This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Demchok, Ladakh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have actually traveled to Demchok before. It is definitely under Chinese control. This article is soooooo pro-Indian, it was probably written by an Indian! Wikipedia is getting shittier by the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 71.146.145.81 ( talk) 05:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The locator map ( File:IN-JK.svg) used for Jammu and Kashmir in this article is incorrect. It shows part of Aksai Chin (bottom right) as controlled by India and the Trans-Karakoram tract as part of Pakistan. I have already notified the uploader User:Filpro on Commons of this error so that he can upload a new version. The best locator map for JK was this File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg but it is now outdated and does not demarcate Telangana.
The error in Filpro's map for JK is replicated over other locator maps by him as well which are currently used in articles for all Indian states. We cannot keep using these maps and they should be replaced by the correct ones. It would be great if Filpro can upload correct versions shortly but the current incorrect maps shouldn't stay there for long; we can use {{ mapframe}} and display OpenStreetMap in the meantime. Thanks. Gotitbro ( talk) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The Chinese narrative mentions that on October 28: “the Chinese troops had achieved their objectives and had occupied the Kailash Range that dominated the eastern bank of the Indus Valley. All the seven Indian strongholds in this sub-sector were removed and New Demchok itself was captured.”
The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok.
After studying things a bit, I find that the Indian feelings of self-righteous indignation are not quite valid. The Chinese claim line is the same as the boundary published by British India in its Kashmir Atlas of 1867. This map is curiously missing from the Indian government's collection [4]. But the Qing Chinese map in the collection shows the same border. So does the high-resolution French military map of World War I times, displayed on the side here. (Use the map viewer to narrow down to the area.) The British moved the border up from Demchok to Fukche (the junction with the Koyul River). Why they did so is unclear. Alastair Lamb says it was a "balancing act". They claimed extra territory near the Spanggur Lake and gave up some territory in the Demchok sector. I can't find any discussion of this anywhere. If somebody has Parshotam Mehra's Negotiating with the Chinese, there might be some discussion there.
But these British map-making exercises don't seem to have made any difference on the ground. Both the Ladakhis and the Tibetans still regarded Demchok as the border, as pointed out by Claude Arpi's article mentioned above. The 1959 Indian government's border definition is essentially this, except that it took the liberty to move it to the watersheds (crests of the mountain ridges) surrounding the area. This is not unreasonable. But many scholars point out that it had to be negotiated with the Chinese. India couldn't just put up border posts in the territory that was clearly marked as Tibetan territory in all the maps of the time, except India's own self-declared maps.
There wasn't really much fighting in the area in the 1962 war. The border posts were manned by J&K Militia ( Ladakh Scouts). India tactically withdrew them, expecting that the Chinese would attack with overwhelming force as they were doing elsewhere. The Chinese forces came up to the Indus river in their claimed area, but not beyond. Romesh Bhattacharji says that the LAC is the right bank of the Indus river and that the Chinese maps show it as the "IB" (international border). I can't verify this. All the maps I have seen show the Chinese claim line. (google.cn isn't accessible to me, if it still exists.) -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the CIA map that we take to be authentic, here is an interpretation of the state of affairs that is consistent with everything I know. The war histories of 1962 say that the Indian troops withdrew to Koyul and Dungti, which are outside the Chinese claim line. So, the Chinese deem themselves to have advanced to their claim line (which is now the "Line of Actual Control" in their view, as confirmed by the CIA). But withdrew to the other side of the Indus as a mark of their large-heartedness (don't laugh). So, they let the Indians use this side of the Indus, but do not allow any permanent constructions there. They also deem fit to enter it at any time they please in order to block or threaten people. Indians have been playing along with this interpretation of the LAC but explain it to their citizens as a "difference in perceptions of the LAC".
Here are some tidbits from a BJP study group headed by Nitin Gadkari in 2010: [1]
So, it seems that officially the Chinese claim line is the LAC. Indians can't object to the incursions because they know this.
You wonder why this Chinese largesse? I think the reason is that the Chinese know their claim line in Demchok is bogus. Yeah, the British drew stupid maps, but nobody ever took any account of them. All the historical documents say clearly that " Demchok Lhari Karpo" is the border. So, I think the Chinese will be quite willing to withdraw from there, but only after India settles the big ticket items, viz., Aksai Chin and Tawang. Until then, we will only have smoke and mirrors. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Gotitbro: Regarding your revert: the village of Demchok itself is disputed, with some RSes saying that it's administered by India and some RSes saying that it's administered by China. The village of Demchok (through which the Charding Nullah runs) is different from Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture (physically east of the Charding Nullah).
The aforementioned RSes:
Also, it's just false that other names aren't common for lead
. See
MOS:BOLDSYN, which explicitly states that
Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold:
, with prominent examples including Mumbai (GA), Delhi (GA), Mysore (FA), Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Chongqing, Dhaka (FA), Kyoto, Tokyo, The Catlins (FA). — MarkH21 talk 11:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
China administers Demchok districtthat they are only saying “China administers the part of Demchok district that is administered by China”? That those statements are implicitly excluding the village that lies in the middle of the entire area?If there is a source saying that the 325-person village of Palisades is in Texas and sources say that Texas is in the United States, would you deem them as not directly supporting the claim that the Palisades, Texas is in the United States? Would you require that an editor find a source that explicitly says
Palisades, Texas is in the United States? — MarkH21 talk 12:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Demchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, India, supported solely by two Indian government websites. That’s absolutely not WP:NPOV, and is not how disputed territories are treated here. Again, take a look at how the high-traffic articles on disputed territories handle this, like Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, and Senkaku Islands. — MarkH21 talk 12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is on the Indian-administered village, and I recommend that the dispute issues should be kept out of it as far as possible. Does that help? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
As is done in the articles on other major disputed places, the first sentence should not just state that it is in one disputing party.I don’t mind replacingDemchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, India.
Sources vary on whether it is administered by China or Indiawith a statement describing the current state of control that is sourced to RSes. — MarkH21 talk 13:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
previous, I meant before the edit at the top of this thread, and the one in my link. I didn’t mean to imply that it was long-standing. I’ll post at WP:NPOVN for the NPOV wording issue (it seems to be part of a broader question about disputed territory wording, so NPOVN seems appropriate). The alternative names doesn’t seem to be an issue anymore so I’ll place those back in. — MarkH21 talk 13:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Why did you call the merge, which you not only did not contest at Talk:Charding Nullah#Dêmqog, but also offered a suggestion at Talk:Charding Nullah#East and west, a "disruption"? At the very least, assume good faith for the merge and explain what you are contesting about it. — MarkH21 talk 12:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
— MarkH21 talk 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)See the three drafts I've placed for the reorganization proposal: User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah, User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute, User:MarkH21/Demchok. If you don't object, I'll go ahead and enact the proposal (after some tweaking to what's currently in the drafts)
— MarkH21 talk23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It's absolutely fine to have an article about the physical village, mentioning its claimed administration by both countries, as is done for numerous article about disputed places (e.g. Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, Senkaku Islands, Banc du Geyser). The formatting of those examples is done well, and can be mimicked here. It doesn't make sense to create a Western Sahara, Morocco and Western Sahara, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic with nearly identical content except for the text on administration and governance, just as it doesn't make sense to do that here.
— MarkH21 12:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The Chinese administration claims both physical villages to collectively be Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture. The articles may need to be modified somehow regarding this.
— MarkH21 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
To elaborate further now, since you actually contest it for an undisclosed reason, we have currently two articles: Demchok is about both the combined village (historically described as the village with the Lhari stream running through the middle) and the Indian-administered part on the western bank of the Charding Nullah. Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture is about the Chinese-administered part on the eastern bank of the Charding Nullah.the information specific to the village(s) itself is very short
— MarkH21 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, this is the second-oldest extant description of Demchok after the nondescript mention in the Ladakhi Chronicles. Furthermore, the several reliable sources, e.g. Lamb (1965) and Richardson, that discuss the entity of "a single village of Demchok divided into two halves by the Charding Nullah" means that it is something that is notable and well-defined for WP.Also, how does it still make sense to describe the historical treatment of Demchok in the article on the Indian-administered village based on your claim that it may not have existed before 1903? The placement of historical discussions about "Demchok" is still a matter of poorly defined scope.Size is a consideration for WP:SIZESPLIT. The articles being small means that SIZESPLIT isn't a consideration. — MarkH21 talk 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)a hamlet of half a dozen huts and tents, not permanently inhabited, divided by a rivulet
— Henry Strachey in 1847 (quoted in Lamb 1964, p. 68)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to merge
Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture into
Demchok, as is done in the draft at
User:MarkH21/Demchok.
The three entities named "Demchok" and "Dêmqog" (combined village, northwestern half, and southeastern half) are currently split across two articles in an unnatural division of scope. They should be merged on the basis of both
WP:OVERLAP and
WP:PRECISE.
Current situation
|
---|
|
The only options that make sense are to have a combined article as proposed or to have three separate articles ( Demchok, Demchok, Ladakh, and Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture). The content here doesn't justify the latter option, while a combined article is both consistent with other articles and makes sense. — MarkH21 talk 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
refers to the village of Demchok, which, he says, belongs to Gartok in Tibet and is thus on the eastern side of the boundary. [1]
the last village on the Tibetan side" (travelling towards Ladakh) [2]
the first location on the Tibetan side of the border" (travelling to Tibet). [2]
[Demchok] is a hamlet [...] divided by a rivulet
— Henry Strachey in 1847, quoted in Alastair Lamb, The China-India border (1964), p. 68
"the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 38
Even in the Lange source from which you quote Hedin, Demchok is clearly drawn with structures on both banks in Fig. 5. Is there even a single historical source that says that Demchok was only on one bank of the river?Your quotes say that it is a village on the Tibetan side of the border. This is not the same as saying that it is a village on one side of the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream, particularly since maps in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century generally showed the border several miles west of the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream and Demchok:Demchok [...] which is located on both banks of a stream at its junction with the Indus
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 48
British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards have shown the border to lie some ten miles or so to the west of Demchok
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 48
The naming is significantly more obfuscating in the current situation. Right now, the division of coverage across the articles suggests that the historical Demchok is precisely the northwestern bank settlement administered by India, but multiple historians write that it corresponds to settlements on both banks. If your claim that the historical Demchok was solely on the southeastern bank is correct, then the situation is even worse by covering it in the article on the northwestern bank! — MarkH21 talk 02:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)the Kashmir Atlas (Sheet 17) put [the boundary] about sixteen miles downstream on the Indus from Demchok.
— Alastair Lamb, The China-India border (1964), pp. 72–73
Buildings or landmark featuresfor the black dots. Furthermore, the name labels in the map only correspond to black dots.This is also another example of a map that shows both Demchok settlements being in Tibet, with the border several miles west. — MarkH21 talk 16:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
is administered as part of the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh by India) misleadingly suggests that the Indian-administered half is the historical village referred to by historical sources and incoming wikilinks. — MarkH21 talk 03:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
References
MarkH21, this page was created as a page on the Indian village. You cannot unilaterally change it to something else. So, please make a proposal and discuss it properly. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There’s literally an example called Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus. And another called Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds. Sounds a lot like "Undiscussed". — MarkH21 talk 15:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions are inadequate to legitimately oppose the change.
Let's break this down into its pieces:
In more detail on each:
In [the Treaty of Tingmosgang's] surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at 'the Lhari stream at Demchok', a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
— Lamb, Alastair (1965), "Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute" (PDF), The Australian Year Book of International Law: 38
[Demchok] is a hamlet of half a dozen huts and tents, not permanently inhabited, divided by a rivulet (entering the left bank of the Indus) which constitutes the boundary of this quarter between Gnari ... [in Tibet] ... and Ladakh
— Lamb, Alastair (1964), The China-India border, Oxford University Press, p. 68
The village itself was divided into two parts one held by India and the other by China after the 1962 Sino-Indian war, though there is not a single divided family.
— Puri, Luv (2 August 2005). "Ladakhis await re-opening of historic Tibet route". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China’s Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d’Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954. [...] Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India’s border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul’s insistence Chen said “There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok”. [...] In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia. The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok.
— Arpi, Claude (19 May 2017). "The Case of Demchok". Indian Defence Review. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
Finally, on the Indus, Moorcroft refers to the village of Demchok, which, he says, belongs to Gartok in Tibet and is thus on the eastern side of the boundary.
— Lamb, Alastair (1964), The China-India border, Oxford University Press, p. 61-62
Abdul Wahid Radhu, a former representative of the Lopchak caravan, described Demchok in his travel account as “the first location on the Tibetan side of the border”.
— Lange, Diana (2017), "Decoding Mid-19th Century Maps of the Border Area between Western Tibet, Ladakh, and Spiti", Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines,The Spiti Valley Recovering the Past and Exploring the Present, p. 353
British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards have shown the border to lie some ten miles or so to the west of Demchok
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 48
— MarkH21 talk 15:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)the Kashmir Atlas (Sheet 17) put [the boundary] about sixteen miles downstream on the Indus from Demchok.
— Alastair Lamb, The China-India border (1964), pp. 72–73
Unfortantely, WP:Walls of text do not get us any closer to resolution. So, please avoid them. I have told you what I think about Henry Strachey, Alastair Lamb, Luv Puri's assertions about the single village. I don't need to repeat them. Regarding Moorcroft and Radhu's testimony, I understand that your concern is that we don't know where the border was. In the RfM, I also mentioned Hedin, to which also I suppose you would raise the same objection.
The answer is that we know where the border was. It was at the Charding Nullah/Lhari stream. That is where it was when Strachey went there as a boundary commissioner in 1847. The Tibetan border guards blocked him from going beyond. That is where it was in 1939, when the Wazir of Ladakh and the British Trade Agent went there. As Claude Arpi tells you (in the same article you cited), "This stream forms a natural boundary between Tibet and Kashmir at Demchok.
" So the Charding Nullah was the border throughout the British period. The border was not where the Kashmir Survey and the Kashmir Atlas said it was. So it is entirely pointless to bring in the Kashmir Atlas.
Now, the Indian government encroached upon the Tibetan territory south of the Charding Nullah some time after 1954, and forcibly occupied it by sending troops. When the Chinese troops arrived, they took it back. This seems entirely normal, irrespective of all their respective protestations. All these things happened due to the same misconception that you have, viz., that there was a "single Demchok village" that had to belong to one side or the other. There wasn't. There were two separate villages under separate administrations, as the sources make it clear. The Ladakhi Demchok village didn't have any permanent inhabitants till about 1921. [1] So the passing travellers wouldn't have known that there was a "village" there. But the surveyors apparently knew that there was something. There was a certainly campground there all throughout the period, and perhaps some seasonal farming as well. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
entirely pointless to bring in the Kashmir Atlas; you brought up three WP:PRIMARY accounts (Moorcroft, Radhu, and Hedin) that remarked that Demchok was in Tibet whereas a plethora of maps at the time (e.g.
British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards) placed the Ladakh-Tibet border several miles west of Demchok. Anyone using such a map would have remarked that Demchok was the first settlement on the Tibetan side of the border.
there were were two separate villages under separate administrations. You haven't even provided a single RS that describes Demchok in the plural. Every single source that talks about pre-1962 Demchok (including the Treaty of Tingmosgang in the 17th century, Moorcroft in the 18th century, the British commissions & surveys in the 19th century, Alastair Lamb & the Indian and Chinese documents in the 20th century, and Luv Puri & Claude Arpi & Diana Lange in the 21st century) mentions it as a single village. You are single-handedly asserting that all of these sources have the
same misconception that [I] have. — MarkH21 talk 08:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
In between at the mouth of the nullah stands a big minaret of stones. In it is fixed a wood which looks like a flag. This is the boundary line. [2]
each page stands on its own. Wouldn’t these articles be subject to the same editing procedures and guidelines/policies as all other articles? E.g. concerns about excessive overlap or content being out-of-scope being subject to discussions like they would be at East Berlin vs West Berlin vs Berlin vs History of Berlin vs Germany vs etc. One can naturally edit the articles, add background/context related to the main subject (in parentheses above), and make other changes as usual. Any future merges, further splits, scope changes, etc. based on new information/sources (or otherwise) would be new discussions. — MarkH21 talk 19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
My proposal is exactly what Gotitbro recommended:
In addition, Demchok (historical village) gets created and developed. No other changes are made to any other pages. We will revisit the issue perhaps a few months down the road after the shape of the new page becomes clearer.
I think the comparison between Berlin, the capital of Germany and one of the greatest cities of Europe, and this place, a hamlet of half-a-dozen huts about which practically nothing is known, is implausibly far-fetched. I suggest we drop any such imaginations. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
References
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Kautilya3: The Chinese sources literally describe "Parigas district" as the 450 sqkm area surrounding / to the west of Demchok village that is "illegally occupied by India". They doesn’t use it to refer to the village at all. — MarkH21 talk 23:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
西线巴里加斯印度控制450平方公里(我军曾对部分地区前出巡逻设防),主要位于狮泉河、典角村以西和班公湖西段。
[West of the line, India controls 450 square kilometers of Parigas (our army used to patrol and defend some areas), mainly located in Shiquan River, west of Dêmqog Village and west of Pangong Lake.]
— "中国对印战略:装甲集团沿三线突击两日可抵新德里" (in Chinese). Sina News. 25 August 2017. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
在中印边界西段,“1959年控制线”倒是有点学问,因为这条线就是中印传统边界线,但不包括巴里加斯地区(约450平方公里)
[In the western section of the Sino-Indian border, the "1959 Line of Control" is a bit clearer, because this line is the traditional Sino-Indian border, but it does not include the Parigas district (about 450 square kilometers)]
— 163 News
It's more than just the Indian-controlled disputed territory since the sources say that India controls 450 sqkm of the southwest corner of Parigas. — MarkH21 talk 18:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)1955年,進一步蠶食巴里加斯地區,如今,印度控制巴里加斯西南角即獅泉河(森格藏布)與卓普河(典角曲)以西大約450平方公里
[In 1955, the Indian army further encroached on the Parigas district. Today, India controls about 450 square kilometers west of the Shiquan River (Seng Zangbo) and the Zhuopu River (Dêmqog Village) in the southwest corner of Parigas.
— "典角村,固有領土的見證,如今,600米外駐紮印軍" (in Chinese). Headline Daily. 11 June 2020. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
I’m not sure if there's a specific name for the part of Parigas east of the Shiquan/Indus river. But Parigas seems to encompass a larger area, the southwest corner of which is the Indian-controlled part of the Demchok sector.For English-language Chinese sources, the Chinese report from the 1960 meeting uses "Demchok" (e.g. Part 1). The China Daily/ People's Daily uses "Demchok" in English for the Indian-administered village:拉达克人说,在碟木绰克和班公...
[Ladakhis say that in "Diémùchuòkè" and Pangong ...]
— NYT article
— MarkH21 talk 21:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Indian media said yesterday that work on the road to link Demchok village, which is 300 kilometers southeast of Leh, beyond India's last post in the Ladakh region, was stopped in October after objections by China.
The 8-km road was being built in the remote Demchok area of the Buddhist-dominated Ladakh area near the Line of Actual Control (LAC), a military line that divides Indian Kashmir and the part held by China.
— People's Daily article
West of Demchok, after crossing the Chopu river, one arrived at Parigas. There’s also an Indian news article in The Wire that says that
Demchok, which is in Ladakh and claimed by China, was named Parigas.This is a strange one. It's possible that Chinese sources used "Parigas" for the Indian-administered village in the past, but so far there aren't really any Chinese-published sources that I can find using it that way. Certainly, modern Chinese sources do not use "Parigas" for either village and only use it for the larger area. — MarkH21 talk 22:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
— MarkH21 talk 08:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)其中除了一块很小的巴里加斯(Parigas)地区在本世纪50年代中期被印度侵占以外,其余地区始终在我控制之下,由西藏的日土县(1960年前为宗)管辖。
[Except for the small 巴里加斯 (Parigas) area which was invaded by India in the mid-1950s, the rest of the area was always under China's control and under the jurisdiction of Tibet's (pre-1960) Rutog County.]
— Article by Fang Jianchang from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
If India controls the southwest corner of Parigas, then Parigas cannot be solely the Indian-controlled part... — MarkH21 talk 10:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC) An source that clearly defines Parigas:今,印度控制巴里加斯西南角即獅泉河(森格藏布)與卓普河(典角曲)以西大約450平方公里
[Today, India controls about 450 square kilometers west of the Shiquan River (Seng Zangbo) and the Zhuopu River (Dêmqog Village) in the southwest corner of Parigas.]
I don't know what "基古纳鲁河" (Jigunalu River) and "果洛" (Guoluo) refer to, but at least there are more data points and locations. Whether the boundary includes the Indian-claimed region under Chinese administration is still unclear, so I agree that we cannot yet say that "Parigas district" is an alternative name for "Demchok sector". Given that it is always described as disputed though, I think we could say that the "Parigas district" is at least part of the Demchok sector. — MarkH21 talk 12:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)巴里加斯(Parigas),是中国和印度西部边境中的一块争议领土,面积约1900平方公里,包括基古纳鲁河、乌木隆、碟木绰克(Demchok), 果洛等地区。[...] 巴里加斯中国固有领土,位于西藏阿里噶尔县西北
[巴里加斯 (Parigas) is a disputed territory on the western border between China and India. It covers an area of approximately 1,900 square kilometers, including areas such as the Jigunalu River, Umlung, 碟木绰克 (Demchok), Guoluo, and other areas. [...] Parigas, China's inherent territory, is located in the northwest of Gar County in Tibet.
— Article from Hunan Daily (the official newspaper of the Hunan Provincial Party Standing Committee)
jī gǔ nà lǔ hé is now translated by Google translate as "Kigunaru river", a familiar name to the Indian readers. Kigunaru (or Kegunaro) is a grazing ground at the Chang La.
Guoluo is roughly where the Indian claim line crosses the Indus river (marked based on map.tianditu.gov.cn). -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Change Indian administered Ladakh /LAC map slightly as area east of
Demchok is under administration of China since 1962 war. Please greyed out that area east of
Demchok .
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53174887
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/nov/26/intelligence-agencies-warn-of-chinese-build-up-in-south-ladakhs-zeo-la-region-1903203.html
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ritabharidevi (
talk •
contribs) 11:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/guest-column/story/20200608-standing-up-to-a-stand-off-1683231-2020-05-30
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-tensions-in-eastern-ladakh-spike-briefly-after-locals-celebrate-dalai-lamas-bday/articleshow/70200054.cms
https://twitter.com/indopac_info/status/1267489461568335873
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/diplomacy/story/20130506-intrusion-by-china-india-border-dispute-763323-1999-11-30
http://ntdin.tv/en/article/english/indian-army-build-surveillance-capabilities-6-7-areas-along-lac
--
Ritabharidevi (
talk) 11:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
MarkH21's contest for this content:
Thus the Demchok Lhari Karpo and the main Demchok village got divided, the former falling on the Ladakh side of the border and the latter on the Tibetan side. A secondary Demchok settlement apparently grew up on the Ladakhi side. When Henry Strachey visited the area in 1847, he found Demchok settlements on both the sides of the Lhari stream, and the stream was still the prevailing border between Ladakh and Tibet. [1]
References
- ^ Lamb, The China-India border (1964), p. 68 . Strachey however regarded the two settlements as forming a single hamlet, but divided into two parts by the Lhari stream.
Edit summary: rm part not in the cited ref
My comments:
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
a secondary Demchok settlement apparently grew up on the Ladakhi side.This seems like synthesis between the premise that Demchok consisted solely of settlements on the southeast bank pre-1847 (which is an even stronger assertion than point 1 above, since there would have to be no settlement on the northwest bank in addition to the southeast bank being a "main" one) and the post-1847 observations of settlements on both banks.
he described Demchok as a single hamlet with settlements on both the sides of the Lhari stream and the stream as the prevailing border between Ladakh and Tibet.So the part in the footnote was removed as it was then reflected in the article wording itself; this wasn't a significant change. The other part of the change was that Strachey also didn't say that it was
stillthe prevailing border; just that it was the border (i.e.
stillgives an implication about the past that Strachey didn't make himself). — MarkH21 talk 10:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
And of course 20th century primary sources describe settlements on both banks. But again, we don't have any sources whatsoever that say anything about Demchok between the 17th century and 1847.The footnote that you just added here, for instance, is a 1900-1901 primary source description of Demchok being on the Tibetan side of the border, which doesn't say anything about pre-1847 Demchok. There is also the same issue from before about these sources saying that it was in Tibet is not the same as saying that Demchok was on the southeast bank, given that contemporaneous maps showed the border running 10 miles west of Demchok.In other words, the current wording says that pre-1847 Demchok had a main village on the southeast bank. This is cited to late 19th century and early 20th century maps and primary sources that describe Demchok during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. — MarkH21 talk 13:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)In [the Treaty of Tingmosgang's] surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to How into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 38
a secondary Demchok settlement apparently grew up on the Ladakhi side. We can say that X and Y said that Demchok was in Tibet in year Z, but it is OR/SYNTH to use them to say that Demchok was primarily on the southeast bank between the 17th century and 1847. — MarkH21 talk 13:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
A short distance N. W. of Demchok, the road passes a partly frozen brook coming from Demchok-pu, a tributary valley from the left. A miserable stone bridge is built across the watercourse. At the left side of the mouth of this little valley, are the ruins of two or three houses, which were said to have belonged to Hemi-gompa. A pyramidal peak at the same, or left side of the valley, is called La-ri and said to be sacred. The valley, Demchok-pu, itself is regarded as the boundary between Tibet and Ladak. [1]
It looks like we are back to square-A. To rehash my argument, if there was indeed a Ladakhi Demchok village (or settlement) prior to the 17th century partition, it wouldn't have disappeared. So the fact that it didn't exist in the 20th century means that it didn't exist to begin with. Even your favourite scholar agrees with that: "[Demchok]... which except for a few rude houses was really a camping ground seasonally occupied
".
[2]
Even Strachey, in the map included in his book, [3] shows only one Demchok village to the southeast of the Lhari stream. So, he knew the reality even though for some odd reason, he generated a pointless controversy. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.We can only state what the accounts said in the years that they visited. — MarkH21 talk 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
References
This link added to the 'Further reading' section seems to be more than an opinion piece than a news article and I don't think that it is suitable to be added to a Wikipedia article. Moreover, it is 7 years old now, and the picture painted may not accurately represent the present-day situation. The Discoverer ( talk) 04:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Demchok, Ladakh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have actually traveled to Demchok before. It is definitely under Chinese control. This article is soooooo pro-Indian, it was probably written by an Indian! Wikipedia is getting shittier by the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 71.146.145.81 ( talk) 05:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The locator map ( File:IN-JK.svg) used for Jammu and Kashmir in this article is incorrect. It shows part of Aksai Chin (bottom right) as controlled by India and the Trans-Karakoram tract as part of Pakistan. I have already notified the uploader User:Filpro on Commons of this error so that he can upload a new version. The best locator map for JK was this File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg but it is now outdated and does not demarcate Telangana.
The error in Filpro's map for JK is replicated over other locator maps by him as well which are currently used in articles for all Indian states. We cannot keep using these maps and they should be replaced by the correct ones. It would be great if Filpro can upload correct versions shortly but the current incorrect maps shouldn't stay there for long; we can use {{ mapframe}} and display OpenStreetMap in the meantime. Thanks. Gotitbro ( talk) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The Chinese narrative mentions that on October 28: “the Chinese troops had achieved their objectives and had occupied the Kailash Range that dominated the eastern bank of the Indus Valley. All the seven Indian strongholds in this sub-sector were removed and New Demchok itself was captured.”
The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok.
After studying things a bit, I find that the Indian feelings of self-righteous indignation are not quite valid. The Chinese claim line is the same as the boundary published by British India in its Kashmir Atlas of 1867. This map is curiously missing from the Indian government's collection [4]. But the Qing Chinese map in the collection shows the same border. So does the high-resolution French military map of World War I times, displayed on the side here. (Use the map viewer to narrow down to the area.) The British moved the border up from Demchok to Fukche (the junction with the Koyul River). Why they did so is unclear. Alastair Lamb says it was a "balancing act". They claimed extra territory near the Spanggur Lake and gave up some territory in the Demchok sector. I can't find any discussion of this anywhere. If somebody has Parshotam Mehra's Negotiating with the Chinese, there might be some discussion there.
But these British map-making exercises don't seem to have made any difference on the ground. Both the Ladakhis and the Tibetans still regarded Demchok as the border, as pointed out by Claude Arpi's article mentioned above. The 1959 Indian government's border definition is essentially this, except that it took the liberty to move it to the watersheds (crests of the mountain ridges) surrounding the area. This is not unreasonable. But many scholars point out that it had to be negotiated with the Chinese. India couldn't just put up border posts in the territory that was clearly marked as Tibetan territory in all the maps of the time, except India's own self-declared maps.
There wasn't really much fighting in the area in the 1962 war. The border posts were manned by J&K Militia ( Ladakh Scouts). India tactically withdrew them, expecting that the Chinese would attack with overwhelming force as they were doing elsewhere. The Chinese forces came up to the Indus river in their claimed area, but not beyond. Romesh Bhattacharji says that the LAC is the right bank of the Indus river and that the Chinese maps show it as the "IB" (international border). I can't verify this. All the maps I have seen show the Chinese claim line. (google.cn isn't accessible to me, if it still exists.) -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the CIA map that we take to be authentic, here is an interpretation of the state of affairs that is consistent with everything I know. The war histories of 1962 say that the Indian troops withdrew to Koyul and Dungti, which are outside the Chinese claim line. So, the Chinese deem themselves to have advanced to their claim line (which is now the "Line of Actual Control" in their view, as confirmed by the CIA). But withdrew to the other side of the Indus as a mark of their large-heartedness (don't laugh). So, they let the Indians use this side of the Indus, but do not allow any permanent constructions there. They also deem fit to enter it at any time they please in order to block or threaten people. Indians have been playing along with this interpretation of the LAC but explain it to their citizens as a "difference in perceptions of the LAC".
Here are some tidbits from a BJP study group headed by Nitin Gadkari in 2010: [1]
So, it seems that officially the Chinese claim line is the LAC. Indians can't object to the incursions because they know this.
You wonder why this Chinese largesse? I think the reason is that the Chinese know their claim line in Demchok is bogus. Yeah, the British drew stupid maps, but nobody ever took any account of them. All the historical documents say clearly that " Demchok Lhari Karpo" is the border. So, I think the Chinese will be quite willing to withdraw from there, but only after India settles the big ticket items, viz., Aksai Chin and Tawang. Until then, we will only have smoke and mirrors. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Gotitbro: Regarding your revert: the village of Demchok itself is disputed, with some RSes saying that it's administered by India and some RSes saying that it's administered by China. The village of Demchok (through which the Charding Nullah runs) is different from Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture (physically east of the Charding Nullah).
The aforementioned RSes:
Also, it's just false that other names aren't common for lead
. See
MOS:BOLDSYN, which explicitly states that
Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold:
, with prominent examples including Mumbai (GA), Delhi (GA), Mysore (FA), Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Chongqing, Dhaka (FA), Kyoto, Tokyo, The Catlins (FA). — MarkH21 talk 11:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
China administers Demchok districtthat they are only saying “China administers the part of Demchok district that is administered by China”? That those statements are implicitly excluding the village that lies in the middle of the entire area?If there is a source saying that the 325-person village of Palisades is in Texas and sources say that Texas is in the United States, would you deem them as not directly supporting the claim that the Palisades, Texas is in the United States? Would you require that an editor find a source that explicitly says
Palisades, Texas is in the United States? — MarkH21 talk 12:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Demchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, India, supported solely by two Indian government websites. That’s absolutely not WP:NPOV, and is not how disputed territories are treated here. Again, take a look at how the high-traffic articles on disputed territories handle this, like Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, and Senkaku Islands. — MarkH21 talk 12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is on the Indian-administered village, and I recommend that the dispute issues should be kept out of it as far as possible. Does that help? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
As is done in the articles on other major disputed places, the first sentence should not just state that it is in one disputing party.I don’t mind replacingDemchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, India.
Sources vary on whether it is administered by China or Indiawith a statement describing the current state of control that is sourced to RSes. — MarkH21 talk 13:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
previous, I meant before the edit at the top of this thread, and the one in my link. I didn’t mean to imply that it was long-standing. I’ll post at WP:NPOVN for the NPOV wording issue (it seems to be part of a broader question about disputed territory wording, so NPOVN seems appropriate). The alternative names doesn’t seem to be an issue anymore so I’ll place those back in. — MarkH21 talk 13:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Why did you call the merge, which you not only did not contest at Talk:Charding Nullah#Dêmqog, but also offered a suggestion at Talk:Charding Nullah#East and west, a "disruption"? At the very least, assume good faith for the merge and explain what you are contesting about it. — MarkH21 talk 12:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
— MarkH21 talk 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)See the three drafts I've placed for the reorganization proposal: User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah, User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute, User:MarkH21/Demchok. If you don't object, I'll go ahead and enact the proposal (after some tweaking to what's currently in the drafts)
— MarkH21 talk23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It's absolutely fine to have an article about the physical village, mentioning its claimed administration by both countries, as is done for numerous article about disputed places (e.g. Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, Senkaku Islands, Banc du Geyser). The formatting of those examples is done well, and can be mimicked here. It doesn't make sense to create a Western Sahara, Morocco and Western Sahara, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic with nearly identical content except for the text on administration and governance, just as it doesn't make sense to do that here.
— MarkH21 12:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The Chinese administration claims both physical villages to collectively be Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture. The articles may need to be modified somehow regarding this.
— MarkH21 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
To elaborate further now, since you actually contest it for an undisclosed reason, we have currently two articles: Demchok is about both the combined village (historically described as the village with the Lhari stream running through the middle) and the Indian-administered part on the western bank of the Charding Nullah. Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture is about the Chinese-administered part on the eastern bank of the Charding Nullah.the information specific to the village(s) itself is very short
— MarkH21 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, this is the second-oldest extant description of Demchok after the nondescript mention in the Ladakhi Chronicles. Furthermore, the several reliable sources, e.g. Lamb (1965) and Richardson, that discuss the entity of "a single village of Demchok divided into two halves by the Charding Nullah" means that it is something that is notable and well-defined for WP.Also, how does it still make sense to describe the historical treatment of Demchok in the article on the Indian-administered village based on your claim that it may not have existed before 1903? The placement of historical discussions about "Demchok" is still a matter of poorly defined scope.Size is a consideration for WP:SIZESPLIT. The articles being small means that SIZESPLIT isn't a consideration. — MarkH21 talk 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)a hamlet of half a dozen huts and tents, not permanently inhabited, divided by a rivulet
— Henry Strachey in 1847 (quoted in Lamb 1964, p. 68)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to merge
Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture into
Demchok, as is done in the draft at
User:MarkH21/Demchok.
The three entities named "Demchok" and "Dêmqog" (combined village, northwestern half, and southeastern half) are currently split across two articles in an unnatural division of scope. They should be merged on the basis of both
WP:OVERLAP and
WP:PRECISE.
Current situation
|
---|
|
The only options that make sense are to have a combined article as proposed or to have three separate articles ( Demchok, Demchok, Ladakh, and Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture). The content here doesn't justify the latter option, while a combined article is both consistent with other articles and makes sense. — MarkH21 talk 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
refers to the village of Demchok, which, he says, belongs to Gartok in Tibet and is thus on the eastern side of the boundary. [1]
the last village on the Tibetan side" (travelling towards Ladakh) [2]
the first location on the Tibetan side of the border" (travelling to Tibet). [2]
[Demchok] is a hamlet [...] divided by a rivulet
— Henry Strachey in 1847, quoted in Alastair Lamb, The China-India border (1964), p. 68
"the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 38
Even in the Lange source from which you quote Hedin, Demchok is clearly drawn with structures on both banks in Fig. 5. Is there even a single historical source that says that Demchok was only on one bank of the river?Your quotes say that it is a village on the Tibetan side of the border. This is not the same as saying that it is a village on one side of the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream, particularly since maps in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century generally showed the border several miles west of the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream and Demchok:Demchok [...] which is located on both banks of a stream at its junction with the Indus
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 48
British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards have shown the border to lie some ten miles or so to the west of Demchok
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 48
The naming is significantly more obfuscating in the current situation. Right now, the division of coverage across the articles suggests that the historical Demchok is precisely the northwestern bank settlement administered by India, but multiple historians write that it corresponds to settlements on both banks. If your claim that the historical Demchok was solely on the southeastern bank is correct, then the situation is even worse by covering it in the article on the northwestern bank! — MarkH21 talk 02:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)the Kashmir Atlas (Sheet 17) put [the boundary] about sixteen miles downstream on the Indus from Demchok.
— Alastair Lamb, The China-India border (1964), pp. 72–73
Buildings or landmark featuresfor the black dots. Furthermore, the name labels in the map only correspond to black dots.This is also another example of a map that shows both Demchok settlements being in Tibet, with the border several miles west. — MarkH21 talk 16:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
is administered as part of the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh by India) misleadingly suggests that the Indian-administered half is the historical village referred to by historical sources and incoming wikilinks. — MarkH21 talk 03:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
References
MarkH21, this page was created as a page on the Indian village. You cannot unilaterally change it to something else. So, please make a proposal and discuss it properly. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There’s literally an example called Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus. And another called Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds. Sounds a lot like "Undiscussed". — MarkH21 talk 15:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions are inadequate to legitimately oppose the change.
Let's break this down into its pieces:
In more detail on each:
In [the Treaty of Tingmosgang's] surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at 'the Lhari stream at Demchok', a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
— Lamb, Alastair (1965), "Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute" (PDF), The Australian Year Book of International Law: 38
[Demchok] is a hamlet of half a dozen huts and tents, not permanently inhabited, divided by a rivulet (entering the left bank of the Indus) which constitutes the boundary of this quarter between Gnari ... [in Tibet] ... and Ladakh
— Lamb, Alastair (1964), The China-India border, Oxford University Press, p. 68
The village itself was divided into two parts one held by India and the other by China after the 1962 Sino-Indian war, though there is not a single divided family.
— Puri, Luv (2 August 2005). "Ladakhis await re-opening of historic Tibet route". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China’s Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d’Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954. [...] Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India’s border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul’s insistence Chen said “There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok”. [...] In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia. The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok.
— Arpi, Claude (19 May 2017). "The Case of Demchok". Indian Defence Review. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
Finally, on the Indus, Moorcroft refers to the village of Demchok, which, he says, belongs to Gartok in Tibet and is thus on the eastern side of the boundary.
— Lamb, Alastair (1964), The China-India border, Oxford University Press, p. 61-62
Abdul Wahid Radhu, a former representative of the Lopchak caravan, described Demchok in his travel account as “the first location on the Tibetan side of the border”.
— Lange, Diana (2017), "Decoding Mid-19th Century Maps of the Border Area between Western Tibet, Ladakh, and Spiti", Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines,The Spiti Valley Recovering the Past and Exploring the Present, p. 353
British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards have shown the border to lie some ten miles or so to the west of Demchok
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 48
— MarkH21 talk 15:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)the Kashmir Atlas (Sheet 17) put [the boundary] about sixteen miles downstream on the Indus from Demchok.
— Alastair Lamb, The China-India border (1964), pp. 72–73
Unfortantely, WP:Walls of text do not get us any closer to resolution. So, please avoid them. I have told you what I think about Henry Strachey, Alastair Lamb, Luv Puri's assertions about the single village. I don't need to repeat them. Regarding Moorcroft and Radhu's testimony, I understand that your concern is that we don't know where the border was. In the RfM, I also mentioned Hedin, to which also I suppose you would raise the same objection.
The answer is that we know where the border was. It was at the Charding Nullah/Lhari stream. That is where it was when Strachey went there as a boundary commissioner in 1847. The Tibetan border guards blocked him from going beyond. That is where it was in 1939, when the Wazir of Ladakh and the British Trade Agent went there. As Claude Arpi tells you (in the same article you cited), "This stream forms a natural boundary between Tibet and Kashmir at Demchok.
" So the Charding Nullah was the border throughout the British period. The border was not where the Kashmir Survey and the Kashmir Atlas said it was. So it is entirely pointless to bring in the Kashmir Atlas.
Now, the Indian government encroached upon the Tibetan territory south of the Charding Nullah some time after 1954, and forcibly occupied it by sending troops. When the Chinese troops arrived, they took it back. This seems entirely normal, irrespective of all their respective protestations. All these things happened due to the same misconception that you have, viz., that there was a "single Demchok village" that had to belong to one side or the other. There wasn't. There were two separate villages under separate administrations, as the sources make it clear. The Ladakhi Demchok village didn't have any permanent inhabitants till about 1921. [1] So the passing travellers wouldn't have known that there was a "village" there. But the surveyors apparently knew that there was something. There was a certainly campground there all throughout the period, and perhaps some seasonal farming as well. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
entirely pointless to bring in the Kashmir Atlas; you brought up three WP:PRIMARY accounts (Moorcroft, Radhu, and Hedin) that remarked that Demchok was in Tibet whereas a plethora of maps at the time (e.g.
British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards) placed the Ladakh-Tibet border several miles west of Demchok. Anyone using such a map would have remarked that Demchok was the first settlement on the Tibetan side of the border.
there were were two separate villages under separate administrations. You haven't even provided a single RS that describes Demchok in the plural. Every single source that talks about pre-1962 Demchok (including the Treaty of Tingmosgang in the 17th century, Moorcroft in the 18th century, the British commissions & surveys in the 19th century, Alastair Lamb & the Indian and Chinese documents in the 20th century, and Luv Puri & Claude Arpi & Diana Lange in the 21st century) mentions it as a single village. You are single-handedly asserting that all of these sources have the
same misconception that [I] have. — MarkH21 talk 08:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
In between at the mouth of the nullah stands a big minaret of stones. In it is fixed a wood which looks like a flag. This is the boundary line. [2]
each page stands on its own. Wouldn’t these articles be subject to the same editing procedures and guidelines/policies as all other articles? E.g. concerns about excessive overlap or content being out-of-scope being subject to discussions like they would be at East Berlin vs West Berlin vs Berlin vs History of Berlin vs Germany vs etc. One can naturally edit the articles, add background/context related to the main subject (in parentheses above), and make other changes as usual. Any future merges, further splits, scope changes, etc. based on new information/sources (or otherwise) would be new discussions. — MarkH21 talk 19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
My proposal is exactly what Gotitbro recommended:
In addition, Demchok (historical village) gets created and developed. No other changes are made to any other pages. We will revisit the issue perhaps a few months down the road after the shape of the new page becomes clearer.
I think the comparison between Berlin, the capital of Germany and one of the greatest cities of Europe, and this place, a hamlet of half-a-dozen huts about which practically nothing is known, is implausibly far-fetched. I suggest we drop any such imaginations. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
References
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Kautilya3: The Chinese sources literally describe "Parigas district" as the 450 sqkm area surrounding / to the west of Demchok village that is "illegally occupied by India". They doesn’t use it to refer to the village at all. — MarkH21 talk 23:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
西线巴里加斯印度控制450平方公里(我军曾对部分地区前出巡逻设防),主要位于狮泉河、典角村以西和班公湖西段。
[West of the line, India controls 450 square kilometers of Parigas (our army used to patrol and defend some areas), mainly located in Shiquan River, west of Dêmqog Village and west of Pangong Lake.]
— "中国对印战略:装甲集团沿三线突击两日可抵新德里" (in Chinese). Sina News. 25 August 2017. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
在中印边界西段,“1959年控制线”倒是有点学问,因为这条线就是中印传统边界线,但不包括巴里加斯地区(约450平方公里)
[In the western section of the Sino-Indian border, the "1959 Line of Control" is a bit clearer, because this line is the traditional Sino-Indian border, but it does not include the Parigas district (about 450 square kilometers)]
— 163 News
It's more than just the Indian-controlled disputed territory since the sources say that India controls 450 sqkm of the southwest corner of Parigas. — MarkH21 talk 18:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)1955年,進一步蠶食巴里加斯地區,如今,印度控制巴里加斯西南角即獅泉河(森格藏布)與卓普河(典角曲)以西大約450平方公里
[In 1955, the Indian army further encroached on the Parigas district. Today, India controls about 450 square kilometers west of the Shiquan River (Seng Zangbo) and the Zhuopu River (Dêmqog Village) in the southwest corner of Parigas.
— "典角村,固有領土的見證,如今,600米外駐紮印軍" (in Chinese). Headline Daily. 11 June 2020. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
I’m not sure if there's a specific name for the part of Parigas east of the Shiquan/Indus river. But Parigas seems to encompass a larger area, the southwest corner of which is the Indian-controlled part of the Demchok sector.For English-language Chinese sources, the Chinese report from the 1960 meeting uses "Demchok" (e.g. Part 1). The China Daily/ People's Daily uses "Demchok" in English for the Indian-administered village:拉达克人说,在碟木绰克和班公...
[Ladakhis say that in "Diémùchuòkè" and Pangong ...]
— NYT article
— MarkH21 talk 21:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Indian media said yesterday that work on the road to link Demchok village, which is 300 kilometers southeast of Leh, beyond India's last post in the Ladakh region, was stopped in October after objections by China.
The 8-km road was being built in the remote Demchok area of the Buddhist-dominated Ladakh area near the Line of Actual Control (LAC), a military line that divides Indian Kashmir and the part held by China.
— People's Daily article
West of Demchok, after crossing the Chopu river, one arrived at Parigas. There’s also an Indian news article in The Wire that says that
Demchok, which is in Ladakh and claimed by China, was named Parigas.This is a strange one. It's possible that Chinese sources used "Parigas" for the Indian-administered village in the past, but so far there aren't really any Chinese-published sources that I can find using it that way. Certainly, modern Chinese sources do not use "Parigas" for either village and only use it for the larger area. — MarkH21 talk 22:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
— MarkH21 talk 08:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)其中除了一块很小的巴里加斯(Parigas)地区在本世纪50年代中期被印度侵占以外,其余地区始终在我控制之下,由西藏的日土县(1960年前为宗)管辖。
[Except for the small 巴里加斯 (Parigas) area which was invaded by India in the mid-1950s, the rest of the area was always under China's control and under the jurisdiction of Tibet's (pre-1960) Rutog County.]
— Article by Fang Jianchang from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
If India controls the southwest corner of Parigas, then Parigas cannot be solely the Indian-controlled part... — MarkH21 talk 10:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC) An source that clearly defines Parigas:今,印度控制巴里加斯西南角即獅泉河(森格藏布)與卓普河(典角曲)以西大約450平方公里
[Today, India controls about 450 square kilometers west of the Shiquan River (Seng Zangbo) and the Zhuopu River (Dêmqog Village) in the southwest corner of Parigas.]
I don't know what "基古纳鲁河" (Jigunalu River) and "果洛" (Guoluo) refer to, but at least there are more data points and locations. Whether the boundary includes the Indian-claimed region under Chinese administration is still unclear, so I agree that we cannot yet say that "Parigas district" is an alternative name for "Demchok sector". Given that it is always described as disputed though, I think we could say that the "Parigas district" is at least part of the Demchok sector. — MarkH21 talk 12:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)巴里加斯(Parigas),是中国和印度西部边境中的一块争议领土,面积约1900平方公里,包括基古纳鲁河、乌木隆、碟木绰克(Demchok), 果洛等地区。[...] 巴里加斯中国固有领土,位于西藏阿里噶尔县西北
[巴里加斯 (Parigas) is a disputed territory on the western border between China and India. It covers an area of approximately 1,900 square kilometers, including areas such as the Jigunalu River, Umlung, 碟木绰克 (Demchok), Guoluo, and other areas. [...] Parigas, China's inherent territory, is located in the northwest of Gar County in Tibet.
— Article from Hunan Daily (the official newspaper of the Hunan Provincial Party Standing Committee)
jī gǔ nà lǔ hé is now translated by Google translate as "Kigunaru river", a familiar name to the Indian readers. Kigunaru (or Kegunaro) is a grazing ground at the Chang La.
Guoluo is roughly where the Indian claim line crosses the Indus river (marked based on map.tianditu.gov.cn). -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Change Indian administered Ladakh /LAC map slightly as area east of
Demchok is under administration of China since 1962 war. Please greyed out that area east of
Demchok .
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53174887
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/nov/26/intelligence-agencies-warn-of-chinese-build-up-in-south-ladakhs-zeo-la-region-1903203.html
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ritabharidevi (
talk •
contribs) 11:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/guest-column/story/20200608-standing-up-to-a-stand-off-1683231-2020-05-30
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-tensions-in-eastern-ladakh-spike-briefly-after-locals-celebrate-dalai-lamas-bday/articleshow/70200054.cms
https://twitter.com/indopac_info/status/1267489461568335873
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/diplomacy/story/20130506-intrusion-by-china-india-border-dispute-763323-1999-11-30
http://ntdin.tv/en/article/english/indian-army-build-surveillance-capabilities-6-7-areas-along-lac
--
Ritabharidevi (
talk) 11:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
MarkH21's contest for this content:
Thus the Demchok Lhari Karpo and the main Demchok village got divided, the former falling on the Ladakh side of the border and the latter on the Tibetan side. A secondary Demchok settlement apparently grew up on the Ladakhi side. When Henry Strachey visited the area in 1847, he found Demchok settlements on both the sides of the Lhari stream, and the stream was still the prevailing border between Ladakh and Tibet. [1]
References
- ^ Lamb, The China-India border (1964), p. 68 . Strachey however regarded the two settlements as forming a single hamlet, but divided into two parts by the Lhari stream.
Edit summary: rm part not in the cited ref
My comments:
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
a secondary Demchok settlement apparently grew up on the Ladakhi side.This seems like synthesis between the premise that Demchok consisted solely of settlements on the southeast bank pre-1847 (which is an even stronger assertion than point 1 above, since there would have to be no settlement on the northwest bank in addition to the southeast bank being a "main" one) and the post-1847 observations of settlements on both banks.
he described Demchok as a single hamlet with settlements on both the sides of the Lhari stream and the stream as the prevailing border between Ladakh and Tibet.So the part in the footnote was removed as it was then reflected in the article wording itself; this wasn't a significant change. The other part of the change was that Strachey also didn't say that it was
stillthe prevailing border; just that it was the border (i.e.
stillgives an implication about the past that Strachey didn't make himself). — MarkH21 talk 10:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
And of course 20th century primary sources describe settlements on both banks. But again, we don't have any sources whatsoever that say anything about Demchok between the 17th century and 1847.The footnote that you just added here, for instance, is a 1900-1901 primary source description of Demchok being on the Tibetan side of the border, which doesn't say anything about pre-1847 Demchok. There is also the same issue from before about these sources saying that it was in Tibet is not the same as saying that Demchok was on the southeast bank, given that contemporaneous maps showed the border running 10 miles west of Demchok.In other words, the current wording says that pre-1847 Demchok had a main village on the southeast bank. This is cited to late 19th century and early 20th century maps and primary sources that describe Demchok during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. — MarkH21 talk 13:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)In [the Treaty of Tingmosgang's] surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to How into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 38
a secondary Demchok settlement apparently grew up on the Ladakhi side. We can say that X and Y said that Demchok was in Tibet in year Z, but it is OR/SYNTH to use them to say that Demchok was primarily on the southeast bank between the 17th century and 1847. — MarkH21 talk 13:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
A short distance N. W. of Demchok, the road passes a partly frozen brook coming from Demchok-pu, a tributary valley from the left. A miserable stone bridge is built across the watercourse. At the left side of the mouth of this little valley, are the ruins of two or three houses, which were said to have belonged to Hemi-gompa. A pyramidal peak at the same, or left side of the valley, is called La-ri and said to be sacred. The valley, Demchok-pu, itself is regarded as the boundary between Tibet and Ladak. [1]
It looks like we are back to square-A. To rehash my argument, if there was indeed a Ladakhi Demchok village (or settlement) prior to the 17th century partition, it wouldn't have disappeared. So the fact that it didn't exist in the 20th century means that it didn't exist to begin with. Even your favourite scholar agrees with that: "[Demchok]... which except for a few rude houses was really a camping ground seasonally occupied
".
[2]
Even Strachey, in the map included in his book, [3] shows only one Demchok village to the southeast of the Lhari stream. So, he knew the reality even though for some odd reason, he generated a pointless controversy. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.We can only state what the accounts said in the years that they visited. — MarkH21 talk 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
References
This link added to the 'Further reading' section seems to be more than an opinion piece than a news article and I don't think that it is suitable to be added to a Wikipedia article. Moreover, it is 7 years old now, and the picture painted may not accurately represent the present-day situation. The Discoverer ( talk) 04:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)