Nathu La is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
This article was copy edited by Galena11, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 20 February 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
What is the altitude of the pass? This article says (without source) 4310 meters, while de:Nathu La and zh:乃堆拉山口 both say 4545 meters. Is there really >100 meters uncertainty about the altitude? --Jmk (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are incomplete, poorly formatted citations, missing dates, publishers, accessdates, etc., samples, Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan; North Bengal-Sikkim Railway Link – Railway Technology Archived 23 July 2012 at the Wayback Machine
The See also list needs to be pruned, or those items incorporated into the article.
The article does not appear to have been updated since 2006, sample, The Indian government has undertaken a program to sensitise the police and other law enforcement agencies in the area. Most of such illicit trade currently takes place via Nepal (sourced to 2006). The Chinese government is planning to extend its rail service to Yadong, a few kilometers (miles) from Nathu La (sourced to a dead link). On the Indian side, only citizens of India can visit the pass on Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays (sourced to 2006, is this still true?). Nathu La is one of the three open trading border posts between China and India; the others are Shipkila in Himachal Pradesh and Lipulekh (or Lipulech) at the trisection point of Uttarakhand–India, Nepal and China (sourced to 2006, still true?).
For example, the second paragraph of the History section says Nathu La played a "vital role" in the Younghusband Expedition, says nothing about this "vital role" but has all kinds of things to say about the Expedition itself. Standard WP:COATRACK tactic.
The Geography section doesn't locate the Nathu La pass in its surroundings and explain how it fits in. Nathu La is not a pass between "India" and "China". It is first of all a pass between Sikkim and the Chumbi Valley, two regions which are intimately interconnected broken only by the big power rivalries that started in 1890. Off and on, it has been hostage to the same rivalries, but what of the little people who actually live there? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is also written from an overly Indian point of view. The lead sentence states it is in Sikkim. And then it is supposed to "connect" Sikkim to Tibet. Why isn't it in "Tibet" and "connect" Tibet to Bengal? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3: I notice that there are still uncited statements, MOS:SANDWICH and a "better source needed" tag. There's also some sources in the Further Reading that might be good to add as references. Are either of you interested in working on this article? If not, can you submit it to WP:FAR? I can help with this process if you want. Z1720 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3: I've been following your edits and I'm excited at how much this article has improved! I'm removing it from my list of articles to bring to FAR. When you think the article is up to FA standards, can you ping me, and I will conduct a more thorough review? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720; I don't think this article is still up to FA standards. I assume a FA review will nevertheless be needed to ascertain if the FA status goes or remains. Submitting it to WP:FAR remains. This can accordingly be taken up. Kautilya3's comments above haven't even been addressed or incorporated into the article fully as yet. However, I just wanted to put down that I will be giving this article a break for now. DTM (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3: If one of your is actively working on the article, then the article should not go to FAR. I would suggest that the two of you keep working on this article until sources have been exhausted and improvements complete. Once that happens, I can reassess it and make further improvements. If neither of you are interested in continuing the work, then we can nominate it for FAR. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When the Nathu La pass was reopned in 2006, Chinese and Indian media tom-tommed it as reopening the "ancient silk road". The term caught on and now it is a tourist industry slogan, also embraced by the Government of Sikkim. But it is all fake. There is no evidence of any "ancient" Indo-Tibetan trade through the Sikkim passes. The age-old trade route was through Kathmandu in Nepal. (Even for it, the term "silk road" would have been quite inappropriate.) It was only after the British acquired Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts (from Sikkim and Bhutan respectively) that they tried to promote trade through the Sikkim passes, dispite enormous resistance from Sikkim and Tibet. Tina Harris has a good coverage of the "silk road" cliche.
The Chinese civil official, known to the Tibetans as Popon ('The Paymaster’), had very little to do and took no great interest in his surroundings. During a conversation at his official residence in Pipitang, a village three miles down the valley from Shasima, he admitted complete ignorance of the whereabouts of the Bhutan frontier, though this was but five or six miles away.(Bell, Tibet Past and Present 1992, p. 75) harv error: no target: CITEREFBell,_Tibet_Past_and_Present1992 (help)
This paper, on the other hand, cites a contemporary Chinese source to claim a "Himalayocentric" view of the region, where apparently India and China were "twins emerging out of a Himalayan cradle"! There is a big group of western scholars who make a living out of recycling Chinese propaganda materials. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are aiming at.
Recent scholarship—produced by Indians, Chinse, and Western scholars—has (convincingly) rejected the dogma that India and China (both anachronistic in usage) were isolationist entities on either side of the Himalaya. Abdenur reiterates that without much novelty, and she is hardly a "western scholar". TrangaBellam (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that a lot of scholarship on THR has been contaminated with Chinese Nationalist nonsense (unsurprising because it originated from the Yunnanese Six) but, much of it is salvageable. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
China had occasional forays into Himalayas, one being the Sino-Nepalese War and the secone being the Zhao Erfeng's expedition to Tibet. That is it. Chinese civilisation never "emerged" out of a "Himalayan cradle". That is ultimate nonsense!
Since linking northern India to southern China became crucial to supply Allied efforts in China, the Tea Horse Road became once again a vital link across the Himalayas (Goullart 1955).
If you look up Goullart, there is no mention of either "Tea Horse Road" or "Nathu La" in it. On the other hand, the famous Cognoscenti book does state these things, and cite Goullart for it.[1]. This is apparenty her real source! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They really should have named it after wool (Harris 2013, page 92). Or something else. Since the old silk route... so many new types of material are used for clothes, I don't think youngsters today would even know what silk is, let alone value it. With the kind of publicity the opening of the pass got in 2006, it was the perfect time to introduce something new. Then again, cliches work. When I first heard Nathu La was connected to the silk route, I was like oh, I know this (ever so wrong, I new the term as a cliche, as a slogan, but not what is actually was). There is hardly any (no) indication of silk on this route. Wool has come up in Chapman (1940), Shakya (2012) in which it is written how wool was bought up by the Chinese at really good rates from the Tibetans around 1950 and then shipped to China via Calcutta..... Just think about, Nathu La connected Tibet, Lhasa, Sikkim, Kalimpong, Darjeeling, Calcutta to China via sea! Ask a newbie to explain this and it will be a puzzle. DTM (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvios/ close paraphrasing in the article taken from this reference:
Example 1:
Article text: Nathu La has moderately shallow, excessively drained, coarse, and loamy soil on a steep slope (30–50%) with gravelly loamy surface, moderate erosion, and moderate stoniness.
Reference text: Nathula has moderately shallow, somewhat excessively drained, coarse-loamy soils on steep slope (30-50%) with gravelly loamy surface; moderate erosion and moderate stoniness
Example 2:
Article text: The region has a four-month growing season during which grasses, sedges, and medicinal herbs grow abundantly and support a host of insects, wild and domestic herbivores, larks, and finches. The nearby Kyongnosla Alpine Sanctuary has rare, endangered ground orchida and rhododendrons interspersed among tall junipers and silver firs. There are no permanent human settlements in the region, though it has a large number of defence personnel who man the borders on both sides. A small number of nomadic Tibetan graziers or Dokpas herd yak, sheep and pashmina-type goats in the region.
Reference text:The region has a short four-month growing season during which grasses, sedges and medicinal herbs grow abundantly supporting a host of insect fauna as well as the wild and domestic herbivores, larks and finches. There are no permanent settlements. Human population consists of a small number of nomadic Tibetan graziers or ‘Dokpas’ (who herd yak, sheep and pasmina-type goats) and large number of...
At certain locations, this article describes locations in Sherathang. While Sherathang and Nathu La are close, about 3km by road (Google Earth approx) and 1km as the eagle flies, Wikipedia has separate articles for them. DTM (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is too much going on with this article now and it is best to keep things separate. In any case, Sherathang is a village on its own, and a trade mart. I don't see why it should be merged with this.
On another note, can we avoid the Chinese government sources, which cannot apparently measure distances in their own territory, not to mention other more sophisticated issues? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way to improve the page is to remove all the dubious content sourced to wishy-washy sources, not to add more content of the same kind. There is a long "Further reading" list, which is not being used at all! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This content was not referenced or inadequately referenced, shifting some here which sounds important:
The potential of Nathu La was realised in 1873, after the DarjeelingDeputy Commissioner published a report on the strategic importance of mountain passes between Sikkim and Tibet. In December 1893, the Sikkimese monarchy and Tibetan rulers signed an agreement to increase trade between the two nations. The agreement culminated in 1894 when the trade pass was opened.
After India's independence from Britain in 1947, bilateral trade between India and Tibet rose. More than 1,000 mules and 700 people were involved in cross-border trade through Nathu La.
I want to introduce content from this reference. But first, apart from being a 'historian' and this a 'travelouge' who is John Easton? In 1928, John Easton crossed the Nathu La on his way to Chomolhari, writing—
"The approach to the Nathu La and the Pass itself are not formidable: the last stages of road are veritable road and not an iniquity, as is the approach to the Dzalep. The approach has been so gradual that there is no need for a formidable climb, and save for the actual cramble over the snow-covered pass, the way is easy enough. The Pass, when compared withthe Dzalep La, is rarely used and is not open all the year. The road itself is a natural path made by countless feet of mules; when we crossed, it had been opened only a week. The snow was from there three to four feet deep, and frozen." (page 39)
In this book he refers to Dr Bishop. He never tells us the full name as far as I can make out.
The answer to the question "Who is John Easton?" is that he is the one that told me that there was another Yatung before the present one. Even famous scholars didn't know the difference and even if they did, they ended up confusing one for the other. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3; I agree with the clarity of Easton's prose and geography. Does this mean you would agree with placing some content from Easton's travelouge... such as
In 1929, John Easton's travelogue describes the pass as rather simple to cross other than the "actual scramble over the snow-covered pass". However when compared with Jelep La, it is used less and is not open year round. [STOP HERE] [OR ADD] Easton describes the crossing, "The road itself is a natural path made by countless feet of mules; when we crossed, it had been opened only a week. The snow was from three to four feet deep, and frozen. Over this... the fall of the previous night. [...] there was much stumbling and holding up and whistling and hallooing by all concerned."
Alright. By the way... did you notice what it says in the beginning of the book at the Colophon? It just says— "Manufactured in Great Britain". I've never seen "manufactured" written for a book! DTM (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nathu La (and more, Jelep La) were integral in sustaining the wool economy of Kalimpong — the 1962 closures precipitated mass-migration and shutting down of relevant industries. We have nothing on this aspect.
Mention of Nathu La Trade Study Group and their (insane) forecasts. Y
Finally, after decade of talks, - So, talks were ongoing since '96? Some details are necessary. Yremoved
Ernst Schäfer spent a night at the pass, when the entire team looped in to a radio broadcast by Heinrich Himmler. Schafer found Himmler's calm voice to complement a freezing and tranquil Nathu La. Y
Tsering Shakya has noted that by the 1950s, 70 percent of trade between Tibet and India was effectively bought out by the Chinese State Trading Company, cutting off the businesses of long-established Newar and Marwari traders (business families originally from Rajasthan) in Lhasa (Shakya 1999: 115). (Harris, Geographical Diversions 2013, p. 12) harv error: no target: CITEREFHarris,_Geographical_Diversions2013 (help)
As the United States cut off economic ties with China, the big traders who held monopolies on wool quickly lost most of their profits, and four million pounds of wool lay rotting in Kalimpong warehouses. At the same time, however, smaller-scale traders suddenly experienced a boom in business. (Harris, Geographical Diversions 2013, p. 39) harv error: no target: CITEREFHarris,_Geographical_Diversions2013 (help)
After 1962, then, trade along the Lhasa–Kalimpong routes was almost completely cut off, significantly transforming the economic geography of the region. Many traders, some of whom were given only twenty-four hours’ notice to vacate their shops in the border marts, shifted their businesses by settling in Kathmandu and rerouting their trading links with Tibet through Nepal.
This sudden migration of a large number of people from Kalimpong -some were privileged enough to arrive at Nepal and carry the trade [Harris] while some had to return to their villages in N. India- is quite known. And, this did not happen before 1962 on such a large scale. While trade volume had indeed reduced to nothing by '59, the industries ran (barely) and employed people at insufficient wages. Across '60 and '61, Indian Express as well as The Hindu notes multiple protests by workers who demanded that better wages be paid and insurances against accidents (see: re-assembled cars/trucks) be executed.
Funny to see a confident assertion, "Nathu la Trade was closed in July 1961" without any citation. The 1954 trade agreement expired only on 6 June 1962. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, reading through Vibha Arora, I find that there was already decent trade between Tibet and Bhutan + Darjeeling, in the 1873 report by Edgar. (No mention of Gangtok or any other Sikkimese place.) But the trade was asymmetric. Tibetans were coming to "our bazaars", but "our subjects" weren't allowed into Tibet. Edgar considered both Nathu La and Jelep La for trade routes, but "recommended" Jelep La. She doesn't explain why. By 1879 a cart road was constructed to Jelep La.
The 1880-81 report describes far less trade than the 1873 report. I can't tell if there was a real decrease (and why) or if it was just a difference of perception. But this report had quite adverse comments on trade being at a "standstill" etc.
The 1886-87 report notes that the trade was still low compared to Nepal, and also that it had gotten diverted from Kalimpong to Gangtok, because the Tibetans blockaded the new road to Jelep La. This might mean that Nathu La was being used, but Arora doesn't mention it. Then we have the Convention of Calcutta and the 1893 Trade Regulations, with the effect that Indians were allowed to go up to Old Yatung (via Jelep La only).
In the 1987 report, the exports via Sikkim were Rs. 730,000, whereas in 1881, they were only Rs. 80,000. So it was a success. But it was still miniscule compared to Nepal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Introduced Edgar into the text. There is a gap between Edgar's report and the Young Husband expedition. Not sure how to fill it without going into generalised commentary. One event that does draw attention is the UK-China treaty of 1890. In October 2017 a Chinese spokesperson said "The Sikkim sector of the China-India boundary has been delimited by the historical treaty of 1890, and the Nathula pass has been the best witness testifying to this fact". DTM (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 1890 treaty was a border agreement. Yes, Nathu La was on the border but so was every other pass. The Chinese spokesperson was just propagandising. The reality is that in the 1893 trade regulations (which were sort of an addendum to 1890), only Jelep La was allowed. So, no, Nathu La is not a testament to anything.
The gap between 1873 and Younghusband is what I summarised above. Jelep La handled the trade with Kalimpong and Nathu La, that with Gangtok. There were ups and downs. When the Jelep La route got blockaded, Nathu La-Gangtok route benefited. But in the end, the Tibetans and the Chinese only allowed Jelep La. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the big picture, one should ask why did Edgar favour Jelep La over Nathu La? And why did the Tibetans allow only Jelep La?
My guess is that Edgar favoured Jelep La to keep the British trade route as separate from Sikkim as possible. That is a theory, but there is a well-known precedent for such a preference in Ladakh. The British tried to promote the "Chang Chenmo Route", i.e., Aksai Chin, in preference to the Karakoram Pass, so as to avoid Leh. They wanted to avoid the Maharaja's taxes. Similar considerations might have applied here. If not taxes, some interference from the Sikkimese side might become possible if the route went through Gangtok.
The Tibetans similarly didn't want the British going through the heartland of Sikkim. Best to keep them as far as away from the main Sikkim areas as possible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have any Chinese authors written on Nathu La? Any books which contain even a worthy mention of the pass? TrangaBellam, you had written above "Contemporary Qing chronicles provide interesting commentary on Nathu La". Are these by Chinese authors? DTM (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an amazing, unique and creative paper (relevant to Nathu La). They even made their wedding rings in the shape and profile of the India-China border!![1]DTM (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't complete and this is reflecting on the intro. However, the intro helps with the overall organisation. Here is a first attempt—
Nathu La is a mountain pass in the Dongkya Range of the Himalayas between China's Yadong County in Tibet, and the Indian state of Sikkim. The pass, at 4,310 m (14,140 ft), connects the towns of Kalimpong and Gangtok to the villages and towns of the lower Chumbi Valley. The pass was surveyed by J. W. Edgar in 1873, who described the pass as being used for trade by Tibetans. Francis Younghusband used the pass in 1903-1904, a diplomatic British delegation to Lhasa in 1936-37, and Ernst Schäfer in 1938–1939. Diplomatically sealed by China and India after the 1962 Sino-Indian War, the pass saw skirmishes between the two countries in coming years, including the clashes in 1967 which resulted in fatalities on both sides. Nathu La has often been compared to Jelep La, a mountain pass situated at a distance of 3 miles (4.8 km).
The next few decades saw an improvement in ties leading to the re-opening of Nathu La in 2006. The opening of the pass provides an alternative route to the pilgrimage of Mount Kailash and Lake Manasarovar, and was expected to bolster the economy of the region by playing a key role in the growing Sino-Indian trade. However, while trade has had a net positive impact, it under-performed, and is limited to specific types of goods and to specific days of the week. Weather conditions including heavy snowfall restricts border trade to around 7 to 8 months.
Roads to the pass have been improved on both sides. Rail routes have been brought closer. It is part of the domestic tourist circuit in south-east Sikkim. Soldiers from both sides posted at Nathu La are among the closest along the entire Sino-India border. It is also one of the five Border Personnel Meeting points between the two armies of both countries. 2020 border tensions and the coronavirus pandemic has affected tourism and movement across the pass.
"Throughout the nineteen century". No evidence. I also don't understand the "beginning of the twentieth [century]".
I also don't see any evidence of "political importance". It was just used for one military expedition. That is all.
Dongkya Range has to go in the first sentence itself. That is the agreed border between Sikkim and Chumbi Valley.
"Shortening the travel distance" to pilgrimage sites is also problematic. We need to know more detail before we can say something like this in the lead.
Kautilya3; with regard to the highlighted yellow text, it needs to be substituted.
This is based on Arora (2008)— A socio-historical analysis of international treaties and internal and external trade for the period 1817-1906, and the administration of trade routes, reveals the imperial concern for circulating the commodities of the Empire through the Jelep and the Nathu passes. In the article, the first line of #History is reference to this.
I was connecting the pass as a border between Tibet and Sikkim and Britain and India and China over the years; and as a part of the larger Dongkya Range. Also events such as BPMs and the defence ministers visit etc point to politico-military importance. So yes, there isn't any concrete source that directly says it is politically important. Removed its current form.
I believe that Nathu La was quite insignficacnt and practically unused until India and China signed the 1954 trade agreement. The people in Delhi had the mistaken belief that Nathu La was the more important than Jelep La. It was only after the people of Kalimpong fought for Jelep La, did they include the latter in their plans. But, as I said earlier, Nathu La is a better pass. It is just that its supposed historical significance is entirely fictitious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish someone had done a world-wide multi-planetery multi-year multi-specialty study into the relative importance of mountain passes and it was easily accessible online...[sarcasm]
As per the content in the body, and WP:LEDE, the summarisation in the lede is adapted. I have made some changes accordingly. For now, I will place it in to the article. DTM (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DiplomatTesterMan, I have trouble with your write-up on the Edgar's report as well. You state that he was sent to find "new routes". I don't see where the source is saying anything of this kind. Again, a couple of sentences down, you state "with this objective", i.e., of promoting the "reverse trade". I don't find any mention of this in the source either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3; the first two citations point to Arora. "With this objective" runs from that. Citation placement could be questioned rather that say OR. However, if you see the letter to the commissioner right at the beginning, 1, this line of summarisation starts out rather early. I have the honor to submit an account of my recent tour in Sikhim, together with such information as I have been able to collect on the state of affairs there ; the condition, extent, and prospects of the trade with Thibet ; the desirability of making a road or roads through Sikhim ; the best route or routes to be taken...DTM (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"best route" doesn't mean "new route"! Also, there is no mention of reverse trade in the paragraph. I don't believe it was a concern to the British back in 1873.
It is clear that laying a "road" was on the agenda. But Edgar was apparently asked to investigate its "desirability". So that wasn't predetermined either. We need to cover the pre-existing trade via Nathu La and Jelep La. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like these a "route" goes both ways. So writing "reverse route" is not needed. However, Arora (pg 9) discusses Edgar and his observations briefly. From this "reverse trade" is drawn. Now if you follow Arora to the original text (pg 18 and pg 32).... this is paraphrasing it. The article currently says While a number of Tibetans were entering into British India, the reverse trade was not flourishing as well. Is this misleading? No. Could the paraphrasing accuracy and grammar be increased. Yes. DTM (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any good sources that talk about this, at least a starting point? Everyone seems even hazy when taking about the past of Sikkim. DTM (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nathu La and Jelep La were the hubs of yak herders from Tibet and used to access pastures on the Sikkim side. Since there was some traffic on these passes, they were also used for small scale trading by the yak herders and graziers, but the real trade between Sikkim and Tibet was carried out over the passes in the North Sikkim – mostly through Kongra La and also from Chorten Nyima La and some other passes.[1]
(This source was listed in the article but not used anywhere.)
I should also point out that Wangchuk is only talking about Sikkim-Tibet trade. He never mentions any Indo-Tibetan trade (the so-called "silk route") via Sikkim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed the indic script and migrated Zhongwen to infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
