TRADE DIPLOMACY IN SINO-INDIAN RELATIONS

Date: July, 2006

Background to Indo-Tibet Trade through Sikkim

   After the conquest of India in mid-18^th 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 13^th 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 2500^th 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 8^th 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 – 10^th day of 5^th month in Tibetan lunar calendar) and the Dalai Lama’s 71^st 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 13^th 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.