Privacy - Gap Brand Talent印占拉达克及不丹在我国西藏的飞地_伪阿鲁纳恰尔邦吧_百度贴吧
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&签到排名：今日本吧第个签到，本吧因你更精彩，明天继续来努力！
本吧签到人数：0成为超级会员，使用一键签到本月漏签0次！成为超级会员，赠送8张补签卡连续签到：天&&累计签到：天超级会员单次开通12个月以上，赠送连续签到卡3张
关注：6,074贴子：
印占拉达克及不丹在我国西藏的飞地收藏
房建昌先生在上个世纪九十年代写过一篇文章，论述中国与不丹的边界问题及不丹在西藏的飞地问题，但是网上找不到这篇文章。众所周知，在不丹的东南角有块很大的地叫做”墨拉萨丁“，是中国声索而被不丹占领的，吧主在某某百科上编写过中英文版本描述了这个”墨拉萨丁“（Mera-sarkten），如今，这块地方就算不丹今后还给中国，也有可能成为飞地------如果藏南印占区的门隅地区不能从印度手里索回的话。现在要介绍的，不是中国在不丹的飞地，而是不丹及印占拉达克在西藏的所谓飞地：《Ladakhi and Bhutanese Enclaves in Tibet》由一个叫做约翰.布雷（J .Bray）2012年在&不丹研究杂志&上发表（某某百科的”Bhutan–China relations“词条中，也提到不丹在西藏有8处飞地被我国占领：the Chinese People's Liberation Army occupied eight western Tibetan enclaves under Bhutanese administration.）下面介绍约翰.布雷写的拉达克及不丹在西藏的飞地（Ladakhi and Bhutanese Enclaves in Tibet）
1Ladakhi and Bhutanese Enclaves in Tibet*John Bray**IntroductionUntil the 1950s both Ladakh and Bhutan governed small enclaves of territory in Western Tibet. Ladakh’s enclave consisted of the village of Minsar (Men ser), near lakeManasarovar (Ma pham), and its surrounding land, whileBhutan governed the Darchen (Dar chen) Labrang and several smaller monasteries and villages near Mount Kailas (Gangsrin po che, Ti se). These enclaves were entirely surrounded bythe territory of the Dalai Lama, but Ladakh (superseded bythe government of Jammu and Kashmir after 1846) and Bhutan continued to raise revenue there for some 300 years.The status of these enclaves was ambiguous. By the 20thcentury both Kashmir/India and Bhutan claimed to hold their lands in full sovereignty. By contrast the Lhasa government acknowledged that Ladakh/Kashmir and Bhutan held certain rights, but it nevertheless tried to exercise its own authority as though the enclaves were no more than foreign-owned estates in Tibetan territory. These disputes were never fully resolved but came to an abrupt end in the 1950s when the Chinese government took over both sets ofenclaves, without paying compensation either toLadakh/Kashmir or to Bhutan.This paper is a preliminary discussion of the ambiguitiessurrounding the enclaves. It begins with an analysis of theircommon origins in the 17th century, and then discusses thedisputes surrounding them in the 20th century, makingparticular reference to British records.1 The paper concludeswith a discussion of the enclaves’ standing in the widercontext of traditional and contemporary Himalayan politics.
从上面的文章可知，印占拉达克及不丹在我国西藏的所谓飞地都是很小的，位置在阿里普兰县的神山圣湖（冈仁波齐和麻旁雍错）附近。并且，是有争议的，不过印占拉达克及不丹的寺院在这些所谓飞地收租收了300年了，应该是个历史遗留下来的问题。下面继续原文：
OriginsBoth sets of enclaves share a common origin in that they dateback to the period when the Kings of Ladakh controlled the whole of Western Tibet (Mnga’ ris skor gsum). The link with Bhutan arises because of the Ladakhi royal family’sassociation with the Drukpa Kagyupa (’Brug pa bka’ rgyudpa) sect. This association dates back at least to the end of the16th century: in 1577 King Jamyang Namgyal (Jams dbyangrnam rgyal, r. c.) of Ladakh, who stood in apriest/patron relationship with the Drukpa leader PadmaKarpo (Padma dkar po, ), sponsored the building ofa tantra school on his territory.2 The Drukpa school alsoestablished close links with Zangskar, which was subordinateto Ladakh, in the same period原来这个问题要追溯到拉达克侵犯阿里并占领阿里的时候--------原来如此！
In the early 17th century, the Drukpa Kagyupa split becauseof a dispute over the reincarnation of Padma Karpo. The tworival candidates were Pagsam Wangpo (Dpag bsam dbang po,) who belonged to the ’Phonand Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal (Zhab drung Ngag dbangrnam rgyal, ?) the abbot of Ralung (Rva lung)monastery, which lies to the east of Gyantse. The ruler ofTsang (Sde rid gtsang pa) decided in favour of PagsamWangpo, forcing Ngawang Namgyal to flee to the south. TheZhabdrung united the whole of what is now Bhutan under asingle authority and is regarded as the founder of theBhutanese state.3 The Zhabdrung established himself as thehead of the Lho ’brug or southern branch of the DrukpaKagyupa. Druk Yul (’Brug yul), the indigenous name ofBhutan, alludes to its association with the Drukpa Kagyupa.
The Kings of Ladakh maintained contact with both thenorthern and the southern branches of the Drukpa Kagyupa.4Stagtsang Raspa Ngawang Gyatso (Stag tshang ras pa ngagdbang rgya mtso, ), who was associated with thenorthern branch, became the foremost teacher of King SenggeNamgyal (Seng ge rnam rgyal, r. ), and founded themonasteries of Hemis (Gsang snags chos gling), Chemre (Thegchog) and Wanla (De chog rnam rgyal). However, Stagna (Stagsna) monastery which was founded in circa 1580 wasaffiliated with the southern branch, and the King maintainedclose personal contact with the Zhabdrung. Sengge Namgyal’sbrother, Prince Tenzin5 (Bstan ’dzin), went to Bhutan androse to become the governor (rdzong pon) of Wangdi Phodrang （Dbang ’dus pho brang). In 1639 Standzin helped defeat aTibetan army at a battle at Punakha in Bhutan.6Sengge Namgyal’s territories in Western Tibet included thearea surrounding Mount Kailas which had long associationswith the Kagyupa. These date back to the time of Milarepawho is said to have engaged in a magical contest with theBonpo master Naro Bonchung for authority over the sacredmountain. It was finally decided that the one who reached thesummit of the mountain first on the 15th day of the monthwould be the victor. Naro Bonchung began ascending themountain before dawn, but Milarepa overtook him using hisrobes as wings and reached the summit as the first rays ofthe sun appeared.7 The two Kagyu schools with the closestassociation with Kailas were the Drigung (’Bri gung pa) andthe Drukpa.8As a mark of respect to the Zhabdrung, the King offered him aseries of monasteries near the mountain. The monasterieswhich Sengge Namgyal granted to the Zhabdung were: Darchen Bla brang dgon, Gnyen po’i ri rdzong, ‘Bri ra phug, Rdzu’phrul phug, Ge rdzong, Bya skyibs, Ye ri dgon phug, Gad ser,So mo rgyu, Shi ha ra.9 These are the territories whichdeveloped into Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet. In 1661 KingDeldan Namgyal (Bde ldan rnam rgyal, r.)confirmed all the existing rights of the southern school in hiskingdom. His charter makes specific reference to themonasteries and associated properties on the ‘snow mountainTi se’ (Kailas).10Ladakh’s close association with Bhutan was to have fatefulconsequences. In 1677 King Deleg Namgyal (Bde legs rnamrgyal) chose to take Bhutan’s side in a war with Tibet.11 Thissubsequently led the Lhasa government to invade Ladakh,and fighting continued from Ladakh wasdefeated and the Sixth ’Brug chen Mi pham dbang po helpedmediate between the two sides to negotiate the treaty ofTemisgang (Gting mo sgang) in 1684. Among other provisionsin the treaty Ladakh agreed to send a triennial lo phyagmission to Lhasa carrying a specified list of symbolic gifts,13 and it ceded the whole of Western Tibet to the Lhasagovernment with the exception of certain enclaves.
The Ladakhi Enclave at MinsarThe Ladakhi enclave was the estate of Minsar which the Kingretained, ostensibly to meet the religious offering expenses ofLake Manasarowar and Mount Kailas.Minsar was a small settlement on the main trading routefrom Ladakh to Lhasa. The first Western reference to it comesfrom the early 19th century East India Company veterinarysurgeon and explorer William Moorcroft who passed throughin late July 1812.14 In Moorcroft’s description, Minsar had“but one house made of bricks baked in the sun, and fivetents of goat herds”. However, he considered his stay there tohave been profitable because he was able to buy a sample ofTibetan wool and he hoped that this would one day become amajor trade item with the British. He recorded that themorning he spent there was hot and, with characteristiccommercial astuteness, commented that this was “acircumstance in our favour as the sellers of wool are in thehabit of wetting it under the idea as they pretend of itstwisting the closer, but more probably to make it weighheavier”. Moorcroft considered that day to be “the epoch atwhich may be fixed the origin of a traffic which is likely to be extremely beneficial to the Honourable Company”. However,makes no reference to Minsar’s links with Ladakh.In 1834 Zorawar Singh invaded Ladakh on behalf of GulabSingh, the ruler of Jammu. After a series of battles, Ladakhfinally lost its independence in 1842. Four years later, GulabSingh became the first Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir,including Ladakh. Jammu and Kashmir was a princely statewithin the Indian empire, and in theory the Government ofIndia was responsible for its external relations. However, in1852 the Kashmir government signed an agreement withTibet agreeing to fulfil the obligations of the 1684 treaty,including the triennial lo phyag mission to Lhasa. It appearedthat it acted on its own initiative, without reference to theBritish.15 Similarly, the Kashmir Durbar inherited Ladakh’sclaim to Minsar and continued to collect revenue from it. In1853, when Mehta Basti Ram was Wazir (governor) ofLadakh, this revenue amounted to Rs 56.16I have not been able to find any detailed Western descriptionof Minsar in the second half of the 19th century, but Britishofficials in Kashmir and Ladakh were certainly aware of itsexistence. For example, in 1900 R.L. Kennion, who wasBritish Joint Commissioner in Ladakh, wrote a despatchdiscussing corvée transport obligations in Ladakh andTibet,17 and he mentions that by ancient custom the annualmission sent from Ladakh to Minsar was allowed free transport consisting of six baggage animals and one ridingpony on both sides of the frontier.18 Kennion subsequentlydiscussed whether Minsar should be included in the Ladakhland settlement (a detailed register of land ownership andtaxation obligations), but the sole reference to Minsar in thepreliminary report of the Ladakh settlement is as follows:According to the papers prepared in Sambhat 1958,the number of villages in Ladakh Tahsil is 110 inaddition to which is the village of Masur, which lies inthe midst of Chinese Tibet and has never been visitedby State Revenue officials.19However, it appears that Kashmir was collecting revenue fromMinsar throughout this period—for example, in 1905 therevenue amounted to Rs 297—and that Minsar was includedin the final settlement report.20 Minsar was also included inthe 1911 and 1921 Indian censuses: in the 1921 census itwas recorded as having 44 houses, 87 men and 73 women.Meanwhile, the Tibetan authorities, while acknowledgingKashmir’s rights in Minsar, also made their own claims. In1929 E.B. Wakefield, an ICS officer, visited Western Tibet,and reported that Minsar paid taxes to Kashmir while at thesame time fulfilling certain labour obligations to the Tibetanauthorities：
I was surprised to learn that the inhabitants of Minsarand the neighbourhood own allegiance not to the DalaiLama but to the Maharaja of Kashmir. Formerly, I wastold, the 40 families resident in the Minsar districtused to supply eight men to the Tibetan army, butnow, being subjects of the Maharaja of Kashmir, theyare exempt from this duty, though they are stillcompelled to provide free transport for Tibetan officialstravelling through their territory. Every year theLumberdar of Rupshu, or some petty official, fromLadakh comes to Minsar to collect the tribute due tothe Maharaja of Kashmir. The tribute consists of 60sheep, 20 goats, six yaks and 60 lambskins, whilst asum of 60 rupees is paid half in rupees half in tankas,on account of the travelling expense of the Ladakhi official who collects the tribute.21Ten years later Dr Kanshi Ram, the British Trade Agent,visited Minsar. The local people complained to him that theywere forced to buy tea from Tibetan officials at a price abovethe market rate, a form of taxation known as ‘Pujjar’:We left Chakra on the 21st and reached Minsar on the23rd September and had to stay there for two daysowing to the transport difficulties. The Minsar Gobaswho are the subjects of the Kashmir governmentrepresented to me that although they had a letter fromthe Wazir Ladakh to the effect that they should nottake any pujjar, yet Jingshung22 was still pressingthem to take six loads (gams) of tea and two loads of grain as pujjar and requested me that I shouldrepresent their case to Jingshung. Upon this I sawJingshung on the 25th September and represented thepujjar case of Minsar men to him. After a longdiscussion, he told me that it was a very old practiceand he was sorry that he could not exempt them fromit and assured me that he would now give only threegams of tea instead of six as I had approached him inthis connection. I therefore did not approach him anymore as the practice of giving pujjar is a very oldcustom. 23The question of double taxation evidently continued to be aproblem. In 1940 Tsetan Phuntsog, a senior Ladakhi official,visited Minsar on behalf of the Kashmir government.According to his wife’s memoirs, he negotiated a satisfactoryagreement with the Tibetan authorities, but she does notrecord the details.24 However, Abdul Wahid Radhu, a LadakhiMuslim merchant, passed through Minsar in 1942 as amember of the lo phyag mission to Lhasa, and he mentionsthat the inhabitants complained that they still had to paytaxes both to Kashmir and to Tibet.25Abdul Wahid Radhu was one of the last representatives of anancient trading tradition. Soon after his visit, the political andeconomic situation in the Himalayan region changedirrevocably. In 1947 India and Pakistan became independent,but were quickly locked in dispute over Kashmir. Pakistaniforces invaded Ladakh as well as the Kashmir valley, and in1948 they came close to capturing Leh. The UN-brokeredceasefire in January 1949 froze the line of control betweenIndian and Pakistani troops, but failed to resolve the dispute.
Political conditions on the northern side of the Himalaya changed even more drastically with China’s invasion of Tibetin 1950 and the crackdown which followed the Lhasauprising of 1959.In the late 1940s and early 1950s the Indian and Kashmiri authorities were preoccupied with their internal problems and with the threat from Pakistan, and therefore neglected theirTibetan enclave. It appears that Minsar stopped paying taxesto Kashmir during this period: India did not formally abandonits claim, but it missed an opportunity to consolidate it in theearly 1950s when relations between India and China wererelatively favourable.26However, in the course of talks with China in the early 1960s,India maintained somewhat belatedly that Minsar was ‘aLadakhi enclave in Tibet and was held in full sovereignty by India’.27 The context of these talks was the dispute over the boundary between India and Tibet which led to the Sino-Indian war of 1962-63. India referred to Ladakh’s claim to Minsar, and its historical relationship with Tibet, to bolster itsargument that its own claims represented the ‘traditional’boundary.The Sino-Indian boundary dispute remains unresolved. Since the 1960s the attention of the two governments has focusedon the demarcation of the frontier and, more recently, on theprospects for mutual trade. The status of Minsar is no morethan a minor footnote to these concerns, but one that hasstill to be cleared up.
Bhutanese EnclavesAfter the treaty of Temisgang the Tibetan governmentconfirmed Bhutan’s title to its lands in western Tibet.28 Themost important Bhutanese property was Darchen Labrang atthe foot of Mount Kailas.In some respects its history was similar to Minsar’s: twogovernments claimed control over it, and its inhabitants werecaught in the middle. However, Darchen had greater religioussignificance than Minsar because it was—and still is—thetraditional starting point for pilgrims wishing to make thecircuit of Mount Kailas. Moreover, Darchen was also the siteof a trading mart in the summer months from mid-July toearly September. Indian traders from Almora districtpurchased wool in exchange for cloth and other Indian goods.The Bhutanese official in charge of Darchen was known asthe Gangs ri rdor ’dzin. He was normally a senior lama whoserved in Darchen for a fixed term, and a Bhutanese legalcode of 1729 mentions the post as one of the highest offices ofstate.29Many British accounts refer to the rdor ‘dzin as the‘dashok’ (drag shos), a title which referred to his ranking inthe Bhutanese hierarchy. In addition to his religious duties,he was responsible for regulating prices in the Darchen trademart and arbitrating in disputes. The numbers of pilgrimsvaried from year to year, but they were a source of revenue tothe lama in charge of the monastery, and he remitted part ofhis earnings to Bhutan.
Bhutan claimed that Darchen and associated estates werecompletely independent of Lhasa. This claim led to frictionsbetween the rdor ’dzin and the two Garpons (sgar dpon) ofGartok who were the Lhasa government’s seniorrepresentatives in western Tibet. As will be seen, there areseveral references to such frictions in 20th century Westernsources, and they no doubt occurred in earlier times as well.The first Western traveller to visit Darchen was WilliamMoorcroft, who went there in August 1812, Moorcroft’sdescription reflects the fact that his prime interest was intrade:There are four houses of unburnt brick or stones, andabout twenty-eight tents, amongst which that of theservant of the Latáki agent is apparently the best.Sixteen years ago the old pundit says this was a placeof consequence. There we may find many Juarí andDhermu merchants with grain and three teamerchants, who say they are acquainted with Pekin,which they call the capital of Maháchín: but theythemselves reside two months journey beyond Pekin.30Nearly a century later, under the terms of the 1904 Lhasa convention, Britain secured the right to station a Trade Agent in Western Tibet. Unlike their counterparts in Gyantse and Yatung, all the British Trade Agents in Western Tibet were Indians. They spent every summer in western Tibet, but did not stay there in the winter. Their reports and official diaries
are among the main British sources on western Tibet duringthis period, and occasionally refer to Darchen.British officers from the Indian Civil Service (ICS) also made sporadic visits to Western Tibet. The first to do so was Charles Sherring, the District Commissioner of Almora, who went there in 1905. Sherring reported that Darchen’s political status of the region was already a source of controversy:Here in the very midst of Tibetan territory we found anadministration ruled by the Ruler of Bhutan,independent of the Gartok viceroys and of Lhasa itself.Apparently the whole is in the nature of a religiousendowment, in which the Bhutan representatives willnot now tolerate any interference, and so far havematters gone in the past that the retainers of theDarchan ruler have met those of the Garphans andblows have been exchanged, even firearms broughtinto use. During the last three years the appointedofficer, who bears the title of Dashok, has been absentfrom Darchan without intermission, and his faithfulservant has done the work in the ordinary course ofevents...... His work is an important one, as he is thehead administrator of D of two monasteries,Nendiphu and Zutulphu (Jamdulphu of the maps)which are situated on the holy way round K ofthe Jaikep (Jenkhab) gompa on Lake M ofthe very important place K of Rungung andDo on the upper K of Gazon near Gand four monasteries Iti, Gonphu, Gesur and Samurin the Daba Jongpen’s territory.31In 1905 minor disputes between Bhutanese and Tibetanofficials were of no great concern to the British. However,King Ugyan Wangchuk of Bhutan evidently expected things tochange after the Treaty of Punakha which he signed in1910.32Under the terms of this treaty Britain was toadminister Bhutan’s foreign relations which, in principle,might have been expected to include its dealings with Tibet.
In December 1912 the King referred to the Bhutanese possessions around Mount Kailas in a letter to Charles—laterSir Charles—Bell, the Political Officer in Sikkim.33TheTibetan government was levying salt tax from the people livingin the area, and the King contested its right to do so.At the same time, with a touch of optimism, he mentioned aneven older dispute. The fifth Dalai Lama had taken away mostof the lands belonging to the Bhutanese owned monastery ofTö ling Tsurpo (Tib?), a day’s journey from Lhasa. Could theBritish government put pressure on Lhasa to return thisproperty? Bell duly consulted his superiors in theGovernment of India Foreign Department on both issues.Their conclusion was that it was ‘unnecessary to consider thequestion of supporting the Maharaja unless and until seriouscontingencies of graver importance should arise’.The tax issue remained unsettled, and in the 1920s the Lhasagovernment intensified its efforts to increase its revenue:among other expensive projects it wished to set up an armytrained on British lines.34The Tibetan government’sagricultural department, the So nams las khungs, began toregister the residents of the Darchen area, who were mainlypastoral nomads, and to tax them accordingly. The King ofBhutan continued to object and engaged in ‘acrimoniouscorrespondence’ with the Tibetan government.35In 1927 the murder of Nathi Johari, a trader from Almoradistrict, created a further source of tension.36 He was among a group of traders who had stopped for the night at LarchenDik, some 15 miles from Darchen, when they were attackedby bandits. Nathi Johari was wounded, and carried toDarchen, where he died. He had been a British subject, andthe Government of India was therefore keen to secure thepunishment of the murderers. The Garpons duly put pressureon the lama in charge of Darchen monastery (the incidenttook place during an interregnum between rdor ’dzin).However, the Bhutanese pointed out that the attack hadtaken place outside their territory, even though Nathi Joharihad subsequently died within it. In any case they had littleprospect of capturing an unidentified bandit. The Garponswere not satisfied with this reply: the case dragged on forseveral years, and was never satisfactorily settled.In 1930 Bhutan’s appointment of Tobdan La (Stobs ldan lags)to administer Darchen led to further tensions.37 He was alayman rather than a monk, and the Lhasa authoritiesclaimed that his appointment was contrary to establishedpractice. Tobdan La’s forceful approach to the tax issuefurther antagonised them: he took back as Darchen subjectsa number of people who had previously been registered by theSo nams las khungs. The Garpons responded by forcing thesesubjects to give up their Bhutanese ‘nationality’, and beatsome of them severely. Eventually, Lhasa succeeded insecuring Tobdan La’s withdrawal. The Garpons appointed aTibetan official, the former Ta tsam (Tib?) of Barkha to be incharge of Darchen.
In 1932 King Jigme Wangchuk of Bhutan appealed toFrederick Williamson, the Political Officer Sikkim to take upthe Darchen dispute during a forthcoming visit to Tibet.38Williamson thought that the matter was ‘really a religious one’and the British should intervene as little as possible.However, he responded to the King’s request because he was‘extremely pressing’ and because he thought the atmosphere in
Lhasa was ‘favourable to the receipt of friendlysuggestions’. Williamson duly brought up the matter inLhasa.In his report Williamson pointed out that the tax issue ‘raisesthe question whether Darchin is Bhutanese territory, as HisHighness of Bhutan would claim, or whether it is merely anestate in Tibetan territory held by him, as the Tibetangovernment would claim’. However, he added that this pointhad been ‘avoided by both sides’. It appears that theycontinued to avoid it thereafter, although the Tibetangovernment responded to Williamson’s initiative by sending aconciliatory letter to the King of Bhutan.Darchen came up again in the reports of the British TradeAgent in 1937.39 He had two concerns. The first was that theDarchen Labrang had flogged the servant of a Johari traderfor assaulting a Tibetan beggar. The Agent claimed that theLabrang had no right to punish a British subject withoutreference to him. The second issue was that the Labrang hadbeen levying a tax of Rs 2 per head on Johari and Darmatraders since the previous year again without the Agent’sknowledge. The Labrang officials responded to bothcomplaints by claiming that they had the authority to do asthey wished because they were subject to Bhutan rather thanTibet: they therefore were not bound by any Britishagreement with the Tibetan authorities concerning judicialauthority or taxes.
Bhutan continued to administer Darchen until 1959 when it was taken over by Chinese troops. Ten years earlier Bhutanhad signed a treaty with the newly independent Indian government on similar lines to the Treaty of Punakha. On Bhutan’s behalf, India raised the question of the Bhutanese enclaves with China in 1959 and 1960, but the latter refused to discuss the issue.40Since then there has been no public discussion of the Bhutanese enclaves. Bhutan does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with China, but in recent years it has held a series of meetings with Chinese diplomats to discussthe two countries’ common boundary. It is understood that the two sides have reached broad agreement on the mainissues, but there has been no formal settlement.
Conclusion: The Wider Context The fact that Ladakhi and Bhutanese enclaves existed inTibet was not in itself unusual. In the pre-modern period political linkages in the Himalaya consisted of a web of inter-relationships with many ambiguities. For example, many ofthe smaller kingdoms on Tibet’s southern and eastern borders belonged within Lhasa’s religious orbit, but at the same time found it convenient to acknowledge the temporal power of the rulers of India and China. The dividing line between political and religious obligation was frequently unclear.As discussed in an earlier paper, Ladakh’s triennial lo phyagmission to Lhasa—which is itself a product of the 1684 treaty of Temisgang—is one illustration of this ambiguity.41 The mission brought a specified set of offerings to T it was timed to arrive at the annual smon lam celebrations in Lhasa and therefore acquired religious connotations. The Tibetans apparently understood the mission to be an acknowledgement of Ladakh’s tributary status in the political as well as thereligious sphere. However, Ladakh simultaneously paidtribute to the Moghuls in the 17th and 18th centuries, and was later fully incorporated into a princely state withinBritain’s Indian empire. By the early 20th century the lophyag had no direct political significance although it served auseful commercial purpose and was allowed to continue intothe 1940s.The Ladakhi and Bhutanese enclaves are a variation on a similar theme. In both cases the origin of the enclaves was‘religious’, but at a time when there was no precise boundarybetween the ‘religious’ and ‘political’ spheres. Another example of overlapping political jurisdictions was Nepal’s traditional entitlement to certain extra territorial rights inTibet, notably the right to try Nepalese subjects in Tibet (and their mixed-race descendants) accused of criminal offences.42The traditional Tibetan state could accommodate suchanomalies relatively easily. However, tensions became more acute in the first half of the 20th century when the Tibetanstate was slowly becoming more centralised. As noted above,the increased requirement for taxes brought Lhasa into conflict with Bhutan over Darchen and indeed with certainTibetan aristocrats over their own estates. In that respect the frictions of the 1920s and the 1930s were part of a process which was taking place all over Tibet. These frictions and contradictions were never fully resolved before the Chinese destroyed the traditional Tibetan political system in its entirety.At first sight it seems unlikely the Ladakhi and Bhutanese enclaves could have survived into the ‘modern’ world, even without Chinese intervention. Perhaps the nearest surviving equivalents in the region are the 95 Indian enclaves (chhit) in northern Bangladesh and the 130 Bangladeshi equivalents in north east India.43 A total of some 100,000 Indian citizens are stranded in enclaves totally surrounded by Bangladeshiterritory, and some of these are no larger than a few acres.The chhits’ boundaries date back to pre-independence andindeed pre-British times: they are a consequence of theconfusing and frequently overlapping boundaries between the lands of the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and the Zamindar of neighbouring Rangpur. In 1947 Cooch Behar acceded to India while Rangpur became part of East Pakistan and later Bangladesh.The India/Bangladesh example demonstrates the problems associated with small landlocked enclaves, and serves as a reminder that unexpected historical anomalies may indeed survive into the early 21st century. It took more than 60years after partition before India and Bangladesh were able to reach formal agreement on their common frontier.44On a similar note, China has yet to reach formal agreementon Tibet’s boundaries with India and Bhutan. The latter have no hope of enforcing any residual claims to sovereignty overtheir Tibetan enclaves, but it is conceivable that they might yet seek compensation when negotiating a final boundary settlement. In this respect it may be that the history of the enclaves is still not entirely closed.
作者自注：This article was first published in Recent Research on Ladakh 7 (Edited by Thierry Dodin and Heinz Räther. Ulmer Kulturanthropologische Schriften Band 8. Ulm: Abteilung Anthropologie, Universität Ulm, 1997), pp. 89-104. I have updated the references and made minor editorial amendments for this reprint, but the substance of the article remains unchanged, including the references to contemporary border issues as seen at the time of writing.作者简介： ** John Bray is President of the International Association of Ladakh Studies. His recent publications include articles in The Tibet Journal, Zentralasiatische Studien, the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society and an edited collection of papers on Ladakh for Rivista degli Studi Orientali. He is currently based in Kumamoto, Japan. 作者是拉达克研究国际协会主席，现在的基地在日本 Kumamoto
这是吧主在某某百科编写的米拉萨丁词条：米拉萨丁（Mira-Sakden；Merag-Sagteng），也译作墨拉萨丁，包括不丹王国塔希冈宗（Trashigang District）萨丁东（Sakten Dungkhag ）下属的两个格窝：米拉格窝（Merag Gewog ）及萨丁格窝（Sagteng Gewog）。位于门隅地区达旺以南，塔希冈宗以东，打拢宗以西，面积3300平方公里。据史料记载，墨拉萨丁分别归达旺寺和打拢宗管辖，萨丁寺属于达旺宗，基堪布由达旺寺派任。17世纪以后，不丹人大量东迁，移居达旺等地，引起草场和民事纠纷。为此，西藏地方政府和不丹在1715年曾两次订立条约，言明墨拉萨丁主权归属，草场可以租给不丹移民使用，按规定交纳草税。本世纪初，英印政府制定麦克马洪线，并把势力范围扩展到达旺以北。1949年，印度与不丹签定《永久和平与友好条约》，将中国墨拉萨丁地区转让不丹，自此，墨拉萨丁地区一直处于不丹政府的完全控制之下。Merag-Sagteng (Dzongkha: མེ་རག་ སག་སྟེང་;Sakten Dalso called "Mera Sagteng," "Mera Sagten," "Merak Sagteng,""Mira Sagteng," and "Mira-Sakden") is a Dungkhag ( sub-district of a dzongkhag) of Trashigang District, Bhutan.[1][2]Sakten Dungkhag is composed of Merag Gewog and Sakten Gewog.
拉达克和不丹在西藏的飞地*约翰·布雷** 介绍直到上世纪50年代两个拉达克和不丹管辖的领土飞地小西藏西部。拉达克的飞地包括Minsar（男性SER）的村庄，靠近玛旁雍错（马范），和它周围的土地，而不丹管辖Darchen（达累斯萨拉姆辰）拉卜楞寺和几个较小的寺庙和村庄附近的山冈仁波齐峰（黑帮RIN宝枝，钛SE）。这些飞地完全是由达赖喇嘛的领土所包围，但拉达克（1846年以后取代了查谟和克什米尔政府）和不丹继续提高收入也有一段300年。这些飞地的地位是不明确的。到了20世纪的克什米尔/印度和不丹声称持有自己的土地在完全的主权。相比之下，拉萨政府承认拉达克/克什米尔和不丹举行的某些权利，但尽管如此，它试图行使自己的权力，就好像飞地并不比在西藏境内的外国独资屋更多。这些争议从来没有完全解决，但来到中戛然而止 本文在拉达克7最近的研究是首次出版（由Thierry多丁和亨氏，而编辑厄尔默Kulturanthropologische Schriften带8乌尔姆：。Abteilung人类学的Universitat乌尔姆，1997） ，页89-104。我已经更新了参考和作出轻微的编辑上的修订对本转载，但文章的内容保持不变，包括在编写的时候看到了引用当代边界问题。*约翰·布雷是拉达克学的国际协会主席。他最近的著作包括在西藏日报，Zentralasiatische（研究），皇家亚洲学会杂志和报纸上的拉达克的Rivista德利阿布鲁STUDI Orientali的编辑收集的文章。他目前在日本熊本市。 *
1德特勒夫Kantowsky和莱因哈德·桑德（合编“祖书房Hintergründen德Parteinahme拉达克的皮毛不丹IM Kreig葛根拉萨”。舒，然后讨论它们周围的纷争在20世纪，这是隶属于拉达克。圣奥古斯丁。迪特（1983）期刊的不丹研究20世纪50年代的时候，中国政府接管了这两套飞地。在拉达克最近的研究。据我所知，分量2。起源两组飞地分享一个共同的起源，他们追溯到期间，当拉达克国王控制整个西藏西部（Mnga'RIS SKOR GSUM）。角中。页特别提到了英国的纪录。无需支付任何赔偿金拉达克/克什米尔或不丹同期。37-50。FrüheBeziehungen的zwischen DEM ladakhischen Herrscherhaus und明镜südlichen'吊桥-PA SCHULE（档案馆献给zentralasiatische Geschichtsforschung。2适用于拉达克与竹巴教派早期的链接的讨论，见舒。与不丹的联系产生是因为与竹巴噶举派的拉达克王室的协会（ “布鲁格PA BKA'rgyud PA）教派。1 2拉达克.）。1527年至1592年）。该协会的历史可以追溯到至少16世纪的结尾：（。果酱dbyang RNAM rgyal.2天龙学校还建立了与Zangskarř钩选Wissenschaftsverlag密切的联系）在1577景嘉木样朗杰。本文是围绕enclaves.1本文的结论与飞地“站在传统与现代喜马拉雅政治的更广阔的背景中讨论的多义性进行了初步讨论。它开始于17世纪的共同起源的分析。慕尼黑：Weltforum出版社。减肥者（1983）。赞助他的领土密宗学校的建设。谁站在与竹巴领导人帕德玛Karpo（帕德玛噶宝牧师/赞助关系。不丹档案馆关于这个主题还有待学术研究。该Zhabdrung团结整个的什么现在是不丹在一个单一的权威和被视为不丹状态的创始人。拉达克国王保持着北部和竹巴噶举派的南部分支接触。它位于江孜的东部。僧格朗杰的弟弟。1594年至1651年？）的Ralung（RVA肺）修道院的住持。去不丹和玫瑰，成为王帝颇章3州长（的荣PON）为不丹的历史看尤其阿里斯。4舒（1983）。天龙尤伯（'吊桥YUL）。1616年至1642年）。沃明斯特：阿里斯和菲利普斯。3。乌鸦冠：佛教君主制在不丹的起源。王子Tenzin5（Bstan'dzin）。不过。河 不丹：喜马拉雅王国的早期历史。它始建于大约1580 Stagna（雄鹿SNA）修道院参加了与南支。阿里斯。Chemre（Theg超度）和玩啦（德超度RNAM rgyal）。5这个名字会被发音成“Standzin”在拉达克。不丹的土著名称。1593年至1641年），谁属于“海防rgyas贵族家庭。竹巴噶举派的分裂，因为在帕德玛Karpo的转世灵童的纠纷。并创办嘿密的寺庙（Gsang碰壁CHOS gling）。和Zhabdrung阿旺朗杰（Zhab独龙族Ngag dbang RNAM rgyal。暗示其与竹巴噶举派的关联。曾荫权（SDE摆脱gtsang PA）决定赞成Pagsam王珀的统治者，这两个对手的候选人是Pagsam旺波（Dpag国资公司dbang宝，和国王保持与Zhabdrung伦敦密切的个人联系：西域Publications.3的Zhabdrung确立了自己的LHO“吊桥或竹巴Kagyupa.4 Stagtsang Raspa阿旺加措（雄鹿RAS扎仓每年ngag dbang南方分公司的负责人rgya MTSO。迈克尔（1994）。拉达克和不丹飞地西藏在17世纪初。迫使阿旺朗杰逃往南方。迈克尔（1979）。成为国王僧格朗杰（恒生GE RNAM rgyal。谁是最重要的老师与北支。1574年至1651年）有关。Gonkatsang的翻译这段文字的部分代表我。（Thimphu.这僧格朗杰到Zhabdung授予的修道院是：。达累斯萨拉姆懒虫DPON帕德玛Tshe dbang [罗朋Pemala]'吊桥GI rgyal的RAB大懒虫DPON帕德玛tshe dbang GIS sbyar巴卢西亚诺（1979）Abteilung 1带4.8作为一个标志就在Zhabdrung，但密勒日巴追上了他用他的长袍翅膀，到达了山顶的太阳的第一缕曙光出现'吊桥GSAL ba'i sgron我路易·利盖蒂（编辑与注释的英文摘要：。两只藏指南对书籍本身的Ti和La phyi（古迹遗址藏嵩草史馆，1988）。7周围的山的传说中由第34届“不丹研究烁呱gdan rabs.Journal（Dbang”DUS河粉brang）组成的指导说明。页。6 4也8见Petech罗朋Pemala援引Lho'i CHOS秉Bstan'dzin CHOS姬BLO格罗斯：黑帮里陈博TI本身宕MCHO马代办处每年BCAS姬sngon秉GI卤味rgyus mdor bsdus苏brjod PA “我RAB byed SHEL噶我长。在Csoma德克勒什河纪念学术研讨会1976年论文集。FO。在1639年Standzin帮助击败藏军在不丹战斗在普那卡。波恩：VGH Wissenschaftsverlag。我很感谢次仁D.艾琳娜德罗西Filibeck已经公布了文本的编辑音译。国王为他提供了一系列寺庙附近的mountain.7两个噶举派学校与冈仁波齐峰最接近的是联想的直贡（'烁呱PA）和竹巴。1994）。布达佩斯：AKADEMIAIKiadó。37B作为来源为这个情节。313-325。“在西藏西部和拉达克的”烁呱每年派“0.6僧格朗杰的地区在西部包括西藏冈仁波齐峰山环绕其中有长协会与噶举派的区域。我要感谢已故的迈克尔·阿里斯在读罗朋Pemala的文字帮助。）。这些可以追溯到密勒日巴的时候说谁是从事一个神奇的较量与苯教大师罗老Bonchung权威在圣山。它终于决定，谁达到了山的顶峰先上一个月的第15天的人会是胜利者。罗老Bonchung开始黎明前登高山。不丹的历史。第151页。罗马。第二ed.9这些都是发展成为西藏不丹飞地领土。Doh.）证实了他的王国南部的学校全部现有权利。Rdzu'phrul phug。东，西18.11这随后导致拉萨政府入侵Ladakh.12拉达克被击败和第六“吊桥甄宓范dbang宝帮助双方调解协商Temisgang条约（Gting月sgang）在 - 361.10拉达克与不丹的密切关系是有致命的后果。Nyanri和Zuthul phuk凯拉斯的Monasteris。在舒德语翻译。Gezon附近卡尔吐克。FrüheBeziehungen（1983）。约翰。13在LO phyag使命。他不给源。其中在该条约其他规定拉达克同意以三年为一个卤味phyag任务发送到拉萨携带象征gifts.O的指定名单。Zahiruddin艾哈迈德（1968）。1677年王德勒朗杰（BDE腿RNAM rgyal）选择采取不丹的身边与西藏的战争。第189-190页。Dungmar的村庄。拉达克C的王国。950 1842。叶里dgon phug.13罗朋Pemala。11德勒朗杰似乎已经接管了权力的缰绳，而他的父亲Deldan朗杰还活着。所以莫rgyu。迦得SER。1983年他的包机具体提到的'雪山钛本身'（凯拉斯）的寺院及相关物业。施荷拉。ITSE寺。10文本被引述。印度历史季刊23页“烁岭phug。51-54.M。Sammar和其他一些地方在西藏西部“。BYA skyibs。葛的荣。PE“新光源对1679年至1684年的TibetLadakh - 莫卧儿王朝战争”。Khochar。“西藏拉达克莫卧儿战”。169-199。和战斗继续从。在冈仁波齐峰脚下。新德里：由作者出版。见布雷。第河 Gnyen po'i里rdzong.82）给出了在西藏不丹的财产清单如下：'Tarchen。1661年王Deldan朗杰（BDE噶丹RNAM rgyal。Gonphu Gesur。恍如隔世的Cherkip寺。第卢西亚诺（1947）。拉达克和不丹飞地西藏辰布拉brang dgon。“该Lapchak团从拉达克到拉萨和印度政府外交政策9 5。Ringung。参见下面所列举Sherring列表。是12对这场战争的历史看Petech。斯瓦米Pranavananda（凯拉斯恍如隔世。卢西亚诺Petech（1977）。
但更可能使它的重量更重“。约翰·布雷和Elena德罗西Filibeck（编辑小西藏的一个省“。UNIVERSITA di Roma酒店。具有特色的商业精明，修道院和清真寺。号”在山的第一个西方引用它来自于19世纪初的东印度公司兽医和探险家威廉默克罗夫特谁在七月下旬1812年通过“西游记Manasarovara在未沙漠萨皮恩扎湖。他认为他留在那里，一直有利可图的，因为他能够买到西藏的羊毛样本，他希望这将有一天会成为与英国超越布哈拉的主要贸易项目：。。威廉默克罗夫特的生活4 Minsar是来自拉达克的主要贸易路线拉萨小解决补编第Asiatick研究12亚洲资源管理器和先锋兽医1767年至1825年，“西藏和LO phyag团从列城到拉萨。在默克罗夫特三十九世纪的文档。默克罗夫特认为这一天是”划时代的可以是固定的交通是可能的起源在下半年十九世纪的“。表面上是为了满足Manasarowar湖和凯拉斯山的宗教发售开支。6。75-96）。五帐篷山羊存栏的“。见桤木。97-116。加里J.14在默克罗夫特的描述。评论说，这是“对我们有利的一种情况作为羊毛的卖家都是在润湿它的理念下，他们假装它扭越接近的习惯。约翰和Gonkatsang。14默克罗夫特。次仁D.他记录了他在那里度过了早上热。布雷。375-534。威廉（1816）。中国不丹研究，并割让了整个西方西藏拉萨政府除了某些飞地。但是页。伦敦：世纪出版。2 Rivista德利阿布鲁STUDI Orientali 80。页西藏日报15 ..比萨和罗马。拉达克飞地在Minsar的拉达克飞地是Minsar的遗产，国王保留。页。Minsar了“只有一个房子做砖头在太阳下晒干的。238西藏政治史。1961年2月）第17页，他提到，通过古老的习俗从拉达克发送到Minsar全年任务被允许在条约免费的英文版本是引用夏格巴。。费尔南达（主编约翰（2008）Tsepon W.这个收入为56卢比莱顿：。。布里尔包括三年期LO phyag使命Lhasa.15同样43-66例如可是写了一寄发讨论徭役运输在拉达克和西藏的义务。看来，它作用于主动。1834年Zorawar辛格入侵拉达克代表古拉卜·辛格，1852年克什米尔政府签署了西藏同意履行1684年条约的义务关系的协议。不过。当梅塔巴斯蒂拉姆是拉达克瓦齐尔（州长）。没有参考British.D。拉达克终于在1842年失去其独立性。并在理论上印度政府负责其对外关系。比克（1982）。谁是英联合专员Ladakh.16我还没有在现代拉达克能够找到Minsar的任何详细说明西方在19世纪下半叶）“：。延续与变化人类学视角。查谟和克什米尔是印度帝国中的王侯的状态。在杜巴克什米尔拉达克继承的说法来Minsar并继续从中收取收益。页。纽约：布达拉宫Publications.Ladakhi和不丹飞地西藏这位公司极为有利“。外交部对外事务。MEA 29。59.L. Kennion。第17页关于这个话题看布雷。15 7。“徭役运输劳工在19世纪和20世纪初拉达克：在延续与变迁研究。的Martijn面包车和皮里港。古拉卜·辛格成为了查谟和克什米尔的第一大君。在1900年R.闭口不提Minsar与拉达克链接。四年后。印度政府的官员和中国人民共和国边界问题上（印度政府，但在克什米尔和拉达克的英国官员16报告人肯定知道它的存在。经过一系列战斗。查谟的统治者。包括拉达克，1853年。
1908）。Wakefield.19不过。在拉达克Tahsil村庄的数量是除了110这是马祖尔村。页。记下副本，日期为5月30日1900年，由队长R. 18 8。L。Chaudhri日Khushi。拉达克，不丹运输研究由六个行李的动物和在边境两边的一骑小马1905.Journal瓦齐尔-Wazarat（州长）。我还没有找到一个在别处。它位于中国西藏的中间，从来没有被访问过的国家税务局的官员。在ICS人员。助理驻在克什米尔列城。西藏当局。1929年E.18 Kennion随后讨论Minsar是否应包括在拉达克土地沉降（土地所有权和税收义务的详细寄存器）。在1905年的营业收入为297卢比，而且Minsar被包含在最终的结算报告。兰比尔普拉卡什出版社。我要感谢的Martijn面包车Beek的定位此引用。19穆罕默德。引为297卢比的数字来源是法基尔·昌德的巡回报告。与此同时页。并报告说Minsar纳税克什米尔，而在同一时间完成一定的劳动义务，以西藏当局：大英图书馆东方和印度官方收藏（OIOC）。87男人和73 women.20 Minsar也被列入1911年和1921年印度人口普查：在1921年的人口普查它被记录为有44房子。该官员20报告。但在拉达克结算的初步报告的唯一参考Minsar如下：据Sambhat 1958年编写的文件访问西藏西部。而在Minsar承认克什米尔的权利。L/PandS/7/125.Kennion。它似乎有最终的结算报告的副本，没有任何大英图书馆。也提出了自己的主张。看来，克什米尔是收集来自Minsar收入在此期间，例如。139。拉达克结算Jammu. 2-3.B初步报告（。但Jingshung22仍然按他们采取茶OIOC的两个负载六个负荷（GAMS）。6牦牛和60羔羊皮。从拉达克来Minsar收集进贡由于克什米尔大君。该Minsar Gobas谁是克什米尔政府的调查对象代表对我说，他们虽然从瓦齐尔拉达克了一封信，说他们不应该采取任何pujjar的效果。1929年，每年Rupshu的Lumberdar。但现在。贡共有60只羊。叙事E.先生对帐户的拉达克官员谁收集贡品的差旅费的个人经验。一种税收形式被称为“Pujjar”：我们离开脉轮上21，并达成Minsar在9月23日，只好呆在那里由于运输困难两天。当地群众向他抱怨说，他们被迫从西藏官员在高于市场利率的价格买茶。20只山羊。有人告诉我。即克什米尔大君的科目。或者一些小官。而60卢比的款项是在tankas.21十年后坎拉姆博士付一半卢比一半。1966）。包括征用劳役的运输用途的权利。60-61。L / P和S/4163.B。他们免除这一义务。21 9。虽然他们仍然被迫提供免费运输的藏族官员通过其领土前往。40个家庭居住在Minsar区用于提供八个人的藏军。前身。英国贸易代理。韦克菲尔德ICS西藏西部。22这似乎是一个参考gzhung tshong谁被任命为拉萨当局和西藏西部得到了广泛的贸易特权的政府官员。韦克菲尔德也指Minsar在他的回忆录：过去势在必行（伦敦：查托和温达斯页访问Minsar.Ladakhi和不丹飞地在西藏我很惊讶地得知，Minsar的居民和邻里自己效忠不是达赖喇嘛，而是克什米尔的大君。页。1947年印度和巴基斯坦成为独立的。阿卜杜勒·瓦希德（1981）。所以我没办法他了作为给予pujjar的做法是一个非常古老的习俗。23 OIOC。BTA卡尔吐克到政治代理人旁遮普邦山国。参观Minsar代表克什米尔政府。一名高级官员拉达克。Sungkil（1988）。CaravaneTibétaine。1949年1月在联合国斡旋的停火愣了印度和巴基斯坦军队之间的控制线。当我看见Jingshung在9月25日，代表的Minsar男人pujjar情况下给他。据他妻子的回忆录。23双重征税的问题显然仍是一个问题。10。但她不记录的详细信息。拉伊·巴哈杜尔·博士坎拉姆。日，他告诉我，这是一个非常古老的做法，他很抱歉，他无法从它免除他们向我保证，他现在会给代替六大茶类的只有三个GAMS因为我已经接近了他在这方面。但未能解决争端。巴黎：费耶德。的Rajpur：摩拉维亚学院。24彭措。他谈判达成令人满意的协议与西藏当局。Yarked。经过长时间的讨论。英国贸易代理在卡尔吐克的日记。不久后，他的访问。113A。不丹研究粮食为pujjar的Simla.Journal，并要求我，我应该代表他们的情况Jingshung。阿卜杜勒·瓦希德Radhu。一个拉达克穆斯林merchant.25阿卜杜勒·瓦希德Radhu是一个古老的传统交易的最后代表之一。“我的丈夫贺Thsetan Phunthsog”。第L/PandS/12/4164.24不过。通过Minsar于1942年通过为LO phyag任务到拉萨的一员。但很快就被锁定在克什米尔争端。巴基斯坦军队入侵拉达克以及克什米尔山谷。25 Radhu。他提到，居民抱怨说，他们仍然不得不交税既克什米尔和西藏。1940年Tsetan彭措。68，并在1948年他们差点捕获列城。在喜马拉雅地区的政治和经济形势不可逆转的变化。
对相互贸易的前景。印度被称为拉达克的索赔Minsar。该官员27报告。从Phunchok Stobdan 26个人通信。同上。新德里。国防研究和战略分析研究所。Minsar的地位并不比一个小注脚，这些问题更多。以加强其论点，即它自己声称所代表的“传统”的边界。中印边界争端仍未解决。看来，Minsar停止在此期间纳税克什米尔：印度并未正式放弃索赔。但它错过了一个机会，以巩固它在20世纪50年代初，当印度和中国之间的关系是相对有利的。自1960年以来，两国政府的注意力都集中在了前沿and.26划界不过。及其与西藏的历史关系。印度保持着有点姗姗来迟的Minsar是“西藏拉达克飞地和完全的主权举行了印度。因此忽略了他们的藏族聚集区。11。更多recently.Ladakhi和不丹飞地在西藏的政治条件对喜马拉雅山北侧改变更彻底与中国入侵西藏于1950年，跟随1959年的拉萨起义的打击力度。在与中国谈判的早期过程这些会谈的1960s.27的背景是在印度和西藏之间的边界而导致1962-63年的SinoIndian战争的争议。但一个至今仍未被清除了。在1940年代后期和50年代初期，印度和克什米尔当局忙于自己的内部问题，并与来自巴基斯坦的威胁。和1729一个不丹法律的代码中提到的岗位作为国家的最高处之一。第二版。不丹官方负责Darchen被称为黑帮里rdor'dzin ..说他所做的藏文件，确认不丹的标题的副本。号，但他们的收入来负责寺院的喇嘛来源。约翰（1990）。OIOC。从阿尔莫拉地区日，印度商人以换取布等印品购买的羊毛。Darchen有比Minsar更大的宗教意义，因为它是 - 现在仍然是 - 传统的起点，希望使凯拉斯山的转山朝圣者。他负责在Darchen商贸城调节价格和仲裁纠纷。伦敦：西东出版物。L/PandS/12/4175。圣山。他汇出他的收入的一部分，不丹。见阿里斯。政治官锡金在1930年代初。28楼423。威廉姆森。来源不丹的历史。维也纳：Arbeitskreis毛皮tibetische UND buddhistische（研究）。威廉姆森的信转载于斯内林。页。威廉姆森。Gartok.29许多英国户口指的rdor“dzin为”dashok'（拖动辅助宿舍）。在某些方面，它的历史是相似的Minsar的：两国政府声称其控制权。页。和它的居民被夹在中间。29 DPAL'吊桥每年RIN宝枝mthu陈ngag GI dbang宝BKA'khrims thams CAD拉斯维加斯RNAM面值rgyal ba'i GTAM。从楼1340封信。Darchen也是一个交易市场，在夏季从七月中旬到九月初的站点。147。其中提到他的排名在不丹层次的标题。朝圣者的人数逐年变化到不丹不丹研究飞地的year.Journal Temisgang的西藏政府证实不丹的标题其在西藏西部土地的条约之后。不过。UniversitätWien的。他是正常的资深喇嘛担任Darchen谁对一个固定的term.28最重要的不丹物业Darchen拉卜楞在凯拉斯山的脚下。除了他的宗教职责。此外。迈克尔（1986）。12。威廉（1816）。他们毫无疑问发生在更早的时候也是如此。根据1904年拉萨公约的条款。他们的报告和官方日记是其中关于西藏西部的主要来源英国在这一时期。说，他们谁是熟悉佩。第一个这样做是查尔斯Sherring。“西游记湖Manasarovara在未DES。与他们的同行在江孜和亚东。有几个提到这样的摩擦在20世纪的西方来源。他们称之为Maháchín资本：但自己居住2个月旅程超越佩。谁去那里在1812年8月。阿尔莫拉区总监。在那里，我们可能会发现许多Juarí和Dhermu商人与粮食和三个茶商。英国固定站贸易代理在西藏西部的权利。从印度公务员（ICS）的英国军官也向西藏西部零星的访问。大约28顶帐篷。所有英国贸易代理西藏西部是印度人。375-534。Asiatick研究12 13。拉达克和不丹飞地西藏不丹声称Darchen和相关屋是完全独立的拉萨。谁30默克罗夫特。他们花了每年夏天在西藏西部。第一个西方游客参观Darchen是威廉默克罗夫特。如将要看到的。但并没有呆在那里的冬天。偶尔参考Darchen。默克罗夫特的描述反映了一个事实，他的主要兴趣是在贸易：有四个房子未燃烧砖或石块。这当中的Latáki剂的仆人显然是best.30将近一个世纪之后。这种说法导致了rdor“dzin和两个Garpons卡尔吐克的（sgar DPON）谁是西藏西部的拉萨政府的高层代表之间的摩擦。一个省小西藏“。十六年前的老权威人士说，这是一个地方的后果。页。
到目前为止已经走了，在过去的事项，该Darchan统治者的家臣见过那些Garphans和打击进行了交流。和四寺院ITI公司。西藏西部和英国边疆。显然，整个是一个宗教捐赠的性质。因为他是Darchan的头部管理员。Sherring。Nendiphu和Zutulphu（地图的Jamdulphu），则位于圣轮凯拉斯方式。已经缺席Darchan不设中场休息。不丹研究的查尔斯A.Journal去那里于1905年。页。31 14。在不丹的代表现在不会容忍任何干扰。可能已经预期，包括其与西藏往来。他的工作是重要的一种。Gesur和萨姆尔在大巴山Jongpen领土.. 32根据该条约，英国的规定是管理不丹的对外关系的。278 ..当代英国纪录所提述的Ugyan旺楚克为“大君。其中一个很重要的地方Khojarnath ..甚至枪支投入使用。不丹Gonphu ..国王旺楚克Ugyan显然预期的东西普那卡条约，他于1910年签署。32见阿里斯（1994）后更改。和他忠实的仆人所做的工作在事件的正常过程。在过去的三年获委任人员。（1906年）。的Gazon附近卡尔吐克。Sherring报道，Darchen的政治区域的地位已经是争议的来源：这在西藏的领土，我们发现由不丹统治者统治的政府......在湖Manasarowar.31的Jaikep（Jenkhab）寺在1905年很之中不丹和西藏官员之间的轻微纠纷是没有的极大关注英国。不过。两个修道院。谁承担Dashok的称号。独立的卡尔吐克督抚和拉萨本身的。Rungung，做在上卡纳利河。原则上。伦敦。RPT新德里：宇宙出版物197435 1927年Nathi乔哈里的谋杀。L/PandS/12/他是在三，并在20世纪20年代拉萨政府加紧努力，以增加其收入：除其他昂贵的项目，它希望建立训练有素的英军防线的军队。34，请问英国政府把拉萨的压力返回这个属性？贝尔正式征询他的上级在印度外交部门的政府就这两个问题。到印度外交秘书的政府。33 15。他们的结论是，这是“没有必要考虑支持大君的问题，除非及直至刻刀重要性严重的突发事件应该出现”。现代西藏的历史。谁是主要是游牧民族。5月1日1913.R. L /膨胀了/二千二百二十三分之十二。带有一丝乐观。五世达赖喇嘛采取了最属于凌Tsurpo（TIB？）的不丹拥有寺院的土地了。同上。和国王争夺其这样做的权利。政治官锡金。江孜日，从拉萨一天的路程。威尔。甘托克。从阿尔莫拉地区的交易员。为背景，以西藏政府的税收政策看戈尔茨坦。在这样NAMS拉斯维加斯khungs。35楼锡金政治专员。梅尔文（1989）A. 不丹国王继续反对和从事“尖刻对应”与西藏政府。与此同时time.33西藏政府是从居住在该地区的人民征收盐税。伯克利：加州Press.34西藏政府的农业部门的大学。36中尉上校，他提到一个更老的争议。贝尔印度外交部门的政府部长。东方与印度事务部收集（OIOC）。并据此征税它们。OIOC。开始注册Darchen地区的居民。威廉姆森。创建tension.L的另一个来源。税务问题仍然unsettled.Ladakhi和不丹飞地西藏1912年十二月国王简称围绕山凯拉斯不丹财产致函查尔斯后来查尔斯贝尔爵士。J.该Garpons不满意这个答复：拖了好几年的情况。该Garpons回应，迫使这些科目放弃自己的不丹“国籍”。1930年不丹的任命Tobdan香格里拉（Stobs噶丹滞后）的管理Darchen导致进一步的tensions.38威廉姆森认为此事是“一个真正的宗教之一”和英国应该干预越少越好。并开展以Darchen。在那里，他死了。1932年，不丹国王吉格梅·旺楚克呼吁弗雷德里克Williamson.37他是个门外汉，而不是一个和尚。在任何情况下，他们捕捉了一个身份不明的强盗的可能性微乎其微。从Darchen一些15英里。政治官锡金到即将访问西藏期间占用Darchen争议。Tobdan香格里拉有力的方法来税务问题进一步拮抗他们：他拿回作为Darchen科目多项谁以前被登记的所以NAMS拉斯维加斯khungs人。该Garpons正式施压负责Darchen寺院的喇嘛（rdor'dzin之间的空位中的事件发生）。Nathi乔哈里是不丹研究wounded.Journal一组谁在Larchen荻已停止过夜的交易者。他曾是英国臣民。并没有很好解决。16。并击败他们中的一些严重。即使Nathi乔哈里随后在它死了。拉萨成功取得Tobdan香格里拉撤出。他回应了国王的请求，因为他是“非常迫切”和，因为他认为大气中37 38威廉姆森（1934）。该Garpons任命了一位藏族官员。而印度政府因此热衷于保护杀人犯的惩罚。不过。不过。不丹指出，袭击已经发生在其领土之外。和拉萨当局声称，他的任命是违反惯例。同上。当他们被强盗袭击。Barkha前大斩（TIB？），负责Darchen的。最终。
十年前不丹已与新独立的印度政府对类似线路普那卡条约签署了一项条约。Darchen上前再次在英国贸易代理于1937年的报告。旁遮普邦山States.39他有两方面的关注。看来他们继续避免以后。威廉姆森正式提出此事在拉萨。OIOC。因此，他们并没有通过与有关司法机关或税收西藏当局的任何英协议的约束：拉卜楞官员声称，他们有权力这样做，因为他们希望，因为他们是受不丹，而不是西藏的回应既投诉。该代理人称，拉卜楞寺无权惩罚英国臣民没有提及他。第二个问题是，拉卜楞寺已征收的每头2卢比税收对乔哈里和达玛贸易商自去年同样没有代理的knowledge.Ladakhi和不丹包体在西藏拉萨“有利收到友好的建议” 。作为他的不丹殿下会要求。17。在他的报告威廉姆森指出，税务问题“提出了一个问题Darchin是否是不丹境内。代表不丹。虽然西藏政府通过发送一个和解的信不丹国王回应威廉姆森的主动权。或者它是否仅仅是在西藏的领土其所持有的房地产。不丹继续管理Darchen直到1959年，当它被接管了中国军队。日，作为西藏政府会要求'。他补充说，这一点已被“避免双方。L/PandS/12/4103。不过。印度提出的不丹39英国贸易代理卡尔吐克到政治代理人的问题。第一个是，Darchen拉卜楞寺鞭打了一个乔哈里交易者的仆人袭击西藏乞丐。外交部外事和联邦关系）。于前现代时期的喜马拉雅政治联系，包括相互关系与许多含糊不清的网页。“三十九世纪的文档”。中华不丹研究飞地与中国在1959年和1960年，40 18。John.41的使命带来了指定的产品集西藏。次仁D.约翰。等等，但一直没有正式和解。不丹的政治。163。政治和宗教义务之间的分界线是经常不清楚。新德里：PRAGATI出版物。据了解，双方已就主要问题达成广泛共识。页。备忘录和信件交换，协议印度和中国两国政府签署。（1959年11月 - 1960年3月）。但在同一时间发现它方便地承认印度和中国的统治者的世俗权力。藏人显然明白使命是给中国的外交部确认'注意。不丹并没有保持与中国建立正式外交关系。正如在以前的文章中讨论。结论：更广泛的背景下，拉达克和不丹飞地存在于西藏的事实本身并不是不寻常的。布雷。但后者拒绝讨论这个问题。但近年来已先后举办了一系列与中国外交官举行会议，讨论两国共同边界。和Gonkatsang。又见百万龙（1992）。附注日“。“该Lapchak使命”。41布雷。在拉萨的宗教轨道许多西藏的南部和东部边界的小王国属于。例如。（新德里。拉达克的三年期LO phyag使命，以拉萨 - 这本身就是Temisgang，是这种模糊的一个例证的1684条约的产物。它被定时在拉萨一年一度SMON林庆祝到达，因此收购的宗教内涵。 40此后出现了不丹飞地没有公开讨论。不过。挑战与Frustrations.42传统的西藏国能适应这样的异常相对容易。加德满都：普加奈良。也许是最近的生存等同于该地区是印度95飞地（chhit）42。但是当有之间的“宗教”和“政治”领域没有确切的边界的时候。不过。对税收的需求增加带来的拉萨到超过Darchen与不丹冲突，确实有一定的藏族贵族在自己的庄园。到了20世纪初的卤味phyag没有直接的政治意义，虽然它发挥了有益的商业目的，并允许继续到1940年。后来被完全纳入一个王侯的状态中英国的印度帝国。特别是尝试尼泊尔科目在西藏的权利（和他们的混血后代）被指控刑事犯罪。19。正如above.Ladakhi和不丹包体中的政治拉达克的附庸地位，以及宗教领域的西藏。（1980）。在紧张的时候第一次西藏状态在慢慢变多集中在20世纪上半叶变得更加尖锐。见Uprety。重叠的政治管辖的另一个例子是尼泊尔的传统权利在西藏某些多余的领土权。尼泊尔 - 西藏关系：十年的希望。炳廷R。在这两种情况下的飞地的起源是'宗教'。拉达克和不丹飞地都在一个相似的主题变化。在这方面，20世纪20年代和30年代的摩擦是这是发生在西藏的进程的一部分。这些摩擦和矛盾从来没有完全解决，中国摧毁了西藏传统政治制度的全部前。拉达克在17世纪和18世纪同时赞扬了莫卧儿王朝。乍一看，这似乎不大可能拉达克和不丹飞地可能存活到“现代”的世界。即使没有中国的介入。中国不丹研究孟加拉国北部和孟加拉国130等同于印度东北的。墨尔本。它采取了分区超过60年后，前印度和孟加拉国都能够达到他们的共同边境正式协议。见Menas国界。但可以想象的是，在谈判的最终边界解决他们可能还要求赔偿。（2002）。看来，印度和孟加拉国政府是在去年已经接近于解决其共同border.000飞地印度公民滞留在飞地完全由孟加拉国领土包围的问题。日。学院人类学。等待爱斯基摩：印度和孟加拉国的库奇贝哈尔飞地的历史及纪录片研究。并作为一个提醒，意想不到的历史异常可能确实生存到21世纪初。“印度和孟加拉国定型化土地交换会谈”。而其中一些是不超过几亩大。1947年库奇贝哈尔加入了印度，而朗布尔成为东巴基斯坦，后来Bangladesh.44的一部分，在一个类似的说明。44正如这篇文章的转载打算按2011年8月下旬chhits'边界可以追溯到独立前确实预英次：他们是大君的土地之间的混乱和经常重叠边界的后果库奇贝哈尔和邻国Rangpur.43的Zamindar共约100个。布伦丹·R·43的。对于飞地的历史。地理与环境研究。印度/孟加拉国的例子演示了用小内陆相关的问题。万维网。见怀特。20。后者没有希望执行的任何残余主权要求在他们的藏族聚居地。在这方面，可能是飞地的历史仍然是不完全封闭的。中国还没有达到对西藏的边界与印度和Bhutan.menasborders正式协议。
登录百度帐号推荐应用
为兴趣而生，贴吧更懂你。或