TRADE
DIPLOMACY IN SINO-INDIAN RELATIONS
Date: July, 2006
Background to
Indo-Tibet Trade through Sikkim
After
the conquest of India in mid-18th century, the British penetrated
into the Himalayas to find a way to China through Tibet. The initial intention
of the East India Company for securing a way to the Celestial
Empire was purely commercial though political ambitions would
inevitably follow commercial ventures. The British soon found that Sikkim, not
Nepal or Bhutan, offered the shortest and easiest route to Lhasa via Chumbi, a
narrow valley which lay between Sikkim and Bhutan, and which, prior to 1890,
was a part of Sikkim.
After
the annexation of Darjeeling from Sikkim by the British Government in India in 1860 Sikkim gradually came under greater
British influence. To safeguard its interest in the eastern Himalayas John
Claude White was appointed the first Political Officer in Sikkim in 1889.
White first came to Sikkim in 1887, when he led the British forces from
Darjeeling to Gangtok and forced the Chogyal (king) to abdicate his power.
White formed his Sikkim State Council and took over the administration while
the king was kept under house arrest.
![]()
Road -building in Jelep La (10,877 ft) region
in East Sikkim, which connects Tibet with Kalimpong in North Bengal, started
soon after 1873 when John Ware Edgar, Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling, was
directed to investigate the possibility of re-establishing British trade with
Tibet. Kalimpong was then a major trading center for trade with Tibet through Jelep La. In 1886, when the Macaulay Mission obtained
Chinese assent to conduct a mission to Lhasa,
road and bridges were built up to Kupup near Jelep La. But due to opposition from the
Tibetan side the Mission failed to proceed to Lhasa.
The
signing of the Anglo-Chinese Convention in Calcutta
on May 17, 1890 marked a new era in Sikkim’s tumultuous history. The
Convention, while making Sikkim a British Protectorate, also demarcated the
present border of the former kingdom, which was founded in 1642 under the first
Chogyal, Phuntsog Namgyal. The signing of supplementary agreement, Trade
Regulations in 1893, led to the establishment of a trade mart at Yatung in
Chumbi in 1894.
It was
during this period the British Government put pressure on the Tibetans to
accept Chinese ‘suzerainty’ over Tibet. The 1890
Convention and the 1893 Trade Regulations were ways in which the British sought
to impose Chinese domination over Tibet for its own self-interest.
However, when the British Government realized that Tibetans stubbornly refused
to acknowledge China’s
authority over Tibet
and blocked the entry of British forces at the border it started direct
negotiations with the Tibetans, leading to the signing of the Lhasa Convention
in 1904. The Convention, while ratifying the 1890 Convention and 1893 Trade
agreement, established two more trade marts at Gyantse and Gartok in Tibet.
Road-building
continued in the eastern border region adjoining Chumbi during the fateful
Younghusband’s military expedition to Lhasa
in 1905. Six years after Britain forcefully tried to extend its powers beyond
the Himalayan frontiers the Chinese overthrew the 270-year-old Mind dynasty and
in 1911 established a Republic in China. The rest is history. Both China and Tibet
have much to thank Chogyal Thutob Namgyal and the Sikkimese for its tough
resistance against British imperialism during this crucial period which
witnessed the end of Britain’s
expansionist policy in Asia.
Border
trade with Tibet, however,
continued during this period and even after India’s
independence in 1947, the Communist party’s takeover of China in 1949, and
subsequent occupation of Tibet
by China
in 1959. It came to an abrupt end only in 1962 after the Sino-India conflict.
The resumption of border trade with Tibet through Nathu La earlier this
month after forty-four years was indeed
a historic event.
People-to-People
Contact
More
than trade and commerce emphasis ought to have been given to people-to-people
contact on the opening day of the resumption of the traditional trade route
with Tibet
through Nathu La (14,500 ft) on July 6, 2006. The peoples, particularly those
residing in Sikkim and Tibet, have been forcefully separated for nearly half a
century by outside powers and the historic occasion could have provided an
ideal opportunity, though symbolic, for people to greet each other in a more
humane and meaningful atmosphere. But this opportunity was lost forever as more
attention was paid to officials, traders, mediapersons and the men in uniform.
Apart from increased commercial activities and economic development the Sikkim Chief
Minister, Pawan Chamling, while opening the historic Silk Route along with the Chairman of
Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), Champa Phuntsok, spoke of the need to
re-kindle “emotional bonding of the peoples of the two countries.” Hopefully,
this important aspect of Sino-Indian relations will be kept in mind in future
interactions.
What was
more unfortunate was that even trading, the main activity in the present
context, could not take off after the historic event as Indian traders did not
possess the mandatory import-export code numbers (permanent account number –
PAN). Even the quarantine center, required under the trade agreement, was found
to be locked on the trade mart at Sherathang on the Indian side of the border.
As a result, the first two truckloads of animal products brought over from
China on July 11 were returned much to the disappointment of the Tibetan
traders. These lapses cannot be condoned so easily as mere “bottlenecks” and
“teething problems” as greater issues such as national security are also at
stake as we embark on a new journey into Sino-Indian relations.
When
trade flourished through this route before 1962 conflict Sikkim was a Buddhist
kingdom ruled by the Chogyals, whose ancestors originally came to Sikkim from eastern
Tibet in the 13th century. Besides the three ethnic communities –
Lepchas, Bhutias and Nepalese of Sikkimese origin – Sikkim has a fairly sizable
population of Tibetans and Chumbipas, Dopthapas and Tromopas, who are
originally from Chumbi.
Trade and
Tourism
More
than trade, tourism offers better scope for people-to-people contact and speedy
economic development in this part of the world, which is yet to be explored.
Both the Chinese Ambassador, Sun Yaxi, and Sikkim
Chief Minister hinted on introduction of a bus service between Lhasa and Gangtok in the near future. Yaxi,
who was present in Nathu La on July 6, went on to say that the possibility of starting
a Lhasa-Gangtok bus service has been discussed at the highest level by the two
countries. While Lhasa
is 460 km from Nathu La the distance
between Kolkata to Gangtok is 497 km. The Ambassador also pointed out that
development of tourism would follow once the trade links are firmly
established.
The
Sikkim Chief Minister, who recently paid
a month-long visit to Europe to study the prospect of developing Sikkim as a
major tourist destination, said “Since Sikkim is located centrally at the
Buddhist circuit, which includes Bhutan, Nepal, Lhasa, Myanmar, and Arunachal
Pradesh and Bihar, the State is undoubtedly going to be one of the most
fascinating places.” Besides tapping the
enormous tourism potential in the region the “historic” resumption of the
traditional trade route is aimed at “turning this route into the cultural
highway that brings cradles of ancient civilization closer.”
His
Holiness the Dalai Lama came via Nathu La (meaning listening ears) in 1956 to
attend the 2500th Buddha Jayanti celebrations in India and two years
later in 1958 India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who had a
fascination for the hills and hill people, travelled through Nathu La and
Chumbi to enter the landlocked kingdom of Bhutan on a horseback. In the 8th
century, Lord Padmasambhaba, locally referred to as Guru Rinpoche (Precious
Master) and widely regarded as the Second Buddha, established Buddhism in
Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim. It is, therefore, befitting
that this ancient route to Tibet,
be reopened on Guru Rinpoche’s day (Tse Chu– 10th day of 5th month in Tibetan lunar calendar) and
the Dalai Lama’s 71st birthday. It would be a great occasion if the
Tibetan spiritual leader was to return to his homeland via Nathu La when the
Chinese Government formally gives assurances on his demand for ‘genuine
autonomy’ for Tibet
and invites him back to where he belongs.
The
opening of the Beijing-Lhasa railway service on July 1, a week before the
resumption of the Nathu La trade route, seems significant. In due course,
Shigatse, a major commercial center south of Lhasa, and Yatung, which fall on Lhasa-Nathu
La route, will have rail links from the Chinese side. If relations between the
two Asian giants improve then there is the distinct possibility of reopening
trade routes with Tibet through Lachen and Lachung in North Sikkim and also
Jelep La, an alternative route to Tibet near Nathu La. Both West Bengal and Sikkim stand to
benefit if the Jelep La route is reopened. Says the Chinese Ambassador, “Border
trade is a way of resolving the outstanding issues between India and China”. The two countries would
surely open up more trade routes when relations deepen through frequent
interactions.
Local
Aspirations and Strategic Location
The
recent decision to construct two-lane highway between Gangtok and Nathu La
(distance 53 km and two hours drive) at an estimated cost of Rs 200 crores by
the Border Roads Organization (BRO) and the construction of 608 km road network
along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh,
passing through Sikkim, are all positive indications of the building up of a
closer and more friendly ties between India and China. Besides facilitating
better road network in the entire Himalayan frontier road construction on LAC
has been prompted by strategic considerations. India
wants to strategically counter the Chinese build-up of road and rail links
along the border in Tibet
and be prepared to meet any eventuality. What happened after Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai
euphoria in the fifties cannot be forgotten so easily even if both India and
Chinese aspire to let bygones be bygones. While a note of optimism has indeed
been struck on Sino-Indian relations New
Delhi needs to tread cautiously in dealing with
contentious issues in the coming days.
More
than anything else both the countries need to give top priority to local
concerns raised by people of Tibet
and Sikkim.
The Sikkim unit of the
Indian National Congress (INC) objected to resumption of Indo-Tibet border
trade through Sikkim
before fulfilling the long-pending demand on restoration of the political
rights of bonafide Sikkimese. The Sikkim Bhutia-Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC),
an umbrella organization of the State’s indigenous Bhutia and Lepcha tribals,
has also harped on the same issue. Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee President
and former chief minister (1979-1994), Nar Bahadur Bhandari, once close to the
late Chogyal, always maintained that India had violated assurances given to the
Sikkimese during the ‘merger’ era in the 1970s, when it abolished seats
reserved for bonafide Sikkimese belonging to the three ethnic communities in
the Sikkim Legislative Assembly in 1979, four years after Sikkim’s absorption
into the Indian Union. The apprehension over the increasing influx of
non-Sikkimese and non-Tibetans in Sikkim and Tibet respectively are major
issues which need to be taken seriously.
Both
India and China need to respect the hopes and aspirations of the Tibetans and
Sikkimese if the two countries want to come together in a more lasting and
meaningful way. For more than guns, cannons and diplomacy it is the faith,
trust and goodwill of the people which will act as a catalyst for speedy
economic development and formidable bulwark against any outside aggression.
Even if
both China and India have formally and symbolically accepted their political
authority over Tibet and Sikkim they need to pay heed to what Charles Bell, Political
Officer of Sikkim and a close friend of the 13th Dalai Lama, once
said: “…from India’s point of view, a happy Sikkim as buffer state would be of
greater advantage than an unhappy Sikkim in India on one of her future
international boundaries of great importance, which would be of disadvantage,
indeed a danger to India.” This applies to Tibet, too.
