Dogra–Tibetan war

Last updated

Dogra-Sikh Invasion of Tibet
Letter of exchange from the 1842 Treaty of Chushul between the Tibetans of the Qing Dynasty and Dogras of the Sikh Empire.jpg
DateMay 1841 – August 1842
Location
Result Treaty of Chushul
Territorial
changes
status quo ante bellum
Belligerents
Commanders and leaders
Flag of Tibet.svg Khedrup Gyatso
Flag of Tibet.svg Palden Tenpai Nyima
Flag of Tibet.svg Minister Pellhün
Flag of Tibet.svg General Pi-Hsi
Flag of Tibet.svg General Banka Kahloon (WIA)
Flag of Tibet.svg General Bazgoo Kahloon (POW)
Flag of Tibet.svg General Moru Tadsi (POW)
Flag of Tibet.svg General Mandal 
Flag of Tibet.svg General Ragasha  Skull and Crossbones.svg
Strength
10,000[ citation needed ] 4,000 [1]
Casualties and losses
  • 2,800 killed
  • 700 captured
Unknown

It has been learned that south of Ladakh there is a very large aboriginal tribe named Ren-chi-shen [Ranjit Singh]. Subordinate to this tribe are two smaller tribes-- Sa-re-shen [Sher Singh] and Ko-lang-shen [Gulab Singh], who together are known as the Shen-pa ["Singh people", possibly referring Sikhs and Dogra Rajputs together]. After the death of the Ladakhi ruler [Tshe-pal Nam-gyal], a certain Ladakhi chieftain had secret connections with the Shen-pa, who then occupied Ladakh. Now this Ladakhi chieftain is once again in league with the Shen-pa aborigines who have invaded Tibetan territory, occupied two of our military posts at Gartok and Rudok, and claimed the territory west of the Mayum that had formerly belonged to Ladakh. Actually they intended to occupy more territory than this. [28]

British and Nepalese reactions

The Dogra conquest of Ladakh had been previously advantageous to the British. The disturbances in Ladakh caused the Tibetan shawl wool to be diverted to the princely state of Bushahr, a British dependency. But, now with the Dogra conquest of the Western Tibet, this trade was disrupted. [22] [29] The advance of Zorawar Singh's troops gave rise to vociferous complaints from the British to the Lahore durbar of the Sikh Empire. It was also reported that Zorawar Singh was exacting taxes from Bhotias under British protection in the Byans valley. The British demanded that this should be immediately stopped and the villagers already assessed should be compensated. [30]

Added to these concerns was the possibility of intercourse between the Dogras and the Nepalese, with might have encircled British territory in Kumaon and Garhwal. [22] [31] But such a relationship did not materialise. The Nepalese were sympathetic to the Ladakhis and they also had ongoing relationships with the Tibetans. Even though they sent a mission to Zorawar Singh after his conquest of Taklakot, nothing further came out of it. Winter sojourn to the Dogras was refused. [32]

Nevertheless, the British were apprehensive. The Governor General brought heavy pressure on the Sikhs to recall Zorawar Singh from Tibet, and set 10 December 1841 as the deadline. [32]

Winter debacle

Fisher et al. state that, with the winter approaching, the Dogras were not inimical to withdrawing in strength if they could make a deal with the Tibetans. But they appear to have made too high demands for the Tibetans to accept. [24] Sukhdev Singh Charak states that the Lahore Durbar responded to the British demands and ordered Zorawar Singh to return to Ladakh. In response, Zorawar Singh withdrew officers and troops from "advance posts" and from the British border, and promised to carry out the rest of the withdrawal after the snows cleared. Charak opines that these military movements, made to appease the British, weakened Zorawar Singh's position. [33]

Tibetan reinforcements arrived in November in considerable numbers. Alexander Cunningham estimated 10,000 troops. [34] [b] The Mayum Pass was covered with snow, but the troops bypassed it via Matsang. After severe fighting, Taklakot was retaken on 9 November 1841. Detachments were sent forward to cut Dogra communication lines. Reconnaissance missions sent by Zorawar Singh were annihilated. [24] [35]

Eventually, Zorawar Singh decided to risk everything in an all-out campaign to recapture Taklakot. Fighting raged indecisively for three weeks. [24] In an attempt to cut the supply lines of the Tibetan forces at Taklakot, Zorawar Singh's forces marched on a side route from Minsar, along the upper course of the Karnali River, and encamped at Kardung (Kardam). Tibetans calculated that they intended to intercept the supply line at a place called Do-yo slightly to the north of Taklakot. [19] According to the Tibetan report from the battlefield:

Dogra-Tibetan war
Transparent.svg
Transparent.svg
16km
9.9miles
BRITISH
INDIA
BASHAHR
SIKH
EMPIRE
TIBET
NEPAL
LADAKH
Red pog.svg
Do-yo
Red pog.svg
Kardung
Red pog.svg
Daba
Red pog.svg
Tholing
Mountain pass 12x12 se.svg
Mayum La
Red pog.svg
Taklakot
Blue pog.svg
Manasarovar
Red pog.svg
Minsar
Red pog.svg
Gartok
Red pog.svg
Rudok
Red pog.svg
Tashigang
Green pog.svg
Hanle
Green pog.svg
Leh
The final battle in Tibet

During this period, there was a great snowstorm and snow accumulated to the depth of several feet. A well-disguised ambush was carefully laid, in which a road was left open through the middle of our lines up which the enemy could advance. The invaders marched on Do-yo from 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. on the second day, 11th month [14 December 1841]. These forces included the troops stationed at their new fort at Chi-t'ang in addition to the force led by the Wazir [Zorawar Singh], the Shen-pa commander. They advanced in three units with flags flying and drums beating. General Pi-hsi led his troops to resist their advance. The invaders fell into the ambush that had been prepared and their rearguard was cut off and could not maneuver. They were attacked by our forces from all sides. [26]

Zorawar Singh was wounded in the battle, but he continued to fight with a sword. He was beheaded by Tibetan soldiers. [26] Three hundred of the Dogra troops were killed in combat and about seven hundred were captured. The rest fled to Ladakh. The Tibetans pursued them up to Dumra (Nubra Valley, [36] possibly Durbuk), a day's journey from Leh, where they encamped. [37]

Tibetan invasion of Ladakh

The Sino-Tibetan force then mopped up the other garrisons of the Dogras and advanced on Ladakh, now determined to conquer it and add it to the Imperial Chinese dominions. However the force under Mehta Basti Ram withstood a siege for several weeks at Chi-T’ang before escaping with 240 men across the Himalayas to the British post of Almora. As Leh was besieged, reinforcements under Diwan Hari Chand and Wazir Ratnu marched from Jammu, lifting the siege; at Drangtse (Tangtse) the Dogras flooded the Tibetan entrenchments by damming a stream, and then pursued the retreat to Chushul, where they gained the decisive victory in August 1842. [38] [39]

Peace treaty

On 17 September 1842, a peace treaty was agreed in Leh between the Dogras and the Tibetans and formalized as the Treaty of Chushul, agreed at Leh on Assuj 2, 1899 Samvat (17 September 1842). The Dogra signatory was Mukhtar‑ud‑Daula Diwan Hari Chand, alongside Wazir Ratnu; the Tibetan signatories were Kalon Surkhang and Dapon Peshi Shatra.

The Tibetan note, incorporating the concessions made by the Dogras, was handed to Gulab Singh's representatives. The Persian note, describing the Tibetan concessions, was presented to the Tibetan officials. [40] The terms were also summarised in the Ladakh Chronicles as follows. Tibet recognised that Ladakh was annexed to the Sikh Empire. And the Sikh Empire relinquished the ancient Ladakhi claim to western Tibet. Both sides would remain within their own territories. Biennial Lopchak missions would go on as before. Ladakhi merchants would be allowed to travel to Rudok, Gartok and other places in Tibet and the Tibetan merchants from Chang Thang would be allowed to go to Ladakh. [41]

The texts of the notes also state that the "old, established frontiers" between Ladakh and Tibet would be respected. The Ladakhi king and queen were to be allowed to live in Ladakh peacefully, and it is the Ladakhi king that would send the biennial Lopchak missions to Lhasa rather than the Dogra regime. All trade between the two regions was to be conducted according to "old, established custom". [42]

The treaty came into discussion in the 1960s in the context of the Sino-Indian border dispute. The Indian government used the treaty to counter the Chinese contention that the border between Ladakh and Tibet had never been delimited. The Indian position was that the reference to "old, established frontiers" meant that the border had been delimited. The Chinese argued that, even if it had been delimited, there is no guarantee that it was the same as the Indian claimed boundary. [43]

See also

Notes

  1. According to Cunningham, the commander responsible for the destruction of monasteries was Ghulam Khan, the son-in-law of Rahim Khan. After his capture by the Tibetans, he was tortured to death. [19]
  2. Sources state that Zorawar Singh had 3,000 troops at this stage. So he was outnumbered 3 to 1.

References

Citations

  1. Rose, Leo E. (1960). The Role of Nepal and Tibet in Sino-Indian Relations. University of California, Berkeley. p. 309.
  2. Sarkees & Wayman, Resort to War (2010), p. 504.
  3. 1 2 Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), pp. 49–59.
  4. Guo, Rongxing (2015). China's Regional Development and Tibet. Springer. p. 5. ISBN   978-981-287-958-5.
  5. 1 2 Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), p. 49.
  6. Huttenback, Gulab Singh (1961), p. 485.
  7. Huttenback, Gulab Singh (1961), p. 487.
  8. Warikoo, India's gateway to Central Asia (2009) , p. 4: "Tibet's trade with Ladakh and Kashmir was regulated by the Treaty of Tingmosgang, concluded in 1684, under which Ladakh got the monopoly over shawl-wool produced in Tibet, and the Tibetans acquired the exclusive right to the brick-tea trade with Ladakh."
  9. Mehra, An "agreed" frontier (1992) , p. 71: "The pashmina goat is indigenous to Ladakh, western Tibet and parts of the Tien Shan mountains where a harsh but snow-less winter and availability of grass for fodder through the year produces the finest pashm. "
  10. Warikoo, India's gateway to Central Asia (2009), p. 2.
  11. Huttenback, Gulab Singh (1961), p. 479.
  12. Huttenback, Gulab Singh (1961), p. 480.
  13. Huttenback, Gulab Singh (1961), pp. 480–482.
  14. Huttenback, Gulab Singh (1961) , pp. 480–482: "Gulab Singh had consolidated his position in Ladakh; still he was not satisfied. Knowing the advantages of controlling the profitable wool trade, he was not content to allow the major benefits to devolve to the British. ... All that was needed to possess the entire wool trade was the acquisition of the very territories where the goats were raised—the Chang Thung Plains of Western Tibet."
  15. Sarkees & Wayman, Resort to War (2010) , p. 504: "In 1840 a disruption of the wool and tea trade had caused economic harm to Jammu. An alternative trade route had been developed as a result of a British endeavor to export opium through Tibet. Thus the Dogra concluded that a solution would be to capture western Tibet, thereby disrupting the newer route."
  16. Malhotra, Iqbal Chand (2020), Red Fear: The China Threat, Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 68–69, ISBN   978-93-89867-59-6
  17. 1 2 Shakabpa, One Hundred Thousand Moons (2010), p. 583.
  18. Charak, General Zorawar Singh (2003), p. 751.
  19. 1 2 Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), p. 164.
  20. 1 2 Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), pp. 49–50.
  21. Shakabpa, One Hundred Thousand Moons (2010), pp. 583–584.
  22. 1 2 3 Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), p. 50.
  23. Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963) , p. 50: "Zorawar Singh then announced his intention to conquer in the name of the Jammu Raja all of Tibet west of the Mayum Pass, on the ground that this territory had rightfully belonged, since ancient times, to the ruler of Ladakh."
  24. 1 2 3 4 Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), p. 53.
  25. McKay, History of Tibet, Vol. 2 (2003) , p. 28
  26. 1 2 3 Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963) , p. 165
  27. Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), p. 190.
  28. Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), p. 158.
  29. Huttenback, Gulab Singh (1961), p. 482.
  30. Huttenback, Gulab Singh (1961), pp. 482–484.
  31. Huttenback, Gulab Singh (1961), p. 484.
  32. 1 2 Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), p. 51.
  33. Charak, General Zorawar Singh (2003), p. 758.
  34. Charak, General Zorawar Singh (2003), p. 761 and note 33 (p. 766).
  35. Charak, General Zorawar Singh (2003), p. 759.
  36. Kapadia, Harish (1999). Across Peaks & Passes in Ladakh, Zanskar & East Karakoram. Indus Publishing. p. 230. ISBN   978-81-7387-100-9.
  37. Shakabpa, One Hundred Thousand Moons (2010), pp. 576–577, 583–584.
  38. Sino-Dogra War Archived 29 July 2020 at the Wayback Machine , Histomil.com, 6 February 2012
  39. Sandhya Jain (21 May 2013). "On the defensive on too many occasions". The Pioneer.
  40. Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), pp. 55–56.
  41. Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), p. 55.
  42. Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963), p. 56.
  43. Ahmad, Zahiruddin (1963), "Tibet and Ladakh: A History", Far Eastern Affairs, St. Antony's Papers, vol. 14, Chatto & Windus, pp. 55–56

Sources

Dogra–Tibetan war
Traditional Chinese 森巴戰爭
Simplified Chinese 森巴战争
Literal meaningDogra War
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu Pinyin Sēnbā Zhànzhēng