Chinese language didn't have a word for "suzerainty"], and pay tribute to the Dalai Lama, the ruler of Tibet every year.

Later, the rulers of Ladakh were conferred by the emperor of the Manchu and Qing Dynasty and were "tempered" by the minister in Tibet. [What? Manchu dynasty was gone by 1684. Come on! Don't be picky with such trifles! Be a sport.]

Later, Ladakh became a possession of the British East India Company. [Ah, the British imperialists again! I knew it had to to be them.]

[And let us not forget, this is a "contract" that does not exist actually. It is only written in the Ladakhi chronicles, whatever nonsense they wrote in there.]

The Financial Times reported [not us, we are "trustworthy"] that Beijing believes that Ladakh is part of China's Tibet and that China still controls the territory acquired during the Sino-Indian border war in 1962 [Phew, we said it, even though we know that it is actually in the Hotien County of Xinjiang. What gawd-awful things these western papers say, not at all trustworthy].

Dalai Lama's visit to disputed areas between China and India in southern Tibet arouses concern

"Indian Internal Affairs" [sic, including the quote marks]

In 1987, India announced the establishment of "Arunachal Pradesh". The territory of this state includes the northern region of Assam in India and southern Tibet, which China considers to be the southern part of the Tibet Autonomous Region. Most of the state's land, about 90,000 square kilometers, is located in southern Tibet [excepting maybe 1000 sq km or so in the "northern reigon of Assam in India"], a territorial dispute between China and India, so the Chinese government does not recognize it.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Time for impeachment?

From the first trustworthy source:

He [Marek from the Observer Research Foundation] said in a report in the Financial Times that Ladakh includes parts of Tibet and Xinjiang, and Tibet and Xinjiang are the buffer zone separating Indian civilization from Chinese civilization.

But Ashok Malik actually said [7]

Ladakh was once one of a number of autonomous states, also including Tibet and Xinjiang, that Mr Malik says served as buffers between Indian and Chinese civilisations.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Subansiri

Nathan Russer posted a link to a "humdata" site that shows the LSIB, Version 10 boundaries, dated 10 March 2020:

 https://data.humdata.org/dataset/large-scale-international-boundaries-lsib

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the whole thread. This is about the Gelemo "2020 poverty alleviation village" near Migyitun. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning and linking LSIB. It will become a good reference point now for related mapwork here.

Just imagine Indian border villages in the area requesting this "new" Chinese village for electricity and network and medicines. How close are our nearest habitations?....I wonder if there are any hotels in this "new" village for Indian "tourists" taking a hike with visas...... DTM (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3 — Gelemo... the location of Gelemo [Node: Gelemo (7835487124)] on OSM seems significantly incorrect upstream. Gelemo for India is where the school is built. The area of Gelemo is different... DTM (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC) DTM (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right. I was guessing based on Claude Arpi's sketch map. But the Chinese editors have labelled it as Luowa. It doesn't look a Chinese name though. So it was probably a traditional tribal village.

When F. M. Bailey visited Migyitun, he wasn't allowed to cross back into the tribal area. So there is no documentation of the adjoining tribal area. We are flying blind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

F. M. Bailey

Bailey's map

F. M. Bailey writes:

Morshead went further down the river to see what prospect there was of exploring the No Man's Land. But four miles down he came on the ruins of a foot-bridge over to the right bank and could get no further. It was one of the Mishmi type, five long strands of cane bound at intervals with hoops. The Tibetans had tried to build another, but they lacked the skill of the Lopas. So there was nothing for it but to return the way we had come. We had done what we came to do. We had found and mapped the limit of Tibetan authority—the frontier in fact, down this valley.

It is 3.5 miles from Migyitun to the map-marked McMahon Line, and 4.5 miles to the new Chinese village [8]. I have no idea how it feels to live in there, cold and dark, hemmed in by mountains from all four sides. No wonder they have to make simulation videos [9]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the Pure Crystal Mountain (Dakpa Sheri). As far as I can see the annual pilgrimage route (3 days long) passes through Indian territory. There is no information as to whether it has been happening or not. The river that goes and joins Tsari Chu at the new village, originates north of this mountain. It is called Mipa Chu, and somewhere on its banks is a halting place called "Mipa Tang". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oddly, Bailey's map shows the road trying to cross to the right bank of the river pretty much immediately. There is no way that it can be 4 miles! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it was possible to walk on both the sides of the river up to this point, about a kilometre south of Longju. Here the river hits against the eastern mountain cliff, and one had to cross to the western bank. So, somewhere before this point, the tribal area started and the bridge was their technology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

4 miles as the crow flies. DTM (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

4 miles "as the crow flies" takes you even further than "4 miles as the ant walks". So, no, crows are not going to be of any help here.

Does umap help you make an image with a scale on the side of the locale? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Indian claim line

1940 Survey of India line

I don't know why it took me so long to find the District Census Handbook. The border shown in the front pages is quite different from anything else we have seen. So, I went to Bhuvan3D to check. And you get a really beautiful perspective of a diamond shaped mountain, with Dakpa Sheri in the centre. You really get to understand the the whole idea of the Rongkor pilgrimage here.

I also traced India's claim line with a blue pen, since it is not really visible otherwise. As I expected, the annual pilgrimage route is entirely within Tibetan territory. (The OSM boundary is quite wrong.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid Bhuvan3D's data is badly wrong. All the positions in the Subansiri valley (including Taksing) are positioned some 2-3 miles to the right of where they actually are. So the boundary too is positioned wrong, even though its shape is accurate. I will have to do some work to figure out how to get the right location. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

From the Sandhu et al.,

Chinese troops launched an attack on the morning of 23 Oct, against the border posts of Asaphila, Sagamla, Tamala and Potrang.

Other than Asaphila, the other three places are on the annual pilgrimage route. This was supposed to be Tibetan territory by the 1940 Survey of India map. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

In this article (which you cited for "Gelen Bung"), Vinayak Bhat calls the line Captain Bailey's McMahon Line. So that gave me an idea. The Survey of India didn't send any more survey teams to the border before the map got made. Who would go with all that equipment, to the top of Himalayas, trekking through some hundreds of miles of vicious tribal territory? Captain Bailey tried to go in from the Tibetan side, but he couldn't, because all the bridges were broken and the Tibetans couldn't repair them. So, all the points in the Subansiri District are dubious, and only the points in Tibet are reliable.

So, by synchronizing on the Tibetan points (and the Kamla River, which I had to use in the south), I got this reasonable looking alignment. I was quite pleased to discover that Captain Bailey knew exactly where Yume Chu went, but had absolutely no idea what was happening to the Subansiri River. Ok, so, at least he knew something!

Captain Bailey did put the Pindigo river, which India has been claiming for itself, firmly in Tibet. He also knew that the Pindigo river had a tributary that came in from the northeast, but he didn't know what happened after the confluence. He sent it all the way to Tsari Chu in the east. But in reality, it goes south to join Subansiri a little east of Taksing.

Now, the funny thing is that the Chief Electoral Officer of Arunachal Pradesh knows about five villages along the Pindigo river, and he has been getting those people to happily vote in Indian elections. According to the Census of India, 31 people live there (classifed as the village Kacha). They are pretty patriotic too.

Hiwak Chader, a student from Kacha village of Taksing circle, told Deccan Chronicle that people there had noticed the movement of Chinese troops in the Asa-Pila-Maya area around three months back, but the government was not aware about it. He said the villagers handed over photos to Army Intelligence and IB sleuths.

All said and done, we can be pretty sure that the poor Tibetans didn't get to do any Tsari pilgrimages after 1959. Apparently, neither India nor China cares -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Detailed maps

Detailed maps of Arunachal Pradesh districts can be found here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is a helipad here, that is a military camp, riht? It is Yume Chu to the left. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The helipad doesn't show on Google Maps. Only on Maxar. So it must be recent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason I went looking up there is that ceoarunachal says there are five villages up there somewhere. I can't find any of them. If you can find one, I will give you a cookie :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Why the two ends meet

Working on the Ladakh border at one end and Arunachal Pradesh at the other (and Sikkim-Bhutan in the middle as well), I always wondered why all these places feel the same, but don't feel much like the Central Tibet. Here is a clue:

The power of the Karma Kagyü was centered on the figure of the Karmapa, or Gyelwang Karmapa[72] the longest surviving incarnate lama lineage in Tibet. During this pivotal period of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, his power was manifest in his Great Encampment, garchen in Tibetan.[73] The garchen's influence included even outposts in Ngari of far western Tibet,[74] and it maintained a significant presence at the major pilgrimage site of Tsari, or Crystal Mountain, along the border with Arunachal Pradesh.[75] ... The successive "kings of Tsang" came to represent the nationalistic and conservative forces of Tibet,[76] which were defeated only in 1642 when the Geluk school called upon the Oirat, or "Western Mongols," to come to their aid in Tibet.

And Tibet seems to be an abject lesson on why not to mix religion and politics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Biden's inclusive agenda

My little contribution to Biden's inclusive agenda. Please try to find more info. The Indian newspapers were sorely disappointing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is some open source info prior to her coming in the Indian news recently. DTM (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Watch this video now, from 19:00. You can watch it till the end. You can watch it from earlier too (but not really the beginning). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

NEFA war book

• Bhargava (1964), The Battle of NEFA--the undeclared war, Allied Publishers – via archie.org

According to Leo Rose and Margaret Fisher, The best of the descriptive reports of the Chinese invasion of 1962 to have appeared so far.

The ages 89-91 of the Rose and Fisher volume has loads of citations on Arunachal, including Migyitun and Tawang.

• Rose, Leo E.; Fisher, Margaret W. (1967), The North-East Frontier Agency of India, Near and Middle Eastern Series, vol. 76, Office of Public Affairs, Department of State

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I really like how Rose and Fisher went into the trade history of Longju, giving the place much more context. Thanks! DTM (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

They did? Where? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There isn't much but whatever little there is, this part (pg10):

The position of Longju in earlier times thus becomes a little clearer. Obviously, there was a brisk trade across the border in the Tsari valley. Furthermore, food supplies (except for Tibetan salt) were going north,… From which valleys the rice came,… Nevertheless, it is of interest that the goods which Bailey in 1913 saw moving south were exactly those….

DTM (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving on to the heart of the matter

I am afraid I got RSI from doing too much OpenStreetMap. So I am going to set aside geography and start attacking the diplomatic history. Nasty western historians, in an effort to mock the British Empire, make up stories of how Britain screwed China. The life of the Chinese propagandists is made, as they don't even have to make up any new propaganda.

But the proof is in the pudding. Today, Mongolia is independent whereas Tibet has been occupied in China. If Britain had indeed screwed China, the results should have been the opposite. So there is a long long story to be told. (Interestingly, Alastair Lamb invents a Russian conspiracy theory, whereby the Russians supposedly engineered the situation so as to weaken the British hand in Tibet whereas they gave themselves a free hand in Mongolia! So, apparently Russia had won the Great Game.)

Meanwhile, I am afraid the Dakpa Sheri page is quite wrong. I hope you can fix it. (I will put some comments on the article talk page.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Dapka Sheri needs work. DTM (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Legality of the McMahon Line

Please feel free to copy this footnote wherever you need to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Kashmir 1947

I feel really cheated for having spent money from my pocket to buy books that finally show up on archive.org. But at least my friends can read them and I don't have to feel so lonely any more. This book is a gem! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the book is written very well. It was one of the first books on Kashmir which I read from start to end. I had never heard of archive.org then. I had also bought a copy. Some books are still more fun to read in actual ink and paper even if they are online.
Prem Shankar Jha ji should write a book on the rival histories of India and China. DTM (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Lhoba people

Lhoba
(Bokaer, Nyishi, Luoba, Lhopa, Tagin, Loba, Yidu, Bengru, Idu)

Total population
c. 3 million
Regions with significant populations
China (Tibet)	3,682 (2010)
India (Arunachal Pradesh)	2.5 million (2014)
Languages
Bokar, Tibetic languages, Digaro languages, Puroik language
Religion
East Asian Buddhism / Donyi-Poloism
Related ethnic groups
Tagin, Adi, Idu Mishmi

The bullshit on this page will make your head spin! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The first thing that caught my attention was the population in Arunachal Pradesh. The state had only 1.4M people in 2011. DTM (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

While skimming through Lhoba related material I came across a really nicely done paper: Living on the Sino-Indian Border: The Story of the Mishmis in Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India. DTM (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Depsang Bulge

Can you see if you can make a better version of the Map 1 on the Depsang Bulge page? I think this page is slowly falling into place now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I agree that the page has turned out well. Personally the bulge was one of the hardest places for me to understand, especially geographically! I really like those coloured maps with blue and red dots. While map 1 is already rather clear, I will try putting together another one. DTM (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. My only concern that the lettering on my Map 1 isn't all that legible. You know that 90% of the readers won't know that they can click on it to enlarge it.

It took me several hours to put the Colombo map on the warper. But it is clear now that the Indian Army has been telling the truth about Depsang. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is the bottleneck? This is the only spot where there is no road from either the Indian side or the Chinese side. But this doesn't look like a bottleneck at all!

I marked this spot because I think this is where the two sides pitched tents for the 2013 Depsang standoff. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You can see in this view. The Y-junction, which branches to PP-10 and PP-11, is before the bottleneck. (There is no road through the bottleneck or even the Y-junction.) The other patrol points PP-12 and PP-13 should not be affected, because they branch off before the Y-junction and therefore before the bottleneck. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your source says 7 km from Burtse? I get 6 km. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Trig Heights

Located them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Panag's maps

This report has two maps annotated by Lt. Gen. Panag: one on Pangong Lake and the other on Depsang Plains. The second is wild! He believes the Indian patrol points are next to the Tiankong Highway! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Galwan

I finished updating the Galwan River article. Please give it a read. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Chinese military science

Shekhar Gupta likes their report [10]. I suppose he is right. If Indians had to a report on China, they wouldn't be able to do as good a job.

Be sure to read also Ananth Krishnan's summary [11]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Chinese nationalists

I got a big kick out of reading this. The Chinese nationalists will give our own nationalists a run for their money any day. My favourite:

This kind of “nonsensical compromise”, some online commentators warned, will have disastrous consequence for China. It will not only lead to the loss of China’s strategic initiative in the western front at a key historical juncture, erode its power and psychological advantage over India, but may also lead to the shaping of the new actual line of control on the Sino-Indian border based on this agreement. Once that happens, many fear that China’s long term goal of “strategic suppression of India, delaying India’s rise, and preventing India from becoming a major geostrategic threat to China in the future” will only be jeopardised.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this can go into the China's salami slicing page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Javadev Ranade at An Intensifying Rivalry? The Future of India-China Relations, Hudson Institute, 22 February 2021, 1:00:15 hours in.

Let me point you to an article written by Hu Shisheng, who makes three points:

• 1. A showdown with India was inevitable from the time they got liberated and we [India] became independent.
• 2. Rise of India is a bigger problem than India's growing proximity to the US.
• 3. Confrontation at the border will continue until the two Armies come to their respective red lines, which will then become the Line of Actual Control.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Chinese propaganda through British voice

Our respected Encyclopedia Britannica says:

Delegates of the Chinese republican government also attended the Shimla Conference, but they refused to sign the principal agreement on the status and boundaries of Tibet on the ground that Tibet was subordinate to China and had not the power to make treaties. The Chinese have maintained this position to the present day...

Look at the nonsensical nature of it. The Chinese refused to sign because Tibet was subordinate to China? After having accepted to come to the conference, accepted the credentials of the Tibetan representative, and even signing the draft Convention, they are supposed to have decided that "Tibet was subordinate to China"?

The reality is totally different:

The Foreign Ministry indicated that the frontier remained the only issue to which China objected: "As regards the present Draft Agreement, apart from the boundary question dealt with in Article 9, the ideas of both parties are generally speaking in agreement as to the remaining, and it will not be a difficult matter to reach an agreement by mutual consultation."

Working on the Simla Convention page, I am getting to see how widespread Chinese propaganda is. Whatever might have been the situation before Maxwell and Nixon, right now all of Chinese bullshit is swallowed up without question by all kinds of sources! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Shishir Gupta

Shishir Gupta writes, in the context of the 2013 Depsang standoff:

While the Indian Army asked the PLA to withdraw to its original positions as per the 1976 border patrolling agreement, the PLA produced a map, which was part of the annexure to a letter written by Zhou to Nehru and the Conference of African-Asian leaders in November 1959, to buttress its case that the new position was well within the Chinese side of the LAC.[3] The November 1959 map (reproduced on the facing page), which defines the LAC running parallel to Raki Nullah [Depsang Nala] and widely diverges from the Indian LAC, was an indicator that the PLA had come prepared and the incursion was planned much in advance; according to this map, the strategic Depsang Bulge, which gave India an option of countering any PLA attack towards DBO, belonged to China.

• Was there something called the "1976 border patroling agreement"?
• Do you believe that the Chinese claimed the map to be annexure to a November 1959 letter? (The map he produced is the same one sent to Afro-Asian leaders in 1962, see e.g., Manoj Joshi, China’s Galwan valley gambit is attempt to extend official claim line, LAC westward, The Wire, 19 June 2020 (via Observer Research Foundation).

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I decided that the Chinese troops did mean it. Stupid historical revisionism. Put into Depsang Bulge#2013 standoff.

We need to harmonise the actual standoff page with this section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

To your first question. This refers to the China Study Group and what they did during that time in relation to the border. I haven't come across any agreement as such.

The second question... I couldn't say or give a clear answer. It would be funny if the original document was one page, but after adding stuff over the years, all supposedly original stuff, it becomes hundred pages. So then, is it about the original one page, or the stuff added after as well, whatever the method used to add it?

I hope the Government of India and China have good record keepers. Unlike what happens sometimes, say in these archives. DTM (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Time for some Chinese gloating

Why did our army prevail in the conflict in the Kalwan Valley? These three factors are the key.

* ... even though India has a "quantity" advantage in the number of outposts in the area near the river valley, compared with China, the Indian army's outpost lacks a "qualitative" advantage. The border defense regiment of the Xinjiang Military Region of the People's Liberation Army built few outposts here, one line away from the confrontation, but the outposts are well-equipped, with many and advanced delivery vehicles, and the quality of their troops are better than those of the Indian army. Therefore, they have the upper hand in this confrontation.

* According to public information, the food provided by our border soldiers is two large meats, two and a half meats, and a vegetable dish with eggs. The intake of a large amount of protein helps the PLA border guards maintain a good body shape and physical fitness, and give play to their advantages in border conflicts. Compared with our army, the Indian army has insufficient protein intake and high dietary starch ratio.

* This time the People's Liberation Army has basically controlled the battlefield, which is also conducive to the evacuation and treatment of the wounded. Moreover, in the Kalwan Valley area, our army also has a heliport station to facilitate the evacuation of critically ill and wounded. In contrast, the Indian army, after the collapse of the fighting in the Kalwan River valley, a large number of soldiers were injured and abandoned near the river beach, exposed to the wild under minus conditions at night. ... The Indian army has only temporary camps in the Kalwan Valley area, unable to rescue the severely wounded with plateau symptoms, so they can only be evacuated.

By the way, India has a helipad at the KM 120 post. But that is on the Shyok River and about 4-5 km from PP-14. In between, there is not even a road, despite the Indian gloating we have seen in the newspapers. In contrast the Chinese have a helipad right on PP-14.

The fact that India was trying to build infrastructure between PP-14 and KM-120 is precisely why the Chinese have initiated this conflict. "It belongs to China", "China's sovereignty is very clear", and so on.

Also India's supposed "quantity advantage" is a fallcy. India has lots of posts in Murgo, Depsang and DBO, but there is practically nothing between Murgo and Durbuk. In contrast, the Chinese have the Heweitan base and the Kongka base, both of which are no more than an hour's drive from Galwan. And Kongka is connected to Rudok by a motorway, supporting 100 miles/hour speeds. So, even going by road the Chinese wounded can get to Kongka and Rudok faster than the Indian wounded could get to KM 120. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

And some Chinese whinging from my favourite newspaper:

The Indian government's poor performance in fighting against the COVID-19 epidemic has only served to exacerbate domestic pressure, and a hostile international trading environment caused by US President Donald Trump's administration further hit the Indian economy. Against such a background, a convenient scapegoat was found, China. It works well for the BJP, and now the same tactics have been adopted by the opposition to beat the ruling party.

Not sure why it came up on my radar now. But it made me feel so sorry for the Chinese scapegoat. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3: This is a good reaction report on all this! DTM (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References

The "brutal pushing"

The Indian tent is marked here

At 0:57 [12]. "You are in Indian territory. Go back"? Is Soiba Moningba speaking English or Mandarin? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• The spectacled dark-skinned guy at 0:41. An interpreter? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• The "final line" at 1:09. Nathan Ruser says it is "further back". But, judging by the rocks in the river bed, it looks to me like the same part of the valley. Upstream of PP-14, it had all beeen levelled by the Chinese bulldozers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

At 1:11, you can see the camera zooming out and the whole valley being visible, with the Indians still streaming up from a distance. I suppose the question is, why did China release this video which clearly shows the Chinese troops in Indian territory? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I still haven't been able to watch the whole clip of this. Hopefully will do so. DTM (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Come on. It is only 2 minutes long! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

A three-part series

Subedar Joginder Singh, PVC

• Memories of an unsung war, 29 September 2012.
• Meenakshi's Tezpur, 6 October 2012.
• For the debt of salt, 13 October 2012.

After overrunning some of India’s defences along the IB they met with stiff resistance from a platoon of 1 Sikh under Subedar Joginder Singh. The platoon fought fiercely, losing more than half their men. Subedar Joginder Singh, despite a bullet injury in his thigh, refused to be evacuated and fought on bravely to stem the Chinese advance. The Chinese attacked in waves and finally regrouped in larger numbers to attack the post. Using the lone light machine gun, Subedar Joginder Singh killed many advancing Chinese. When the situation became desperate, he and his men, with their bayonets unsheathed, emerged from their trenches with their war cry, “ Wahe Guruji ka Khalsa wahe guruji ki fateh.” Subedar Joginder Singh was captured by the Chinese, but refused treatment and died a prisoner of war. He was awarded the Param Vir Chakra for his gallantry. There is a memorial to him on the road to Bumla.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

PVC stories are epic. I was lucky to get the chance to hear a PVC awardee in person, fit and alive, at an open public talk at India Gate. I recorded the event and was able to upload an image to his Wikipedia article! Hearing a PVC story from the PVC awardee is a once in a lifetime event for the average person. DTM (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And such a fine job has been done with the busts at the yodha sthal!! Thanks to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga we have images of all the busts. I wonder where Velega is. DTM (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is funny (in a delightful puzzling way). The author, Madhu Gurung, writes in such a wonderful way about 1962 related stories and then goes on to write "Wikipedia estimates that, in the 1962 war, 1,383 Indian soldiers died, while 1,047 were wounded and 3,968 became prisoners of war". I like how this just goes with the flow. DTM (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The fun puzzling part was that she mentioned Wikipedia inline. Just to be precise. DTM (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, most journalists and the public at large don't know how Wikipedia works. But generally, they think Wikipedia is reliable and are willing to consult it and take it at its face value. (Many other journalists have plagiarised Wikipedia and some have plagiarised it and corrupted the content. I even wrote to the editor of The Wire once. While I didn't get a reply, the particular writer seems to have been sanctioned.)

Wikipedia's image has improved over the years. I once heard on Twitter, "my teachers used to scold me for reading Wikipedia, they now give me assignments to read it!". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

---

"Has he abandoned us?"– The second article from The Hindu that is linked echoes the same feeling as I had posted before— ..."he chose to give us away to China" (ref). I had never searched for this before, the sentiment has actually been debated on before and quite recently too. "How should a Prime Minister sound in wartime?" (ref) DTM (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Huge Chinese armies have been marching in the northern part of NEFA. We have had reverses at Walong, Se La and today Bomdila, a small town in NEFA, has also fallen. We shall not rest till the invader goes out of India or is pushed out. I want to make that clear to all of you, and, especially our countrymen in Assam, to whom our heart goes out at this moment. (Nehru, All India Radio; November 20, 1962)

The original speech though seems to convey it differently, of course. DTM (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nehru thought and plenty in the country thought that the Chinese would occupy Assam. The Chinese surprised them by withdrawing. But if I were Assamese, I would ask, how many troops did India station in Assam and how were they prepared/equipped? Why did they fall apart in the face of the Chinese invasion? Honest and accurate answers to all these questions would lead the Assamese to think "he had abandoned us". That is the truth behind the "fog of politics". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Neville Maxwell and British map-makers

From Olaf Caroe in 1962:

Before I go any further I must take exception to a map which appeared in The Times on November 21st, which in my view is extremely misleading. The map, which was on the middle page, had the caption " Tibetan Frontiers before 1914." It showed the line at the foothills as the frontier of Tibet before 1914. Now it looks to me as though The Times has been indoctrinated by China. Of all the National dailies that appeared today-some of them have rather good maps, particularly the Daily Mail-not one of them repeated this error. Why on earth The Times, which has always prided itself on being so well informed on foreign correspondence, should publish a thing which definitely supports Chinese claims against a member of the Commonwealth, I think I must leave it to the audience to judge. The paper actually shows the frontier before 1914 down here; it never was. The Tibetans never penetrated this area, except for one or two monasteries right up in the north of it (Tawang was one of them), where monks levied certain monastic dues.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There are so many interesting phrases in this paragraph!

Why is this titled Neville Maxwell? DTM (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Because I expect the map went with a Neville Maxwell story. He was the reporter for The Times in India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, Caroe had been battling the map-makers for ages:

And what would they make of these documents when British cartographers persisted in showing an international border in Assam which ran along the old Outer Line? This was the case with the major British map publishers like Bartholomew's and it was so with The Times Atlas. Such a border was also to be found in many of the maps included in books and articles by specialists in the affairs of Assam and the Assam Himalayas like Colonel Shakespear and F. Kingdon Ward. As late as 1937 even the Government of Assam, in its Administration Report for 1935-36, reproduced a map showing the offending old Outer Line frontier, as K.P.S. Menon irritably pointed out.[939] Caroe could, of course, make sure that the Survey of India in the fullness of time published the doctrinally correct alignment; and this happened consistently after 1937. What was not so easy was to convince the British cartographers of the errors of their ways (Caroe probably did not lose much sleep over what non-British map makers did other than Chinese).

The problem was not so much that they showed an Outer Line frontier (at the foothills). But rather that they labelled what was beyond as "Tibet" or "China", even though there was no Tibetan/Chinese presence there. So the maps can't be taken too seriously. The map-makers are loath to admit their ignorance. So they pretend to know, much to the detriment of all the people that have to later die for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

The British machinations

Edward Weller map, 1863

Did you ever look for Chumar on this map? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Bump. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I timed myself. Took 1 minute 21 seconds to find it. Then two more minutes to convince myself that this was it. Hell slow.

Chumar is located in a precarious trijunction and is in neither of the three coloured areas as explained by the key. DTM (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, there is a key? I didn't notice. But it is not in any trijunction. It is right smack in Tibet!

So, this is when we start reading Hriday Nath Kaul seriously.

From the movement of the British Commission along the frontier, as also other indications, Golab Singh became painfully aware of what kind of boundary the British had in view to replace the ancient limits of Ladakh. The first commission had determined that the boundary between Ladakh and Spiti should run from Lingti boundary stone to the Lanka Hill and from that along the mountain range on the northern bank of the Cherpa river, "as far as the southern end of the Tsomorreri from which point we understood that the Chinese territory commenced."[40] British objective to extend their territorial limits to the very shores of the Tsomorreri, far to the north, was consistently pursued by them and explorations and surveys for the purpose were conducted even before the formation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. But extension of the Tibetan or, as the British called them, "Chinese" territories was astonishing.

This happened in the first boundary commission, headed by Vance Agnew, and assisted by Alexander Cunningham. Only after the commission "broke up" in August, did the Maharaja's reps come and join Cunningham. What happened with them, we are not told. But Kaul quotes some of Cunningham's writings, which are positively scandalous. But, for the second boundary commission, which happened in 1848, I assumed that things were straightened out. Certainly, Strachey did quite an honest job of finding the actual boundary. So I was surprised to discover that all his work was buried somewhere, the old boundary was still on the records! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to correct myself. This was indeed part of the second boundary commission. The first commission happened in 1846 itself (as soon as the Treaty of Amritsar was signed – "why the hurry?"). The second one was apparently given two years to do its job. So this naughty border was drawn after looking at Strachey's data. If not for Strachey's hand-drawn maps that have survived, we wouldn't have known what was actually found out! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

References

India's delusional mapping

Remember my rant on Talk:Asaphila about V.P. Malik? Well, that was only a start.

Here is Bhuvan2D's map of the Subansiri valley. Notice where Ishneya and Taksing really are, and where Bhuvan marks it. So, whereas Taksing is only about 3 km from the border, India deludes itself into thinking it is some 10-15 km from the border? Does anybody really know what is going on?

If you look at Google Maps, it is even worse. There it is supposedly somewhere up in the snows! Apparently Google is using the coordinates India provides and that is where they show up.

Even more crazily, India has been claiming areas to the west of the confluence of Yume Chu and Subansiri. There is in fact a little village there called " Juga", with maybe about 2 houses, which India claims is Indian. India has a track going up there (or maybe the tribals do). Now, China has built its own track coming from the other side. Then India jumps up and down, claiming "this is Indian territory!"

Is there an end to this madness? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I checked how humdata.org represents Asaphila and if there is any divergence shown as it is represented in nearby Longju area or in Depsang. Not at all.

Logically, ministries and departments related to water or forest or land based resources should have a good maps of Arunachal Pradesh other than the Survey of India itself. On a quick search—(irrigation, pg 46, wetlands, pg 59)— since when has logic ever worked!

More importantly, since we are talking of delusions, there is a book called "Delusional Politics" by Hardeep Singh Puri, the incumbent Union Minister. Delusional mapping may be a subset of all this. I wonder if he talks about delusional mapping in his book... DTM (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added a link to Juga, so that you can see what is going on. I really have no idea why India needs to take up these pangas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Alaskan sparks

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stuck to the deal, speaking for a couple of minutes each. Then it was China's turn, and diplomat Yang Jiechi launched into a monologue that lasted over 16 minutes.

Any idea what he talked for 16 minutes? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Found it.

• New world order born in Anchorage, The Australian Financial Review, 20 March 2021. ProQuest 2502663357

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian gives us a reasonable taste of the exchanges. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Wasington Post has the right take for me: "Biden administration gets a taste of China's wolf warrior diplomacy" [13]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ananth Krishnan has the full story. Eye of the Tiger. Apparently, the 'Tiger' had been a diplomat and foreign minister, including a stint as the Chinese ambassador to the US. He had also been in border talks with India.

These remarks went viral in China, and Mr. Yang was praised for his forthrightness. Some in the Chinese press were drawing comparisons to Mao Zedong’s famous declaration in 1949 that “the Chinese people have stood up”, viewing his comments as laying down a marker in China’s challenge of American dominance.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"However, as the US side first delivered opening remarks, they exceeded the set time limit severely and wantonly attacked China’s domestic and foreign policies, provoking disagreements".
— Zhao Lijian

Never let a fact get in the way of propaganda! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Kashmirisation of India

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, an academic and columnist for the Indian Express, a national newspaper, was one of the few to raise misgivings. A government that gleefully twisted the law and suspended local democracy in one place could surely do the same in another. Mr Modi proposed to "Indianise" Kashmir, noted Mr Mehta. "Instead, what we will see is potentially the Kashmirisation of India."
— The Economist on Downgrading Delhi

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3; Early days.

blah blah blah

The timeline leading to the GNCTD Amendment Act covers a number of major events. They should actually be mentioned in the article. I have worked on the Shaheen Bagh article recently, so from that experience, this is one of the outcomes of the election campaign in Delhi during the Shaheen Bagh protest. (Mehta is quoted twice in that article) BJP just won an additional six seats with AAP retaining a large majority. If you view it from this restricted gaze, then the failure of that election campaign has resulted in the center shifting to different tactics. The campaign in West Bengal has been pushed as well. If BJP doesn't win enough seats in Bengal it can't do much about it. But Delhi is different. Different because it is the capital. This is not merely a symbolic difference.

Then again, this could be called mainstream leftist logic. What do the right wing or central media say about this? I personally haven't read a single article related to all this as yet, only seen the headlines pop up as notifications every now and then. If I want to expand the history leading upto this, then I guess I will have to do some reading.

Kashmirisation of India— I've heard of this being said in different ways. In independent India this started with Nehru himself. Kashmir has been linked to the center and now Delhi. Sometimes I feel the government is seeing how the nation reacts. Like do we react well enough to changes like this. Not reacting just for the sake of winning election, but seeing reaction to identify where security weaknesses lie. The government essentially is law and order. I am not merely talking of the public protesting but more structural and foundational pillars of the nation (not government). This centralisation of power is something that a huge majority of the population won't feel the effects of. I am ranting now.

As a Wikipedia editor, the history leading up to the passage of the law needs to be added to the article. Has this happened in Delhi before? Has it happened in other places in India? Is this law even enforceable? To what extent is it enforceable? How do grieved persons seek remedy? Why did the government feel the need for this? Why now? Can this be called centralisation? Does this really affect day to day functioning of the executive or is this just a signature coming from someone else, in this case a nominated representative as compared to an elected representative? Considering the farm law protests are still going on, what will the government do if another section of the population starts protesting, again in Delhi? Is this just a way to keep AAP's head in Delhi and stop it from expanding elsewhere? So many questions! DTM (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, well, stupid Delhiites. If only they voted for BJP, Delhi could have become a state by now. Now they become another Kashmir. They won't learn except hard way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

GNCTD for dummies (NDTV). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Rocking

It is no exaggeration to say that China’s rise challenges every national interest that the United States has ever had. With its continental economy and cutting-edge technological prowess, Beijing threatens to seep into the nooks and crannies of the liberal international order like butter on an English muffin — clogging the arteries of freedom with the cholesterol of communism and corruption.

No clue why it had to come out on April 1st! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References