Talk:Barahoti

Prim. sources

• Anon. 1889. News of the week: [Tibetans In Garhwal]. Spectator 63:657. News that the Tibetans have sent a force into Garhwal in order to tax traders crossing the Niti Pass.
• Bajpai, S.C. 1964. Barahoti—on Sino-Indian border: an historical appraisal. Parl. Stud. 8:12–14, May. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  Gopalachari's claims about taxes are quite misplaced (will clarify with a note): as early as 1853, we have local traders complaining about being double-jeopardised by both sides for accessing the area. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  Why media organizations and certain I.R. scholars parrot I.B. notes as the holy truth without the barest of scrutiny amazes me.

  Both in 1950 as well as 1951, we have mountaineers/explorers noting Uttar Pradesh troops in the region. So, IB's claim in late 1952 that the Garhwal authorities hardly ever visit the area or take any action to denote that it lies within their jurisdiction is obviously false. Their descriptions of various taxations impress upon me, a lack of familiarity. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Tibetan taxation is a weird thing. Normally, they would have taxed the traders going to Tibet for trade. But the border traders wouldn't have had the money to pay at that point. They would have money only after selling the goods in Indian markets. So, eventually the Tibetans started the practice of collecting taxes by coming into Indian villages. In Kumaon, the British became apprehensive about the practice and blocked it. Then apparently trade collapsed and the British returned it to the original ways. Some analysis of the situation can be found here:

• Bergmann, Christoph (2016). "Confluent territories and overlapping sovereignties: Britain's nineteenth-century Indian empire in the Kumaon Himalaya". Journal of Historical Geography. 51: 88–98. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2015.06.015. ISSN 0305-7488.

Taxation is not a reliable indicator of territorial ownership. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Nice read. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Checking up on the Bajpai source finally. Taxes were being collected from the "Bampa and Johari traders" (entering Tibet presumably). Their right to collect taxes was not contested, only the fact that they had set up shop at Barahoti. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• One Avtar Singh Bhasin (blurbed as an MEA insider) has written a revisionist work titled Nehru, Tibet, and China. Among a host of mistakes, notes Wu-Je to be Longju. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hilarious! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• TrangaBellam, I don't see where this line comes from: Surrounded by snowy mountain peaks, Barahoti is the lone grazing ground of a now-extinct trans-Himalayan trade-route. The TOI article cited doesn't seem to say anything about any of these matters. "Long grazing ground" is quite an overstatement because I see grazing practically all along the valleys and some of the slopes too. The trade route is also probably not quite right because the Niti Pass is the traditional trade route. Niti Pass and the Kungri Bingri pass were mentioned in the 1954 trade agreement, none of the others in this area. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Let me check (and add sfn-s). TrangaBellam (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  That it was on a trade route is undisputed: British correspondence in 1890s state to this effect, unambiguously and I am not claiming that it was a vital trade route. I can cite a primary source but surely, there is a sec. source; fwiw, the TOI article is mis-cited.

  I do not recall anything about Barahoti being the lone grazing ground. Please feel free to remove it. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Land deeds

I wrote an unsourced line, which (now) appears to be quite strange. You added a source from FBIS (which was likely not consulted by me; not in my PC folder); any clarity on details? Has any scholar examined these "land-deeds"? Do we have the content of these deeds? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It was the first hit on Google Books. (I don't know where your information came from.) The Chinese officials' report should have more information about it the land deeds. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC) amended. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Reject that"

TrangaBellam, "reject that..." is not correct English. What is rejected must be a thing. One might say "reject the claim", "reject the idea" etc.

Secondly, "reject" has a very strong meaning in English. The OED explicates:

II. Senses relating to refusing or declining something.

7a. transitive. To refuse to recognize, acquiesce in, submit to, adopt, or allow (a rule, command, practice, etc.) (in early use in legal contexts); to refuse to believe (a statement, etc.), to discard from consideration.

7b. intransitive. To be disobedient. Obsolete. rare.

8. transitive. To refuse to have or accept for some purpose; to set aside or discard as useless or worthless; to turn down. Also intransitive.

9. transitive. To refuse to grant, entertain, or agree to (a request, proposal, etc.). Also intransitive.

10a. transitive. To repel, rebuff, snub (a person); to refuse to accept, listen to, or admit; (also) to turn down for employment.

10b. transitive. spec. Esp. of a woman: to refuse as a lover or spouse. Also with infinitive complement and intransitive.

10c. transitive. To deny (a person making a request). Obsolete. rare.

10d. transitive. Of a parent or guardian: to spurn (a child) by denying it the normal emotional relationship between parent and offspring.

So, "rejection" is always done by a higher authority, like a court can "reject" a petition, an official may "reject" a request. For equal parties or somebody lower down, we have gentler words like "disagree", "deny", "contest", "counter" or "protest". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done TrangaBellam (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Note

What is meant by These name are in common parlance. The local names are Yong Gad and Kio Gad respectively. How is local name different from common parlance? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears that the "common parlance" names were made up by British geographers, which persist in the Indian government nomenclature. But they were not the original names. The Bhotiyas, like the Tibetans, refer to rivers by the place they flow from. But, by and large, they didn't care to give names to rivers at all.

I see that "parlance" may be misleading. I will change it to "common literature" instead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is agreeable and better. Thanks TrangaBellam (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)