Nathu La to Kailash – Trip down the memory lane

Nehru in front of the Indian Trade Agency in Yatung (1958)

My article Nathu La to Kailash – Trip down the memory lane is posted on NitiCentral

Here is the link...

Once upon a time, not far from Nathu-la, the pass situated at 4,310 metres above sea level between Sikkim and Tibet, India had a stunning Trade Agency in Yatung in Tibet. This came back to mind when I saw some photos of the launch of the second pilgrims’ route to Mount Kailash.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping visited India in September 2014, he agreed to open this ‘easier’ route. The present route, via Lipulekh Pass in Pithoragarh’s district of Uttarakhand (and Purang in Tibet), is dangerous and often badly damaged by landslides.
Prime Minister Modi was keen to have an alternate route; Xi Jinping offered the Sikkim one, though it is a much longer route compared to Shipki-la in Himachal or Demchok in Ladakh, which had been requested by India.
Anyhow, the deal was signed and the details worked out when PM Modi went to China in May.
As the first pilgrims crossed over to Tibet earlier this week, PTI reported: “The pilgrims belonging to different age-groups and hailing from various parts of India made their way to the Nathu-la pass, acclimatizing themselves for the high-altitude journey to Kailash which stands at an altitude of about 6,500 metres in Tibet.”
The first batch of 250 people has been allowed to take part in the yatra, via the new route. The pilgrims, many middle-aged or retired citizens all were delighted; they had been looking for such an opportunity for years.
The Chinese Ambassador to India Le Yucheng was present for the occasion. With the Councillor in the Indian Embassy in Beijing, Shrila Dutta Kumar and some Chinese officials from Tibet, he 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 gain spiritual strength but also develop better understanding of China. One could of course ask: and what about Tibet, Mr. Le?
Soon after they crossed the pass, the yatris descended in the luxuriant Chumbi valley; for centuries, countless Tibetan traders, lamas, pilgrims and officials used this route on their way to the hot plains of India. The first large town crossed by the yatris was Yatung.
The Chinese vehicles must have sped up, to not bring old memories back; less than 60 years ago, most of the shops in Yatung were run by Indian traders. In 1958, Jawaharlal Nehru visited the place on his way to Bhutan.
Apparently, the building belonging to the Government of India has been destroyed by China. When? Nobody is able to tell me.
In the 1960s already, the Chinese were keen to erase the trace of the Indian presence in the Chumbi Valley and Yatung.
On October 31, 1962, the Ministry of External Affairs sent a memorandum to the Embassy of China in Delhi, it states: “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.”
New Delhi intended to use the heritage building as a resting place for Indian officials proceeding to Lhasa or returning to India: “The Indian Government’s request is fully in keeping with international custom and practice,” said the memorandum.
In June 1962, the Chinese Government had agreed that the buildings could remain under the charge of the Indian mission in Lhasa and be used as a rest house.
A few months later, when Chinese miscreants destroyed some parts of the heritage building, the Chinese put the blame on Arvind Deo, the Indian Consul General in Lhasa, who had passed through Yatung on his way to India.
On December 29, Beijing informed the Indian Embassy in China: “According to reports from China’s Tibet local authorities, when the former Indian Consul-General in Lhasa AR 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. …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.”
One can hardly see the mild diplomat ‘smashing’ a building belonging to his own government.
South Block immediately denied any wrong doing from its personnel, and stated the facts: ‘miscreants’ paid by China attacked the beautiful building: “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.”
This was several months before the Sino-Indian War.
The attack against the Agency was also reported by the Indian Consul General in Lhasa to the Chinese ‘local’ authorities in Tibet, particularly an officer called Hang, the Vice-Director of the Foreign Bureau. Hang told the Arvind Deo that the local authorities in Yatung were neither responsible for the safety of the Indian properties in Yatung nor were they interested in what happened.
On March 11, 1963, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing sent another memorandum to the Indian Embassy again accused the Indian diplomats: “On December 15, when they stopped at Yatung on their way back to India, the Indian officials …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…”
The Indian ministry immediately denounced the Chinese Government for the slanderous attack on the Indian officials “…with the sole idea of deceiving others.”
Today, the fact remains that the building of the Indian Trade Agency in Yatung has ‘disappeared’. Mr. Le Yucheng should be asked to explain what has happened to this property of the Indian government in Tibet; it would be useful to have a rest house in Tibet for the yatris on their way to Mount Kailash.

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.

Minsar, an Indian principality in Tibet

Minsar and Kailash/Manasarovar area

My article Minsar, an Indian principality in Tibet appeared in NitiCentral.

Click here to read...

Prime Minster Narendra Modi was on his way to Arunachal Pradesh when Hua Chunying, China's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman again got virulent about Arunachal Pradesh. In a statement, she said: “the act of the Indian side is not conducive to properly resolving and controlling disputes between the two sides, nor in conformity with the general situation of growth of bilateral relations.”
Apart from the fact that Beijing has never thought of asking the people of Arunachal Pradesh on which side they would like to be (obviously, Beijing does not believe in democracy), her statement that Arunachal is a ‘disputed’ place is historically incorrect.
Xinhua added to the confusion by saying: “Modi visited a disputed zone in the eastern part of China-India borders to attend activities marking the founding of the so-called ‘Arunachal Pradesh’, a state that Indian authorities illegally and unilaterally declared in 1987.”
As I mentioned in an earlier article, the McMahon Line, signed by the Prime Minister of Tibet (Lochen Shatra) and India’s Foreign Secretary (Sir Henry McMahon) in March 1914 is very much legal.
Ms. Hua’s allegations do not make Arunachal a ‘disputed’ area, even if she claims: “The Chinese government has never recognized the so-called Arunachal Pradesh …it's an universally recognized fact that huge disputes exist on the eastern section of China-India borders.”
A ‘universal fact’ recognized by China only!
It is however true that the Middle Kingdom has always been under the impression that China and the Universe are the same thing!
Ms. Hua misplaced statements are certainly not conducive to properly resolving disputes between the two sides.
But does Beijing realize that? Probably not!
The time has perhaps come for Delhi to ask Beijing for the return of all the territories belonging to India presently occupied by China.

Apart from the J&K State’s areas illegally ‘offered’ by Pakistan to China in 1963, the Government should ask for the return of Minsar, an Indian principality in Tibet. The Indian rights to this small town were inherited from the Peace Treaty between Ladakh and Tibet signed in Tingmosgang in 1684. Besides the confirmation of the delimitation of the border between Western Tibet and Ladakh, the Treaty affirmed: “The king of Ladakh reserves to himself the village of Minsar in Ngari-khor-sum [Western Tibet]”. For centuries, Minsar has been a home for Ladakhi and Kashmiri traders and pilgrims visiting the holy mountain.
A report of Thrinley Shingta, the 7th Gyalwang Drukpa, head of the Drukpa school of Tibetan Buddhism, who spent three months in the area in 1748, makes interesting reading: “Administratively, it is established that the immediate village of Minsar and its surrounding areas are ancient Ladakhi territory. After Lhasa invaded West Tibet in 1684, it was agreed and formally inscribed in the Peace Treaty between Tibet and Ladakh, signed in 1684, that the King of Ladakh retained the territory of Minsar and its neighbourhood as a territorial enclave, in order to meet the religious offering expenses of the sacred sites by Lake Manasarovar and Mount Kailash.”
For centuries, the inhabitants of Minsar, although surrounded by Tibetan territories, paid their taxes to the kingdom of Ladakh. During in the 19th century, when Ladakh was incorporated into Maharaja Gulab Singh’s State, Minsar became de facto part of the Jammu & Kashmir State which regularly collected taxes from Minsar. This lasted till the early 1950s.

Minsar today

What happened then?
In 1953, wanting to sign his Panchsheel Agreement, Jawaharlal Nehru decided to abandon all Indian ‘colonial’ rights, inherited from the British. Though he knew that the small principality was under the Maharaja of the Jammu & Kashmir’s suzerainty and therefore part of the Indian territory, he felt uneasy about this Indian possession, near Mt. Kailash in Tibet. Nehru was aware that Minsar had been providing revenues to maintain the temples around the sacred mountain and the holy Manasarovar lake, however Nehru believed that India should unilaterally renounce her rights as a gesture of goodwill towards Communist China.
He instructed the diplomats negotiating the Panchsheel accord in Beijing: “Regarding the village of Minsar in Western Tibet, which has belonged to the Kashmir State, it is clear that we shall have to give it up, if this question is raised. We need not raise it. If it is raised, we should say that we recognize the strength of the Chinese contention and we are prepared to consider it and recommend it.”
Though Beijing did not have to ask anything, the Indian Prime Minister recognized ‘the strength of the Chinese contention’; Nehru added: “But the matter will have to be referred to the Kashmir Government. The point is that we should not come to a final agreement without gaining the formal assent of the Kashmir Government.” However, Delhi never referred the issue to the Kashmir government.
We should remember that treaties, conventions or agreements signed by any states, do not depend on an individual or a political party; they remain in force whoever is in power. The Chinese occupation of Tibet did not change this fact.
Further, the return of any part Indian Territory needs to be ratified by the Indian Parliament only, through an amendment of the Constitution. Therefore the so-called ‘return’ of Minsar to Tibet (and China) is still today illegal and invalid in law.

John Bray, the noted scholar and President of the International Association of Ladakh Studies wrote: "the Sino-Indian boundary dispute remains unresolved. Since the 1960s, the attention of the two governments has focused on the demarcation of the frontier and, more recently, on the prospects for mutual trade. The status of Minsar is no more than a minor footnote to these concerns, but one that has still to be cleared up."
Nehru’s perception that old treaties or conventions could be discarded or scraped greatly weakened the Indian stand in the 1950s (and later when China invaded India). Nehru’s wrong interpretation made it easy for the Chinese to tell their Indian counterparts “look here, McMahon was an imperialist, therefore the McMahon line is an imperialist fabrication, therefore it is illegal”.

Minsar, today located on the National Highway 219

The disastrous consequences of Nehru’s stand can still be seen some sixty years later. Ms. Hua’s statements have their origin in these wrong views.
But if Beijing continues to raise the ‘illegal’ occupation of the Arunachal by India, Delhi should definitely bring Minsar and the Shaksgam Valley on the negotiating table.
Further, it would be useful to have an Indian enclave near the Kailash, at a time when Indian pilgrims, in ever-increasing in number, are keen to visit the sacred mountain.

Kailash via Nathu: not a Big Thing

150,000 Chinese visitors in Sakya in 2014

A few days ago, when Sushma Swaraj, the Indian foreign minister was in China to prepare the visit of Narendra Modi to Beijing in May (and rebalance India’s foreign policy after the visit of President Obama to Delhi), PTI reported: “India and China exchanged notes on modalities for opening the second route for people undertaking the Kailash-Manasarovar Yatra in Tibet via Sikkim, expected to benefit Indian pilgrims.”
The Indian news agency added: “The route through Nathu La Pass will facilitate comfortable travel for Indian pilgrims by buses.”
The same day, Syed Akbaruddin, the spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs tweeted (he is a great tweeter): “India-China exchange notes on modalities for additional route for Kailash Manasarovar Yatra in 2015.”
Swaraj had earlier stated that the opening of the new route would be a ‘big thing’.
The MEA presently takes 700/800 yatris (in 18 batches for a 22-day journey) via Lipulekh Pass in Pittoragarh district of Uttarakhand. This route is often subject to bad weather and floods like in 2013.
Always optimistic Indian Officials had announced that the number of pilgrims could rise considerably once the new route via Nathu-la is opened.
It was what was expected after the fanfare announcements and great tweets.
Unfortunately on February 2, the Sikkim Government clarified: “because of sufficient and inadequate infrastructure on both sides, only four batches comprising 50 yatris, five supporting staff and a nodal officer would be allowed.”
The statement added that this year, the Kailash Manasarovar yatra, via Sikkim through Nathula, would commence from June and end in September.
The Chinese authorities had earlier mentioned that several thousand pilgrims would be allowed to travel on the new route.
What a climb-down!
Merely 200 pilgrims between June and September!
Let us recall that the Sikkim government was given the responsibility of putting in place all the required infrastructure, as well as transport, accommodation, medical facility, acclimatization centres for the yatris.
The Sikkim government's statement also announced the MEA would soon invite applications from candidates for the yatra.
Before the arrival of President Xi Jinping for his maiden visit to India in September 2014, PTI had said that, as a ‘political gesture’, the Chinese President was to announce during his visit, the opening of a new route for Indian pilgrims wanting to go on the Kailash/Mansarovar yatra.
At that time, I questioned: “The question which needs to be asked: is it a ‘great gesture’ from Beijing or only a self-serving one?
According to the Indian news agency, the proposal was under serious consideration for some tome: “All announcements including the quantum of investments China plans to make in India are expected to be announced during Xi's visit.”
Earlier, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had requested Xi to offer an alternative to the Lipulekh pass in Pittoragarh district of Uttarakhand for the Kailash yatra. Either Demchok in Ladakh, or Shipki-la in Himachal Pradesh was expected to be the new port.
It made sense in terms of access and 'comfort'.
During Xi's September visit, it was officially announced that Beijing had decided to open Nathu-la border point in Sikkim. PTI says: “The new route, though longer, takes pilgrims from Nathu La to Shigatse … [and] from there the pilgrims could comfortably travel to Mansarovar and Kailash using well laid out highway.”
It was obviously the Chinese argument as it will clearly take the Indian pilgrims for a long (and expensive) ride.
The news agency then added: “It would be part of the big gesture of friendship not only to strike chord with Modi but also the people at large, specially the Hindus and Buddhists considering its religious importance.”
I then asked: "But is it a gesture of friendship or a decision driven by self-interest?"
The Chinese foreign ministry had told PTI that “lodging and boarding facilities for pilgrims have been improved with new hotels and additional beds with additional investments. Pilgrims also can have access to over 2300 vehicles.  ...Indians pilgrimage to Tibet is an important content of bilateral relations. China's willingness is in accordance with the spirit of the agreement which has been signed by both parties...”
Merely two hundred pilgrims in 2015 shows that the new India-China friendship has not matured as yet.
It is difficult to believe that infrastructure is the issue.
The Chinese government announced in January that “The recently upgraded Shigatse city of Tibet wants to boost the tourism industry of Sakya county.”
The famous Sakya monastery is en route between Chumbi Valley (on the Tibetan side of the Nathu-la) and the Kailash area.
Zhang Xiuwu, vice-mayor of Shigatse and Party chief of Sakya county recently announced: “Sakya offers great opportunities for tourism right now along with Shigatse developed into a city. Sakya county has been called the second Dunhuang of China, and it is listed as one of the two Chinese historic cities in Tibet autonomous region.”
Zhang Xiuwu added: "Tourism is very useful for rural residents, and we look forward to welcoming more tourists in the future. Sakya is enriched with plentiful tourism resources, and he believes that tourism can generate big profits in a short period of time.”
Guess how many visitors Sakya received last year?
Zhang said: “Statistics show that the county mainly receives pilgrims and academic researchers, and it welcomed an average of 400,000 pilgrims annually in the past three years.”
In 2014, the county received 146,000 tourists, and tourism revenue reached US $ 2.6 million.
According to The China Daily, Ngari, where the Kailash is located, received 470,000 visitors ,during the Year of Horse (last year): an increase of more than 50 percent over the previous year.
It is said that an integrated tourist center in Sakya can provide a tour guide, tickets to attractions, banks, post office, communications facilities and a specialty shopping center.
Infrastructure is enough to receive 150,000 Chinese tourists in Sakya, 400,000 in Ngari and just 200 Indians to Kailash?
What to conclude?
That this Indian pilgrimage is not a Big Thing for Beijing!