The Importance of Yatung and Chumbi Valley

Yatung-by-night

Yatung (called Yadong by the Chinese) has been in the news recently.
One of the reasons might be the annual opening of the Nathu-la pass for trade between India and China (Yatung is also one of the routes for the Kailash-Mansarovar Yatra for Indian pilgrims).
China Tibet Online noted: “The Natho [Nathu] La Pass Trade Channel in Yadong [Yatung] County, Shigatse City, southwest China’s Tibet opened on the morning of May 1.”
Note the compulsory ‘China’s Tibet’!
Does it mean that Beijing has a doubt about the ownership of Land of Snows?
Nobody in India would think of writing ‘India’s Tamil Nadu’ or ‘India’s West Bengal’ or in the States, ‘United States’ Virginia’.
The official website, affiliated to Xinhua, informs its readers: “The Natho [Nathu] La Pass is the only land route trade pass between China and India, and it is a seasonal trade port.”
This is wrong statement as Lipulekh-la (Uttarakand) and Shipki-la (Himachal) are also opened for official trade between the two countries.
The article continues its description: “It opens each year between May and November and remains closed between December and April. While it is open, residents in the border regions of Yadong County in China and Sikkim in India can travel back and forth to conduct in normal trade activities using border residents’ certification cards.”
It adds that to monitor the “smooth operations of trade and daily border checks, civil police have already been deployed to the Yadong Border Entry and Exit Inspection Station and actively contacted joint inspection units to carry out convenient service measures.”
The border is clearly opened for traders only, not for Indian tourists (apart from the yatris who zoom through the town on their way to the base camp).
Further, we are told that the Chinese staff is taking Hindi and Nepali language classes, which is probably not the case of the Sikkimese staff (learning Chinese).

International Border Trade Festival
On May 30, China Tibet News announced that the First Yadong International Border Trade Tourism and Culture Festival was to be held from June 2 to 8: “During the festival, bonfire party, photography, calligraphy and painting exhibition, commodity fair, fitness activity, investment invitation and other activities will be held.”
Will this help promote trade?
Most certainly not, but the Chinese authorities are keen to develop Yatung as tourist spot.
The website says: “Yadong is one of the most pleasant border towns on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. It has six kinds of comprehensive and professional natural tourism resources for tourists to choose, including historical and cultural tourism, natural ecological tourism, ethnic festival tourism, hiking adventure tourism, self-driving special tourism and border trade characteristic tourism. Besides, it is also rich in tourism resources, and its main attractions include Dromo Lhari [or Chomolhari] Snow Mountain, Natoi [Nathu] La Mountain Pass, Khambu Hot Spring, Dungkar Monastery, Kagyu Monastery, Phari Grassland, Ruins of the Customs of Qing Dynasty, Rinchengang Border Trade Market.”
The so-called occupation of the Chumbi Valley by the Manchus is a new way to rewrite history and show that these areas close to the Indian border have always belonged to China …and are part of the Silk Road, dear to Chinese President Xi Jinping.
(for the Qing Dynasty Custom House, read my Archeology and Politics).
Dungkar Gompa has historically been one of the main centers for the practice of the violently anti-Dalai Lama, Shugden cult.
The article does not mention the beautiful India House which has been destroyed by the Chinese authorities as a remnant of the Indian presence.

Nehru’s visit
When Prime Minister Nehru visited Yatung and the Chumbi Valley in September 1958, he asked to meet the Indian traders in the Yatung bazaar. There were some fifty Indian shops then.
KC Johorey, who served as Indian Trade Agent, remembers that as soon as he reached, the Prime Minister changed from riding kit and breeches into the sherwani and churidar pyjamas and put on a red rose; he then asked how far the bazaar was.
When Johorey told him a hundred yards down the hill, the Prime Minister started walking, and Nehru went down to the bazaar. The ITA had requested the Indian traders to wear a cap: “they were all with their caps on, even the panwallah.”
The Chinese were extremely upset with this unscheduled visit, but the Indians and Tibetans were delighted, they rushed towards Jawaharlal Nehru: “Somebody was touching his hands, somebody laying flat on the ground and somebody offering him flowers. The Indians were very well disciplined as they stood there.”
Colonel Lu, the local Political Commissar came and asked Johorey: “What is this? We did not have this programme, why have you come here?”
The ITA could only say: “He is my boss and your guest. You tell him; you tell him to go back as his security is your responsibility. I cannot ask Prime Minister what [he should] do or what not to do.”
Finally, Colonel Lu could not prevent the Tibetans from approaching and getting near the Prime Minister: “Some of them were crying. …Their sobbing and tears were more eloquent than any formal parlays. There was Tibetan disapproval of the Chinese at every stage.”
Sixty years ago, the Chinese were already not feeling uncomfortable with the Indian presence in the Valley.

International Border Trade Festival
The Chinese authorities have now organized a 'trade' festival. Nyigar, director general of the Culture and Tourism Bureau of Yatung County, gave a speech at the opening function; he affirmed that Yatung “has always been a passage and border town leading to South Asia. It is the last stop of the Ancient Tea Horse Road, with rich historical and cultural deposits. We will focus on creating a high-end tourism route with characteristics of the border tourism destination in Tibet, and truly build cultural tourism into the pillar industry of the county.”
Once again, it is only a one-way tourism, as the Sikkimese traders have to return at night and Indian tourists are not permitted.
China Tibet Online observed that the First Yadong International Border Trade Tourism and Culture Festival wanted to “fully display the profound historical and cultural resources, magnificent tourism resources, fast and convenient border trade channel of Yadong County, improve its popularity and influence, drive the development of border trade, invigorate the county's economy, as well as increase the income of the masses.”
What is strange that tourism does not really increase the revenue of the masses.
According to Chinese statistics, in 2018, Yatung County received 119,870 tourists (an increase of 43% compared to the previous year), but the revenue from this activity was only 33 million yuan (5.3 million US $). It does not come much by head.
Worse during, the first quarter of 2019, Yatung received 43,620 tourists and got a revenue of 4.52 million yuan (730,000 US $). Obviously, the Chinese tourists are not spending much money (yuan 100 per head).
These ridiculous low figures are a mystery; either the authorities had their figures wrong or the visitors were not tourists!

Strategic location and Xiaogang Villages
It is true that the Chumbi Valley has been the base for Doklam operations in 2017, as well as for any military development in North Sikkim (Kampa Dzong area).
It is worth watching.
At the same time, it looks as if the authorities are encouraging migrants to come in the area.
On April 29, an article in China Tibet News said that Yatung County “has insisted on the construction of well-off villages.”
I have often mentioned on this blog, the Xiaogang villages built by Beijing near the Indian borders.
The Chinese website pointed out that it was “an important starting point in implementing rural revitalization strategy.”
What means a ‘revitalization strategy’ so close from highly sensitive border.
The article further explained that the county has adapted measures “to develop local industries, so as to ensure people living and working in happiness, peace and contentment”

Apparently the construction of nine 'well-off' villages has started in the Chumbi Valley “implementing characteristic agriculture and animal husbandry projects.”
The article also noted that Yatung has set up a Communist Party's Leading Group to look after the construction of the villages and promote their overall management: “To build featured small town, it has integrated Tibetan people's traditional living habits into urban construction, separated the production areas and living areas, stepped up infrastructure construction such as water, electricity, road as well as telecommunication, and improved public service facilities including village committee, clinic and culture activity room and others to follow the construction requirements.”
All this is for the local population, for the tourists or for the People’s Liberation Army?
There is no answer right now, but it is certainly part of ‘stabilization of the border’ dear to Chairman Xi, the boss of the Central Military Commission.
Another website carried a series of photos of Yatung-by-night with the following caption: “Photo shows the Yadong County in Shigatse City, southwest China's Tibet Autonomous Region, is quiet and bright under the dazzling light after nightfall. In 2017, Yadong County became one of the five counties that got rid of poverty in the region. The county is clean and its infrastructure is complete nowadays.”
Not fully completed as the train is expected to reach Chumbi Valley in 2030.

Why was India House destroyed?

India House in Yatung destroyed by China

I am posting again a three-year old article on the visit of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to Tibet and Bhutan and the nights he spent in Yatung, in the Chumbi Valley.
During the recent 2017 Tibet Tourism Products Promotion Meet for South Asia held in Lhasa, Qiao Zhifeng, director of Yatung County Tourism Bureau spoke about the development of Yatung as a tourist spot. 
He announced that China will soon build a cableway "in a customs relic site of the Qing Dynasty" and a glass skywalk in Dromo (Chumbi valley) forests.
What is this Qing (Manchu) relics site is not clear.
Regarding the 'skywalk', Qiao explained: "Different from the common cliff glass skywalks, the one in Dromo forests will be built above the green woods, offering visitors a new and all-around viewing angle of the forests.”
While Beijing plans to erect a memorial in the honour of the Manchus, nobody speaks of the beautiful India House, which was the residence-cum-office of the Indian Trade Agent in Yatung till 1962 and where Nehru stayed for two nights (on his way up and on his return from Bhutan) in 1958. 
The Indian Agency building has been destroyed by China to erase all traces of the Indian presence in Tibet.
Questions should be asked to Beijing why such historic building was destroyed, particularly as the Agency was an asset of the Government of India.

(My old post)
As Prime Minister Modi prepares to pay his first foreign visit to Bhutan, I post here some pictures of another visit, Jahawarlal Nehru's in 1958.
Nehru's letter to the Chief Ministers explains his visit.
The interesting feature is that the Prime Minister and his daughter Indira Gandhi had to cross the Chumbi Valley in Tibet. On his way to Bhutan, they spent one night  in Yatung where an Indian Trade Agency was located and on the return journey, they stayed another night in Yatung.
Read this earlier posting about the Indian missions in Tibet.
And about China grabbing Bhutanese territory.
I wish Narendra Modi could take the same route than Nehru.
Unfortunately, the times have changed ... not for the good.

Letter From Jawaharlal Nehru to the Chief Ministers
Gangtok, Sikkim
October 15, 1958
My dear Chief Minister,

Prime Minister Nehru on his way to Bhutan

My last letter to you from Gangtok in Sikkim, on the eve of my journey to Bhutan via Tibet. After I left Gangtok, I was almost entirely cut off from communications till my return to Gangtok two and a half weeks later. I received an occasional message by wireless from Delhi. But this was rarely sent as I had requested that only something that was really important should be forwarded to me. Usually we could listen in to the AIR news broadcasts in the evening, as we had a radio with us. There were no newspapers at all and I had a sensation of being in another world.

2. The little corner of Tibet that I saw upset my idea of that country. I had always thought that on the other side of the Himalayan ranges, there was the high tableland of Tibet, more or less flat and treeless. As a matter of fact, on the other side of the Nathu La, there were the same precipitous mountains covered with thick forests. This was the Chumbi Valley where Yatung is situated and, broadly speaking, it was similar to Himalayan scenery. At the top of the Nathu La ended the road that our engineers had constructed, and on the other side we had to descend by precipitous bridle paths. This road on our side is a remarkable feat for which our engineers deserve great credit. If a road could be built on the other side of the Pass, connecting Yatung, then there would be through road communications between India and Tibet. On the Tibetan side this road will be a much simpler proposition than the one that we have built on our side. Through road traffic would make a great difference to trade as well as to travellers. There is still a considerable inflow of goods from India to Tibet although this has gone down during the last year or two. I was told that upto last year quite a number of automobiles had gone this way after having been taken to pieces and carried by porters.

3. The change from Sikkim to Tibet was noticeable, though not very great. Some little distance before we reached Yatung, we were received by representatives of the Chinese General in Command at Lhasa [General Tan Guansan] and of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama.  Tibetans peered at us from their houses or from the roadside, curious about us, and yet not quite sure whether they should come near us.

4. Yatung was a small spread out town. The main market road was full of Indian shops. There were, I believe, over ninety such shops, many of them having started business in the course of the last three years, when this trade was highly profitable. Conditions were more difficult now and so a number of these Indian shops were closing up. The Chinese authorities had put up a number of new buildings-schools, hospital, community centre and residential houses for themselves. Our own Trade Agent's house had its own little hospital and buildings for the staff. In Gyantse and Lhasa our representatives were very badly housed. In Gyantse, a great flood two years ago had destroyed our house and over ninety of our personnel had been drowned. It struck me how difficult were the living conditions of the members of our staff in various parts of Tibet. There was the harsh climate and the high altitude; the lack of social life or amenities and a sense of seclusion from the outside world. Only physically tough people could stand these conditions for long.

5. On crossing the Tibet-Bhutan border, we were met by the Prime Minister of Bhutan  and a numerous cortege. We journeyed on horseback or mule-back, a long caravan, going ever higher and higher. The Bhutan Government had taken great pains to improve the bridle paths and erect log huts en route for our night rest. The mountain scenery was more attractive and impressive. Some of us had felt a little uncomfortable on the first day of our journey because of the height, but soon we grew accustomed to that altitude and nothing untoward happened. We had a doctor with us, who carried all kinds of drugs and medicines and numerous oxygen cylinders. I am glad to say that those oxygen cylinders were never used and ultimately, on our return journey, we left most of these oxygen cylinders at our hospital at Yatung.

6. The next day's journey brought us to two high passes,  both above 14,500 feet. We left the tree-line and ascended to these heights where only flowers and grass persisted. There were lovely Alpine flowers throughout. It was surprising that in spite of long hours on horseback or sometimes on foot, we felt refreshed after every rest. The air was exhilarating and altogether this visit proved to be quite an exciting event in our lives.

7. When we were approaching within two or three miles of Paro, where the Maharaja was awaiting us, we had to form up into a procession which gradually descended along the mountain side to the valley below. I have seldom seen anything more spectacular than this long procession consisting of people 100 king like medieval knights, dignitaries of the Buddhist church in their special robes, troupes of dancers, etc. Thus we came down the winding road to the valley below where practically the entire population had assembled.

8. We spent five days at Paro. We had met the young Maharaja and his wife  in Delhi some years ago, and the y proved to be charming hosts. In theory, the Maharaja is the all-powerful ruler of his little State. In practice, he is very much one of the people, mixing with them and not very different from them.

Here are some pictures of the Photo Division.

Indian and Chinese flags in Yatung

With Maharaja of Sikkim

With Maharaja of Sikkim and Political Officer (Apa Pant)

With Maharaja of Sikkim and Indira Gandhi

In Yatung with Indian Officers serving in Tibet

Received in Yatung

In Yatung with Tibetan and Chinese offficials

With Indian Trade Agent in Yatung

PM arrives in Bhutan

With Indira Gandhi

In Bhutan

On the way to Bhutan, the Indian Consul General
is behind the Prime Minister

In Yatung

Dinner with Chinese Officials in Yatung

Receiving an Indian Delegation in Yatung

On the way to Bhutan

Addressing an Indian delegation in Yatung

Addressing an Indian delegation in Yatung

Nehru spent 2 nights in the Indian Trade Agency in Yatung

Dinner in Bhutan

Inspecting the Sikkim Guards

In Bhutan

In Bhutan

In Bhutan

Where has the Yatung Agency gone?

Where is the Agency?

The opening of the second route to the Kailash via Nathu-la, 4,310 metres above sea level in Sikkim, was agreed when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited India in September 2014.
The other route, via Lipulekh Pass in Pithoragarh’s district of Uttarakhand (and Purang in Tibet), is often badly damaged in rains and lanping offered Nathu-la.
As the first pilgrims were yesterday crossing over to Tibet, PTI reported: “The pilgrims belonging to different age-groups and hailing from various parts of India made their way to the Nathu-la pass after a two week-long journey acclimatising themselves for the high-altitude journey to Kailash which stands at an altitude of about 6,500 metres in Tibet.”
A first batch of 250 people was allowed to take part in this year yatra, via the new route.
According to PTI: “The pilgrims, several of whom were middle-aged and retired, said they have been looking for this kind of an opportunity since long. They said it was good fortune to undertake the Yatra through a comfortable route and went on to thank the Chinese authorities for facilitating the new route. The route through Nathu-la Pass will facilitate comfortable travel for Indian pilgrims by buses, especially for elderly Indian citizens, though conditions in the Himalayan region with less oxygen levels still pose a challenge.”
The Chinese Ambassador to India Le Yucheng was present for the occasion. With the Councilor in the Indian Embassy in Beijing, Shrila Dutta Kumar and some Chinese officials from Tibet, they welcomed the pilgrims.
Le Yucheng said: “Instead of travelling through rough terrain facing high risks, you can reach the sacred place in bus while enjoying the heavenly beauty along the way. I am sure the Indian friends can feel the warm hospitality and profound friendship of Chinese people," adding that the Indian pilgrims will not only will gain spiritual strength but also develop better understanding of China.
What about Tibet, Mr. Le?
PTI adds: “The Yadong [Chinese spelling for Yatung] county in Tibet where Nathu La pass was located on Chinese side is decorated with banners to welcome the pilgrims.”

Nehru and Indira Gandhi
with General Tan Guansan in 1958 in Yatung

Soon after they crossed the pass, the yatris descended in the luxuriant Chumbi valley; for centuries, countless of Tibetan traders, pilgrims and officials used this route on their way to the hot plains of India.
The first large town that the yatris crossed was Yatung.
The Chinese vehicles must have speeded up, not to bring memories of the past; less than 60 years ago, tens of shops in Yatung, were still run by Indian traders.
A year ago, I posted on the blog, a vivid description of the place given by the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru when he visited Tibet on his way to Bhutan in 1958.
How many of the yatris knew about Yatung, one of the most flourishing Indian Trade Agencies in Tibet?
Probably none.
It is a tragedy in itself.
India had a beautiful Agency building where the Prime Minister spent 2 nights in 1958.
What has happened to the building?
Has Tarun Vijay, Rajya Sabha MP and leader of the first batch of yatris asked his Chinese guests? I don’t know.
What about Ashok Kantha, the Indian Ambassador in Beijing, who surveyed the area a few months ago. Here too, I don’t know.
For the past 2 years, I have asked several persons familiar with Sikkim, what has happened with the Agency building, located just above the main bazaar (now the town), nobody knows.
Apparently, the beautiful building belonging to the Government of India has been destroyed by China. When? Nobody seems to know.
I am posting here some of the correspondence between India and China on the last days of the Agency.
China is doing no favour to India by opening this extremely long route (compared to Shipki-la in Himachal or Demchok in Ladakh), so, at least China should say what has happened to the Indian Agency in Yatung.

Nehru meets the Indian traders in Yatung bazaar in 1958

Who will ask them?

Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, to the Embassy of China in India, 31 October 1962
Reference Memorandum, dated 8th October, 1962 from the Government of the People's Republic of China.
The building of the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung has been the property of the Government of India for several decades. When the Trade Agency was withdrawn in 1962, the Chinese Embassy had been clearly informed of the Government of India's intention to retain their property and buildings at Yatung under the charge of the Indian Consul General at Lhasa. It was also stated by the Government of India that the building would be used as a resting place for Indian officials proceeding to and returning from Lhasa in the course of the performance of their official duties. The Indian Government's request was fully in keeping with international custom and practice.
The Chinese Government had informed the Indian Embassy in Peking on the 2nd June 1962 that they were agreeable to the retention of the buildings by the Government of India under the charge of the Consulate General in Lhasa. However, by later on denying permission to use the building, the Chinese Government has effectively gone back on its earlier assurance as the right to the use of property is an essential and fundamental right that arises from ownership.
In accordance with the stipulation of the Government of the People's Republic of China, the Government of India even did not keep any Indian nationals as maintenance staff but instead retained 5 Tibetan ex-employees of the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung. The Government of India were, therefore, naturally surprised when these employees, too, were turned out of the building later on by the local authorities. The Agency premises and the buildings are now not being looked after by any one. It is understood that the locks of some of the quarters have been removed and some window panes have also been broken.
The Agency building has belonged to the Government of India for several decades and in paragraph (4) of the notes exchanged between the two Governments on 29th April, 1954, it has been clearly stated that all buildings within the compound wall of the Indian Trade Agency at Yatung may be retained by the Government of India. It has also been stated that the Government of India may continue to lease the land within the agency building from the Chinese side. This clearly shows that the land within the compound wall on which the building stands was already on lease with the Government of India several years prior to the conclusion of the 1954 Agreement.
It was only at the unreasonable and arbitrary insistence of the Chinese Government that a fresh lease deed for the land was signed between the two Governments on the 18th of January, 1958, for a period of 10 years, although such a procedure was uncalled for in, terms of the Agreement.
The Chinese Government's unwarranted denial of facilities to the Government of India for taking care of their property and building at Yatung and their plea that if Indian officials and couriers are permitted to use these buildings as a resting place it would be tantamount to the setting up of another official establishment on the Chinese soil constitute further testimony of the uncooperative and obstructive attitude that has all along characterised the actions of the Chinese Government in Tibet.
The Government of India hold the Government of the People's Republic of China responsible for any loss or damage that has already been caused, or may be caused in future, to the Agency building as a result of these unwarranted actions of the Chinese Government.

A few months later, when Chinese miscreants destroyed some parts of the Agency, the Chinese put the blame on Arvind Deo, the Indian Consul General in Lhasa, who had passed through Yatung on his way to India.

Memorandum given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking, to the Embassy of India in China, 29 December 1962.

According to reports from China's Tibet local authorities, when the former Indian Consul-General in Lhasa A.R. Deo and his staff withdrew from Lhasa and were passing through Yatung, they seriously damaged property within the premises of the former Indian Trade Agency in Yatung in the afternoon of December 15, 1962. For instance, they demolished several motor-cars, broke up a diesel generator, cut open several dozen barrels of gasoline, diesel oil and machine grease with hatchets, broke down doors and windows, etc.
On the eve of their withdrawal from Lhasa, the staff of the Indian Consulate-General there also smashed the glass on the doors and windows of the Consulate-General building in Lhasa.
It must be pointed out that the above-mentioned acts of the staff of the Indian Consulate-General not only constituted a breach of the local public order, but obviously harboured an ulterior motive, that is, to shift the blame on the Chinese side. The Chinese Government sternly condemns these despicable acts of the former Indian Consulate-General and its staff and reserves the right to look into this matter further.


Memorandum given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peking to the Embassy of India in China, 11 March 1963

The Chinese Government has received the memorandum of the Ministry of External Affairs of India dated February 8, 1963 to the Chinese Embassy in India.
It is an indisputable fact that while withdrawing from Lhasa the former Indian Consul-General in Lhasa and other places. On the night before their departure from Lhasa, the Indian officials gathered in the Consulate-General and indulged in drinking. Some of them, fully drunk, broke the glass of the doors and windows of the Consulate-General with frying-pans and sticks. On December 15, when they stopped at Yatung on their way back to India, the Indian officials did more damage. They destroyed with axes, steels rods and other things the auto-vehicles, electric-generators and scores of drums of gasoline and diesel oil kept in the courtyard of the then Indian Trade Agency, glass panes of the doors and windows, etc.
All these are hard facts that cannot be denied, and the eye-witnesses; and evidence are all there. No quibbling denials made by the Indian Government in order to help them shirk the responsibility will be of avail. The attempt made in the Indian memorandum to describe what they had done as something perpetrated "with the connivance of the Chinese local authorities" is sheer fabrication. If the said damage 'had not been done by the Indian officials themselves, and if the allegation made in the Indian memorandum that the former Indian Consul-General found glass panes of the doors and windows of the former Indian Trade Agency in Yatung broken and all valuable property there removed when he arrived there were true, certainly he would not have failed to take up the matter with the Chinese local authorities; and he should have taken up the matter with the Chinese local authorities so as to ascertain what had really happened and find out who must be held responsible. But he did not dare to do so. And the Indian Government remained silent about this matter. This is ample proof that the Indian side had a guilty conscience. It was only after the Chinese Government delivered to the Indian Embassy in China a memorandum explaining the truth of the matter that the Indian Government unscrupulously made the false counter-charge against the Chinese local authorities. This unseemly action can deceive no one. The Chinese Government firmly rejects the Indian Government's preposterous claim that Chinese local authorities in Lhasa and Yatung should be held responsible for the damage done by the Indian officials to the property under their care, and reiterates that it reserves the right to h further action in this case.

Memorandum given by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi to the Embassy of China in India, 1 April 1963

Reference Chinese Government's Memorandum dated 11th March 1963 delivered to the Embassy of India in Peking.
The Government of India in their Memorandum of 8th February, 1963 had already given full facts regarding the vandalism on the buildings of the former Indian Trade Agency at Yatung caused by unauthorised persons with the connivance of the local authorities.
There is no need to reiterate the same.
Even in July 1962, it had come to the notice of the former Indian Consul General at Lhasa that the former Trade Agency buildings at Yatung had been forced open, glass panes on the doors and windows broken and all the valuable properties removed. Soon after this was reported by the Consul General to the local authorities, the Vice-Director Mr. Hang, of the Lhasa Foreign Bureau told him that the local authorities were neither responsible for the safety of the property left at Yatung nor were they interested in what happened:
In the face of this, it is very strange that the Chinese Government are now, trying to shield the actions of the local miscreants carried on with the connivance of the local authorities. The "guilty conscience" referred to in the Chinese Government's note therefore appropriately applies to the Chinese side and not to the Indian side" In order to- shake off their responsibilities the Chinese Government have - now attempted to slander the officials of the former Indian Consulate General at Lhasa with the sole idea of deceiving others.
The Indian Government therefore categorically rejects the Chinese Government's slanderous allegations and continue to hold the Chinese Government solely responsible for the damage done to the properties of the Government of India at Lhasa and Yatung.

Nehru in Tibet: The Visit that Partially Materialized

An invitation to visit Tibet
The Dalai Lama came to India in an official visit from November 1956 to February 1957. On February 13, 1957, while on his way back, he wrote from Gangtok a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister in which he stated that he and his entourage ‘had a good pilgrimage’ in India.
He also expressed his heartfelt thanks to all those Indian officials who had accompanied the Tibetan delegation during their visit and requested Nehru to ‘recognize the valuable services rendered by these officials’.
About the same time, in another letter, the Tibetan leader restated that it was of the greatest importance to establish ‘on a firm basis’ a relationship between India and Tibet on matters pertaining to religion and culture.
He requested the Indian Prime Minister: "I would be very happy indeed if your good-self would deal directly with matters relating entirely to religion and cultural affairs of India and Tibet."
On May 8, 1957, Nehru sent a reply to the Dalai Lama, who by that time was back in Lhasa:

Your Holiness,
In February last I received from our Political Officer [Apa B. Pant] in Sikkim two letters which you wrote to me from Gangtok. I was at that time extremely busy with preparations for the general elections in our country which, as Your Holiness may know, took place throughout India during the first fortnight of March. I regret that owing to many preoccupations I could not answer your letters earlier.
I thank Your Holiness very much for the friendly sentiments which you have expressed in your letters. We were happy to have you in India as our guest. I only hope that you did not find the programme here too strenuous.
We reciprocate Your Holiness's desire for closer cultural relations between Tibet and India. We have accordingly given very careful consideration to the suggestions you have made in one of your letters.  We see no difficulty about the extension of the Tibetan Monastery at Buddha Gaya and are prepared to consider sympathetically any concrete proposal from Your Holiness. We shall also await proposals from Tibet for the establishment of monasteries at other centres in India, which are considered holy by Buddhists.
Your Holiness has referred to the appointment of a new Abbot at Tharpa Choling Monastery at Kalimpong. As Your Holiness may know, the administration of this Monastery was extremely unsatisfactory under the old Abbot. We only hope that the new Abbot, whoever he may be, will be carefully selected. Our local officers in Kalimpong will give him every possible assistance. We shall await particulars about Your Holiness's nominee. You can rest assured that we shall give our concurrence in the new appointment with the minimum delay.
We shall also be happy to receive Tibetan scholars in India. I presume that the expenses of these scholars will be borne by the Tibetan Government.
I thank Your Holiness for inviting me to pay a visit to Lhasa. I would have liked to accept your invitation. Unfortunately, I shall not find it possible to go to Lhasa this summer. I have to go to London towards the end of June for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting and shall be out of my country for nearly a month. If I see any possibility of visiting Lhasa later in the year I shall ask our Consul-General [Major V S.L. Chibber, Officiating Consul-General at Lhasa] to approach you. I shall also simultaneously inform the Government of the People's Republic of China.

During a few months, the issue of the invitation to visit Tibet remained dormant. But, on January 21, 1958, Nehru cabled R.K. Nehru, India's Ambassador to China regarding his proposed visit to Tibet (the Prime Minister referred to a telegram sent by the ambassador on January 13 on the subject). The Prime Minister wrote:

Please inform Premier Chou En-lai [Zhou Enlai] that I shall be happy to visit Tibet in response to the invitation of the Dalai Lama which he has kindly conveyed to me. I would particularly welcome meeting him there. It is difficult, however, to fix any date at present. I should like to know what possible dates would be considered suitable. Presumably sometime late in summer or early autumn will be suitable from the point of view of climate.
I suppose that I will have to make this journey by air.

A week later, he requested the Foreign Secretary (Subimal Dutt) to inform India's representatives at Gangtok (Apa Pant, the Political Officer) and Lhasa (Major S.L. Chiber, the Indian Consul General) that Zhou Enlai had confirmed through R.K. Nehru, that he had been invited by the Dalai Lama to visit Tibet later that year. The Chinese Premier had also confirmed that he would be happy if Nehru could go there; he had himself the intention of joining Nehru in Tibet; Zhou had never previously been there.
The matter came again for discussion on May 13, 1958 when the Indian Prime Minister sent another note to Subimal Dutt about the ‘Proposed Visit to Tibet’:

The other day there was a telegram from Peking about the proposed visit to Tibet. It was stated there, I think, that owing to weather conditions, the Chinese Prime Minister (Zhou Enlai) could not visit Tibet before the second half of April.
I think that you might inform our Embassy in Peking that while I shall try my best to adjust my programme to the Chinese PM's programme in regard to the visit to Tibet, I have to be here in Delhi early in October. There is a big International Conference of the World Bank in Delhi beginning on the 5th October. [The thirteenth annual joint session of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation was held in New Delhi from 6 to 10 October 1958]. This is a very big affair and over a thousand delegates are coming from all over the world. These include some eminent personalities whom I have to meet. Indeed I have to inaugurate this conference. Therefore, I have, in any event, to be in Delhi by that time.
I would not mind going to Tibet about the middle of September so as to be able to come back by the end of September, although this will interfere with our sessions of Parliament.
This information is to be conveyed to our Embassy merely for them to keep it in mind when the question of a date for the visit to Tibet arises.
Air Marshal [Subroto] Mukerjee told me yesterday that he now intended taking me to Lhasa by the Viscount as he thought this was a safer and more convenient method. But, for this purpose, he will have to make a trial flight by Viscount to Lhasa and he intended doing this in the near future. Probably he will write to you about it as we shall have to get the permission of the Chinese Government for this.

The Buddha's relics in Tibet?
In the meantime, The Mahabodhi Society of India established in Calcutta in 1892 by the Ceylonese Buddhist leader Darmapala Angarika conveyed to Nehru its plan to present a relic of the Buddha to the Dalai Lama.
From Manali, (Himachal Pradesh) Nehru wrote to Subimal Dutt:

Mahabodhi Society of India has decided to present a sacred Buddha relic to the Dalai Lama and they want me to take this with me when I go to Tibet. In fact, it is my proposed visit to Tibet that has made them think on these lines. They have asked me if they should send a formal letter making the offer, and if so to whom they should send it. I wrote to them that my going to Tibet itself was not quite certain yet and it will be better, therefore, to wait for the present before taking any other step.
On thinking again about this matter, I feel that we should let the Chinese Government know about this and then watch their reactions. You will remember that when Premier Chou En-lai came here a year and a half ago, [Zhou Enlai was in India from 28 November to 9 December 1956; from 30 December 1956 to 1 January 1957; on 24 and 25 January; and on 30 January he reached Santiniketan via Calcutta]; he brought some of the relics of Hieun Tsang [Chinese Buddhist scholar and traveller, who spent fourteen years in India from 630-644 A. D]. He gave them over to the Dalai Lama who presented them to me at Nalanda. They are being kept at Nalanda. [On 12 January 1957, Nehru received the relics of Hieun Tsang [Xuanzang] from the Dalai Lama in the premises of Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, situated in the valley of Rajgir Rills, a mile away from the ruins of the Nalanda University].
I do not quite remember who I gave them to. Did I give them to the Bihar Government on the understanding that they will keep them at Nalanda or did I give them to some museum at Nalanda? [The casket containing the relic had been deposited in the little museum at Nalanda. Nehru suggested that the casket should be kept in the Patna Museum]. Did the Mahabodhi Society of India come into the picture then?
I should like to know all the facts of this last episode. Then, keeping these in view, I should like you to send a message to our Embassy in Peking [Beijing] telling them of the desire of the Mahabodhi Society of India to present a sacred Buddha relic to the Dalai Lama through me when I go there. A Buddha relic of course is the most precious thing that a Buddhist could give or receive.
We need not ask the Chinese Government's permission about this matter. It would be better to request them to inform the Dalai Lama of this wish of the Mahabodhi Society of India.
After that, privately we might ourselves inform the Dalai Lama. But I should not like to send any message to the Dalai Lama till I have taken steps to inform him through the Chinese Government.

But the relations between India and China were becoming tenser with China.
Though not directly linked a letter dated June 26, 1958, sent by Nehru to Humayun Kabir, the Union Minister of State for Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs about the visit of Indian scholars to Tibet brings to light of the prevalent sitiation. The Chinese were becoming more and more suspicious as the Khampa rebellion was unfolding. Nehru told Kabir:

There has been for some time past a proposal to send some Indian scholars to Tibet to visit some monasteries there with a view to examining manuscripts there and taking copies. I have seen a note in which it was mentioned that four such scholars should go carrying with them four servants, apart from an interpreter and some technical personnel. Several monasteries were mentioned.
The Chinese Government informed us that in some monasteries there were no particular manuscripts. But they were agreeable to our men visiting some monasteries and staying there for some time.
The question has arisen whether in the present circumstances we should pursue this idea. Present circumstances mean certain developments on the international scene which have resulted in making the Chinese attitude more rigid than it was previously. Also there is the question of our saving money, especially foreign exchange.
…I am inclined to think that a smaller number should go this year and should concentrate on one of the principal monasteries. Thus, two scholars can go. Indeed, one would at present be enough. I should like this to be done quietly without fuss and without publicity. We have to move rather cautiously in this matter of Tibet, as Indian intentions are suspect in China.

The Khampa Factor
On July 11, 1958, the Indian Prime Minister mentioned the issue of his visit to Tibet to Apa B. Pant, the Political Officer in Gangtok. Apparently, the Chinese government was not so keen anymore to have Nehru visiting Tibet:

Your letter of July 7th. …Our relations with China are not as good as they have been in the past, chiefly because they think that we are conniving at the activities of Tibetan émigrés in Darjeeling, Kalimpong, etc. Indeed, I rather doubt now that I shall be going to Tibet at all.

One of the reasons for the deterioration of the relations was the Khampa guerilla which was active in Southern Tibet and which, according to the Chinese used Kalimpong as a base.
On August 8, in a letter to Dr. B.C. Roy, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Nehru mentions: “We have received complaints from the Chinese Government about Tibetan émigrés using Kalimpong as a base for their operations against the Chinese in Tibet.”
In his memoirs (With Nehru in the Foreign Office), Foreign Secretary Subimal Dutt said that Chinese believed that Kalimpong was the ‘commanding centre of the (Khampa) rebellion”. Nehru did not agree, though he conceded that “spies may have been functioning in Kalimpong.” The Prime Minister had asked the people of Kalimpong to “refrain from collecting arms to be sent to Tibet or do anything inimical to China”.
To come back to Nehru’s letter to Dr. Roy, Nehru states: “Some of these complaints have been forwarded to your Government [West Bengal]. There is no doubt that there are people in Kalimpong and round about who want to do this kind of thing. We have made it clear that we will not tolerate it, and that we shall take action I they create any kind of trouble.”
Nehru concludes: “In this connection, I should like you to be particularly careful in dealing with Tibetan émigrés. I have an idea that you have been, perhaps, not very careful in the past. This applies not only to you but to the members of your staff.”
During a press conference held on July 3, 1958 in Delhi, a reporter asked the Prime Minister: “There has been talk of you visiting Tibet. Has anything been finalized about it?”
Jawaharlal Nehru answered:

There is nothing further that I can tell you about my visit to Tibet. You perhaps know, some months back the Chinese Government conveyed an invitation to me, I think from the Dalai Lama, which came through the Chinese Government, and no date was suggested, sometime later in the year, and I gladly accepted. I hope that a convenient date will be fixed. Nothing more has happened since then. I suppose that if I go this year, it will likely to be somewhere in the second half of September, because after that, I am engaged here, and before that the weather is not particularly suitable for flying purposes, because weather comes into the picture anyhow, coming and going.

The journalist asked further: “Does it mean that there is a possibility that you might not go to Tibet this year?”
The Prime Minister explained: “That simply means that no date has been fixed, and because the period when one can go there by air is relatively limited because of climatic conditions. I hope to go this year, but I said if somehow it does not come off, it will be at some later date.”
In note published in the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister mentions that the visit never materialized: “Nehru was expected to visit Tibet at the invitation of Dalai Lama and then proceed to Bhutan. But the formal visit to Lhasa did not materialise. However, on his way to Bhutan from Gangtok in Sikkim, Nehru passed through the Tibetan Plateau at Yatung on 18 September 1958. On his way back from Bhutan, he again passed through Tibet on 29 September 1958.”

Crossing through Yatung
On 3 October 1958 back in from New Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru had a radio and telephone encounter with Thomas E. Dewey from Portland Maine, USA and Aldous Huxley from Turin, Italy. Edward R. Murrow of Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) moderated the debate which was telecast by CBS on 12 October 1958 in a programme entitled Small World.
Jawaharlal Nehru told his interlocutors that he had just come back from Bhutan. According to the Editor of the Selected Works, he had left on 16 September 1958, “using different forms of transport, including aircraft, car, pony and yak, while also trekking, he passed through Tibetan territory, spent the night of 18 September at Yatung, and entered Bhutan on 19 September; he left Bhutan from Paro on 27 September and reached Delhi on 2 October.”
Nehru explained: “I did not see much of Tibet; I spent nearly two weeks going in and out of Bhutan. It was a remarkable experience for me because it took me to a world which modem science and technology has not affected at all. There were no roads, no vehicles, no automobiles, and all communications were by mountain carts. It was a strange experience into a world perhaps of three or four or five hundred years ago or more. And yet it was not an unhappy world of peasant farmers, and fairly well off in regard to food and housing and clothing but with no modern gadgets, and there was no unemployment and no beggars. And I was powerfully influenced by it. I suppose it will change as every other part of the world has changed. Nevertheless it was an experience, I thought, worth having, to compare that with other countries where, while on the one side, we have many modern conveniences, we have many ill effects of the modem age also.”

Air Link with Tibet
Not directly linked with the Prime Minister’s proposed visit to Tibet, is the report of a meeting between Biju (Bijoyanand) Patnaik, pilot and industrialist (who later became Chief Minister of Orissa) and Nehru and the discussion about having an air connection between India and Lhasa. The issue nevertheless shows the growing suspicion from the Chinese side.
In a Note to Subimal Dutt, Nehru reported on February 24, 1958:
When Shri Patnaik saw me regarding an air transport service to Lhasa and to Peking [Beijing]. I told him that we had no objection to it if the Chinese Government agreed. Naturally, this would be entirely a matter for him to settle with the Chinese Government. I have an idea that a message to this effect was also sent to our Embassy in Peking.
Later, I was informed that the Chinese Government was not agreeable to this service to Lhasa. As regards the other one, there was no clear reply either way. Later still, I heard that he was invited to go to Peking to discuss this question with the Chinese Government. I think I told him that he was free to go there for this purpose.
There is no question of our sponsoring his visit to Peking, but we should raise no objection to it. Indeed, I shall be glad if he manages to get permission from the Chinese Government, provided our Government is not brought into the picture at all. It is quite true that Shri Patnaik is apt to indulge in general talks and sometimes drag in the Government's name into it. I told him not to do so and you might also tell him this. Apart from this, we have no objection whatever to his coming to any agreement with the Chinese Government about the air services.
Biju Patnaik had earlier spoken to Krishna Menon (sometime in 1957) about his project of a freighter-cum-passenger service to Tibet. Krishna Menon had already asked the Chinese Ambassador to mention Patnaik’s project to Zhou Enlai, who replied that the freighter or other service question might be discussed between the Governments.
At that time, Krishna Menon had asked whether he could explore this possibility with Nehru's approval.
On August 31, 1957, Nehru had already dictated a Note to Krishna Menon (the Defence Minister) about the Kalinga Airlines Services to Tibet:

You can certainly see these papers about the proposed Kalinga Airlines to Tibet.
When Patnaik came to see me about this matter some two or three months ago, I told him that I had no objection to his running a Service to Tibet from India, but, of course, the Chinese Government's permission would have to be taken. I asked him to see the Chinese Ambassador [Pan Tzu-Li ] here which, I believe, he did. About the same time, I think, we wrote to our Ambassador to sound the Chinese Government on this subject. The response of the Chinese Government, so far as I remember, was an evasive one and I got the impression that they did not wish to encourage any such service at this stage.
Patnaik talked about going to Peking to discuss this matter. I advised him to go there only if the Chinese Government expressed previously their willingness to see him. The last time I saw Patnaik, I told him to find out from the Chinese Ambassador about this matter.
Our position in this has been that we are agreeable to such a service, but we do not wish to sponsor it ourselves and this is a matter between Patnaik and the Chinese Government. We can, however, tell the Chinese Government that we have no objection to it and if they agree, we shall give the normal facilities at this end.
My impression is that the Chinese Government do not want any such service from India to Tibet at present at least. They are having continuing trouble in Tibet and they are not anxious to see many Indians going there. Recently, the Indian traders there have been badly treated and we have even protested both to the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama.
In these circumstances I did not wish it to appear that we were over-anxious to push this service to Lhasa.

With the quickly deteriorating situation inside Tibet, nothing will happen on this front

The Aksai Chin Road
Things became worse in the following months, when Delhi discovered that China had built a road on Chinese territory in the Aksai Chin region of Ladakh. In an informal Note given by the Foreign Secretary to the Chinese Ambassador on 18 October 1958, the government of India stated:
The attention of the Government of India has recently been drawn to the fact that a motor road has been constructed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China across the eastern part of the Ladakh region of the Jammu Kashmir States, which is part of India. This road seems to form part of the Chinese road known as Yehchang–Gartok or Sikiang Tibet highway, the completion of which was announced in September, 1957.
The road enters Indian territory just east of Sarigh Jilgnang, runs north-west to Amtogar and striking the western bank of the Amtogar lake runs north-west through Yangpa, Khitai Dawan and Haji Langer which are all in indisputable Indian territory. Near the Amtogar Lake several branch tracks have also been made motorable.
The India-China boundary in the Ladakh sector as in others is traditionally well-known and follows well marked geographical features. The territory which road traverses has been part of the Ladakh region of India for centuries and the “old established frontiers” have been accepted by the Chinese in the treaty of 1842 as the International boundary. In an official communication, a Chinese member of the Boundary Commission of 1847-49 accepted the boundary as “sufficiently and distinctly fixed so that it will be best to adhere to this ancient arrangement and it will prove far more convenient to abstain from any additional measures for fixing them.” Accordingly, Indian survey parties have visited the region since the nineteenth century. Travellers to the area have referred to it as part of Ladakh, and Atlases like the Johnston’s Atlas of India, edition 1894, and maps published by the Survey of India show it unmistakably as part of Ladakh.
That was it for the chances of the Indian Prime Minister to visit Tibet. Retrospectively, it is probably a great pity as it would have help Nehru to have first knowledge of the situation on the Roof of the World. His attitude would have perhaps been different vis-a-vis the Chinese occupation of Tibet.
In any case, five months later, an uprising in Lhasa will forced the Dalai Lama to take refuge in India.