How to listen to Nathu La” by A. B. Ray Chaudhury and S Shah. Sub: Unqualified expression warpeth history

Hillman the Analyst, KalimNews, Kalimpong, 2 June 2015: How to listen to Nathu La” by A. B. Ray Chaudhury and S Shah published in Telegraph of 30 may 2015 is an unqualified expression warpeth history. 

The above article is published without proper investigation to note the contents, particularly two points of view 1. ‘Suggesting the old silk route has been traversed by the Chinese travelers Fahien and the monk Hieun Tsang in the 5th and 6th centuries respectively” and 2. Referring khasa ka saman – popular parlance of Chinese goods in Gangtok. These purported errors having subscribed by none other than two researchers of the Observer Research Foundation, Calcutta, is diabolical in concept in similar context when the future Prime Minister of India (read Narendra Modi presently) when during his electioning campaigns suggested rewriting the ancient history of India in pointing out the famous and probably the first university in the world Taxila (Takashila) located near Peshawar in Pakistan, according to then Premiere aspirant, located in Bihar. Not to mention another blunder by promising to abrogate Art.370 under stimulus of electioning campaign and remaining dumb on the issue after occupying the seat of power.

After elected as the Prime Minister and undertaking the first official visit to the neighbouring country of Bhutan the script was available in the print media, the new PM of India during his keynote address in presence of the Bhutanese dignitaries, referred the country, surely unwittingly (extemporarily) as Nepal. The mistake having been pointed out by the Bhutanese dignitary (if memory recollects) infact the Bhutanese premiere himself. To which response, the Indian PM withdrew the mistake and instead replaced Nepal with Ladakh (a part of the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir), was a further blunder whether it was slip of speech only or on account of the excitement and nervousness attached in visiting a foreign state. It is only human to err and after all Na Mo is not only the first among equal, PM, but surely one of the greatest orators after late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. If Mark Anthony could outwit the Roman Senators Na Mo brought down the UPA too obviously aided by a silent PM while the country was dubbed scam India. This is simply to assuage that the greatness of our country lies in forgiveness and let live, at the same time notwithstanding this forbearance, freedom of speech and expression is highly preserved in both extremes of the divide, depending upon the heavier pan of the balance. The adjective ascribes to the powers that be politically, socially, economically and under present tense affiliation to religious denominations. It is of utmost import, the media across the board edit the freedom of expression to appoint the seed only remains after discarding the kernel as unqualified free expression warpeth history to appoint when amending errors is considered sacrilegious. The above precedence is related in order to give relief to A. B. Ray Chaudhury and S. Shah that their historical misquotes are more the rule than the exception in the Indian times space and none can be reprimanded for writing their perspective history which after all itself depicts another time lag. In a sense history requires to be restructured in context to the framework of the socio cultural environment of the time. Nevertheless it requires to be pointed that the two authors and more so being researchers of Observer Research Foundation, Calcutta, is advised to amend certain portion of their contentions in the article published recently in the Telegraph.

1. It is this writer’s belief that the old silk route in reference travelled by Fahien (5th century- set out 399 AD or 337?-422? or 405-411 AD-R Thapar pg.303) and Hieun Tsang (7th century- 600?-64 or 645-664AD) was along the northern (Tashkent) and southern (Kashgar-Balk) routes bordering Taklimakan desert north of Tibet. Both the foreign travelers (including Yijing 635-713) visited Takshila and historical places related to Buddhistic study and research. Infact the Chinese travelers visiting India as Buddhist pilgrims and research scholars for propagating the philosophy of Buddhist precepts and teaching its theory and practice as a quasi religious organization amalgamating Taoism within its purview but quite apart the natural laws prescribed by Confucianism.

2. The present route opened from Nathula for border trade between Sikkim (India) and TARC in 2.China was only opened to traffic after the Younghusband’s expedition to Lhasa in 1904/05 whereas all trade between India and Lhasa (Tibet) was routed via Katmandu (Nepal). Infact the phrase ‘khasa ka saman’ is in reference not to Lhasa the capitol of Tibet, but to Khasa, a border town of Tibet which has now become the chief centre of trade and commerce to Nepal as well as re-export to India. Khasa is now believed to be turned into a manufacturing zone for exports. So in this context only, khasa ka saman maybe made in reference as probably the Chinese highway connecting all the trading points including Khasa in the west and Lhasa the capitol in the north.

It is more often than naught the earlier mule train route from Kalimpong /Gangtok to Lhasa has wrongly been implied as the silk route, this is fallacious in content, as the real silk route lies along the Taklimakan desert. The Indo- Tibet trade after 1904 basically dealt with edible and consumer products as exports from India and animal and minerals products (rock salt, gold, silver, etc) and above all sheep wool was the major product of export from Tibet. Infact it is recorded in history, the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway (DHR) line linking Geili Khola near Teesta Bridge to Siliguri North Railway Station was established in 1915 primarily for transportation of imported Tibetan wool for further transshipment to Calcutta ports for shipment to Liverpool and after 1930 shipped direct to America. The wool was carried by caravan of mule trains from Lhasa to Gangtok (via Nathu la) and to Kalimpong (via Jelep la- Rishi - Pedong - Algarah). The development of Kalimpong is responsible for the imported wool where it was processed and baled for forward dispatch. Even the wool imported to Gangtok was carted to Kalimpong for processing and dispatch via the DHR ropeway in Kalimpong connecting the 27 Mile point of NH31A near Geili Khola where the bales were dispatched for Siliguri North Station on board meter gauge rail line, as stated earlier destined to Calcutta.

In rejoining the topic on Nathu la, the two authors has fairly well elaborated on the important distinction of opening up the pass on June 18 (2015) for Indian pilgrimage destined to distant Manasarovar in western Tibet probably transported onwards from Sherathang – Rinchengang (by four lane highway). Doubtless this long haul of Indian pilgrims from Central Tibet to western Tibet is undertaken to avoid one of the earlier trek route in the western Himalayas viz. Shipla in Himachal Pradesh and Lipulekh/Lupulech in Uttarkhand. The regulation regarding the documentation process of cross border entry formality is of concern while application of the same formality is applied to Nathu la in Sikkim. This for the simple reason the border points in the western Himalayas is more or less undisputed whereas the amalgamation of Sikkim in the Indian union is occasionally under dispute when at times, before and maybe even now, Sikkim is either not shown at all or the area in the map remains without title. Taking these precedential conditionalities into consideration, it is only pertinent to ask the Observer Research Foundation, Calcutta, the method of regulation permitting Indian nationals to enter TARC (China) particularly understanding the absence of a international office for visa/passport regulation. This is in understanding that the present system of border trade is operationalised by an entry permit issued simply by the District Magistrate (East Sikkim). It is also understood after due enquiry that the entry permit is restricted only to Sikkimese domiciles. The question remains to be asked whether Indians other than Sikkimese can apply for the entry permit into TARC for purposes of border trade. This present arrangement itself is arguably questionable. Therefore to further promote the Manasarovar pilgrimage within the sphere of understanding of the entry permit application may not suit the national policy on foreign relations in regard and respect to the question of international boundaries as a whole. 
KarmaT.Pempahishey the writer of this article is popularly known as Hillman the analyst.