Barahoti
Barahoti, also called Wu-Je or Wure, located in the 'middle sector' of the disputed Sino-Indian border, is a sloping plain situated in the Indian state of Uttarakhand, Chamoli district. It is disputed by China, which also disputes a area surrounding it. The entire disputed area also goes by the name "Barahoti", or sometimes "Barahoti–Sangchamalla–Lapthal disputed area". The entire area is on the Ganges side of the Sutlej–Ganges water divide, which is also the current Line of Actual Control between India and China.
Barahoti was the first location in Indian territory claimed by China in 1954. In 1960, China added Lapthal and Sangchamalla to the dispute and said that three places formed one composite area.
Geography
The Himalayan Gazetteer states that the watershed that forms the boundary between India and Tibet in the region of Uttarakhand is "a simple longitudinal range" for the most part, but its structure is a little complicated between the Niti Pass and Unta Dhura. Here the ridge that might have otherwise formed the watershed, is broken through by the Girthi Ganga river and its tributaries and, therefore, the watershed is thrown to the northeast by about 10 miles.The three large pastures of Barahoti, Lapthal and Sangcha lie within this region. The region is bounded in the northeast by a continuous ridge with passes called Niti, Tunjun, Marhi, Shalshal, Balcha and Kungri Bingri, beyond which lay the "great plateau of Guge". The Line of Actual Control between India and China lies on this ridge. To the southwest of the region is the ridge line mentioned in the Himalayan Gazetteer, with a narrow gorge in the middle. The northwestern half of the ridge line is the Hoti ridge, separating the Niti valley and the Hoti river valley. The southeastern half is the ridge that bounds the Girthi Ganga valley. The narrow gorge between the two halves houses the Girthi Ganga river and was said to have been impassable for human travellers. The only access traditionally was over the bounding ridges via mountain passes.
Further southwest of the region are the glaciated high ridges of Himalaya, one in the west and one in the east. Between the two lies the valley of the Dhauliganga River.
The Barahoti pasture is a sloping plain that is said to be in area.
It is about 4 km southwest of Tunjun La on the bank of the Hoti river. The main pasture is on the northeastern face of the Hoti ridge. It can be crossed from the Niti valley via two passes, the Chor Hoti pass and Marchauk La. The Chor Hoti pass leads to the valley of Rimkim Gad, at the bottom of which India currently has a border police post.
In addition to the main pasture, sources also speak of the "Barahoti bowl", which appears to include the entire drainage basin of the Hoti river, which contains several smaller pastures.
The Chinese diplomats refer to it as "Wu-Je" and describe it as 15 km long and 10 km wide. Indian news reports also mention an 80 square kilometre-area.
Lapthal is a large pasture towards the eastern end of the bowl. It is on the bank of the Lapthal river in the Pithoragarh district of Kumaon. It is accessed from the Johar Valley of the Pithoragarh district via Unta Dhura, through the Girthi Ganga valley, and the Kyungar La pass.
Sangcha is a third pasture in the bowl, northeast of Lapthal, on a tributary of a stream called Jhangu Gad below the Balcha Dhura pass. It has two named campsites, Sangcha-talla and Sancha-malla, the latter of which entered the Chinese nomenclature as "Barahoti–Lapthal–Sangchamalla area".
A side route from the Unta Dhura pass leads to the top of the Girthi Ganga valley, where there is a pass called Kungri Bingri into Tibet. The Bhotiya traders of the Johar valley in Pithoragarh have traditionally used this route for their trade with Tibet.
Some traders would also cross into the Lapthal valley via Kyungar La and reach the Shalshal Pass in the middle of the boundary ridge.
History
1700s
Two land-deeds —one sanctioned by P'olha in 1729 and another by 7th Dalai Lama in 1737 — support that the boundary lay just north of Barahoti, in the opinion of India. In contrast, China interprets the documents to regard Barahoti as part of Daba Dzong.1842–1887
Frontier villages in the Kumaon —that served as important conduits in the trans-Tibetan trade of Bhotias— were exempted from paying any taxes to the British authority at the behest of then-commissioner G. T. Lushington, c. late 1842. By and large a fiscal tactic to revitalise a thawed trade, the policy was warmly welcomed by Bhotias and met with success. However, that Tibet collected a variety of taxes from these areas, Lushington was soon advised to assert territorial sovereignty; he refused to tamper with "long established" customs lest it fomented a needless enmity with Tibet and affected the trade.Lushington died six years later but his policies would be practised for about the next fifty years despite occasional disturbances, as at Barahoti. K. Gopalachari, an Indian officer of the Historical Division of the Ministry of External Affairs writing for the International Studies Journal, notes Barahoti to have had paid taxes to Garhwal Kingdom, since at-least 1815.
In 1848, explorer R. Strachey remarked the area to be claimed by Tibet, despite lying within the watershed. He went on to note that the native Bhotias had hardly any ideas about the precise boundaries, and found the issue unworthy of any settlement — "geographers on both sides may left to put the boundary in their maps where they please". The following year, he would pass through Barahoti into Tibet via the Tunjun-la pass and consider it to be British territory in his maps.
In 1866, surveyor Nain Singh had noted of Lhasa's frontier-camp to be situated at Lapthal — he was interrogated about the purpose of his visit.
1888
Tibetan intrusions into Barahoti were first reported in June 1888 — explorer Kishan Singh observed some ten or twelve Tibetans to have set up a camp, locally known as the Guard House.1889
A near-similar event occurred around September 1889 and they even compelled the touring Assistant Commissioner of Kumaon to withdraw to safety.The local Patwari, unable to resist the intrusion, intimated the Commissioner of Kumaon Division who in turn, informed the Foreign Office. Also, Dutt arranged for a letter to be dispatched to the governor of the adjacent Tibetan province about violations of boundary via two of the intruding Tibetans themselves but the letter was returned without being opened, a few days later. Soon, commissioner Erskine confirmed that a Tibetan customs-house was operating in what was British territory, but felt no need to raise any hullaballoo over.
However, back in the Foreign Office, Undersecretary G. R. Irwin deemed of it to be an encroachment which ought not be tolerated and a 200 strong column of sepoys was dispatched from Sobha around early November, 1889. But by the time they reached Barahoti —late November— winter was in its peak, and Tibetans had long retreated back. Major Pulley remarked that Barahoti exhibited not a sign of life and it was hard for him to imagine a more desolate and inhabitable place.
C. W. Brown, in his magnum opus on Tibetan-Bhotia trade, feels Britain to have had fundamentally misunderstood Tibet's actions. Lhasa had gone about its usual practice of vesting ordinary natives from its frontier villages as messengers to declare the trading session open, collect due trade-taxes from a temporary outpost, and prevent non-complying traders from entering into Tibet. There was no motive to usurp territory.
1890
In early June 1890, a few Tibetans were back at Barahoti and a picket was reestablished. To and fro discussions proliferated within the concerned ministry about tackling the issue though some doubted whether it was a cause, significant enough to pursue. However, the government soon perceived the traders to be acting on behalf of Tibet in that they enforced certain "bonds" on natives. Brown.On 29 June the Government decided to ask the North-Western Provinces to deal with these intrusions strictly, and enforce territorial claims at Barahoti. Two days later, on the basis of a letter from the local patwari, the ministry evaluated that Tibet had acknowledged British sovereignty over Barahoti, and only engaged in routine cross-border trade. However, the letter was "not lucidly written" and officials proposed that a civil officer be sent to the disputed territory for dual purposes of conducting a detailed investigation as well as enforcing territorial sovereignty.
In November, the Deputy Collector of Kumaon was sent down to convince the Serji about the alignment of international boundary along a series of mountain-passes and the watershed, running north of Barahoti. However, he was suggested to take his concerns to Lhasa.
1905
In 1905, Charles A Sherring, a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society toured across Western Tibet from India. He noted of Barahoti to lie in Indian territory, and the border pass at Tunjun-la.1914
In the Simla Convention, Charles Alfred Bell intimated Paljor Dorje Shatra about Barahoti lying within British territory; the border was claimed to pass through Tunjun-la pass and a map was provided to the same effect.According to India, that Tibet failed to raise any objections, the principle of acquiescence applies. China rejects this interpretation. Shatra had only wished to "investigate the matter" and Tibet continued to send troops for years, implying a rejection of Bell's arguments.
1952
In July 1952, the Indian Intelligence Bureau prepared a note titled "Border Disputes and Collection of Taxes by Tibetans in Garhwal District". It stated that there appeared to be a border dispute regarding the Barahoti plain. After recounting the history during the British Raj, it remarked that Tibetans appear to have reestablished a post at Barahoti in the recent years. It recounted an incident in 1951, when the Dzongpen of Daba took umbrage at Indian traders setting up trade at the Hoti plain and even served them notices. The IB went on to criticize the absence of Garhwal authorities in the region and speculated that, if the Tibetans were allowed to continue their activity, they might eventually claim the territory. It supported the idea of the Deputy Commissioner visiting Barahoti annually with an armed escort and hoisting the Indian flag.The Ministry of External Affairs however believed that the Tibetan officials's actions were due to suffering loss of revenue as the Indian traders were not using the customary trading location at Nabra in Tibet. The State Government disagreed that any "encroachment" had taken place in any area barring the odd Tibetan tax-collectors, who nonetheless went back on persuasion. Highlighting the difficulty of arranging any meaningful defence at such remote high altitude locations, it hoped for a quick diplomatic resolution to avoid such sporadic "embarrassment".