Talk:Chepzi

Expansion

@MarkH21 and DiplomatTesterMan: can you review my expansion of this page before I copy it to other pages?

I was originally going to put it in the Parang River page, but when I saw the Indian news reports calling Chepzi a "Ladakhi village", I decided it had to go here first. I am pretty sure that Chepzi was on the Tibetan side of the border. If it was a Ladakhi village, Strachey would have mentioned it and it would have been listed in the Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladakh.

The parallel with Demchok is striking! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t checked much of this article, but the part of the lead that says witness to a large number of incursions by the Chinese People's Liberation Army since 2013 needs a better cited reference than one article from Zee News. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there are plenty of news stories that reproduce that ine. That is a PTI news column anyway.

But, I guess I have to withdraw the "parellel with Demchok" claim because Demchok is on the southern side of the Charding Nullah, wheras this place is on the northern side of its rivers. The "Hindu Chini bhai bhai" was apparently a one-way street. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage

• Shishir Gupta, China, India in 5-day skirmish before Xi visit, The Hindustan Times, 16 September 2014.

According to the army assessment, this was part of a PLA plan to build a road connecting Manza and Kyenjung outposts on the Chinese side of the LAC with Chepzi on the Indian side and install a surveillance camera for area domination and patrolling.

• Kumar, Satish (2016), "National Security Environment", India's National Security: Annual Review 2015–16, Taylor & Francis, pp. 7–200, ISBN 978-1-315-39011-6

According to the army assessment, this was part of PLA plan to build a road connecting Manza and Kyenjung outposts on the Chinese side of the LAC with Chepzi on the Indian side and install a surveillance camera for area domination and patrolling. Indian forces confronted the PLA and asked them to withdraw, resulting in no fewer than seven face-offs. Some 15—20 m of the temporary track was demolished by the Indian forces using heavy equipment.[35]

I suppose it is Google's fault that it doesn't put Chepzi on the map so that even JNU professors can't figure it out?

But Google does put "Zhipuqi 支普齐"!

Was Chepzi ever considered by India as on the Indian side?

Continuing from above... This book has a heading titled Chinese Incursion in Chumar/Chepzi ... but it doesn't actually say much about Chepzi. Economic Times writes that it was Indian territory till as late as 2013 — Chinese troops set up camp in Chepzi in Ladakh: Around 20 Chinese soldiers last week entered Indian territory near the LAC and pitched their tents in Chepzi area in Ladakh, sources said. So considereing all these edits,

Yes, Chepzi is considered Indian territory by India, just like China claimed Barahoti without knowing where it was.... DTM (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are some "thinking man's newspapers":

• Sujan Datta, Face-off on border on eve of Modi-Xi date, The Telegraph (India), 16 September 2014.

The troops on the ground continue to be engaged because India wants China to stop building a road that it says is coming into its own territory. The Indian troops are on higher ground and can see movements on the Chinese side clearly. The post at 30R is also equipped with surveillance cameras. The Chinese want this tactical and vantage position to be vacated. The Indian army refuses.

(I have searched for "Chepzi" on The Telegraph web site. They never used it anywhere! Neither did The Hindu or The Indian Express.)

• Sushant Singh, Explained: Six years ago, how a standoff in Ladakh ended after discussion, The Indian Express, 16 June 2020.

It is one of those areas where India has a road right up to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), then there is a sharp cut across a big nala (rivulet) marked on the map as 30R — a sudden relative height of 30 metres.... The Chinese soldiers come up to 30R in vehicles, then dismount and patrol on either horses or on foot, providing Indian soldiers enough warning time to stop their patrols and force them to return after the banner drill. This had led to an increase in Chinese transgressions in the area in 2013 and 2014.

It appears that the 30R location is this, Google satellite view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, I expanded the Chumar article a little. DTM (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Chabiji

Chabiji area beyond Indian borders: Army (source:The Hindu) >Is Chabiji the same as Chepzi. If so, can be added to the article. DTM (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, so the Indian army says Chabiji not India's.... but a Ladakhi Royal Family says Chabji is/was India's.... link.... who is correct? DTM (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Regarding that particular story/family, I haven’t been able to find a single source that mentions any of the names from the Dorje family nor "Rupsho Raja" besides that column. It's also now mentioned in the article Chumar, but seems like a sole primary source claim unless an RS can be found for that particular story. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, noted. If I can't find any sources I will remove the content. The current source by itself is no means a reliable source. DTM (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The royal family is obviously correct because Drew's map showed the territory up to the Chepzelung and Kyunsalung rivers as being Ladakhi. Chepzi is on the northern bank of these rivers. The Government of India even quoted Drew's boundary to the Chinese delegates in 1960 but, inexplicably, set the boundary 5 miles south of Chumar. No matter how I measure it, 5 miles don't go as far as Chepzi. So, Chepzi is gone. The GoI gave it away. One more hook to hang Nehru on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The royal family may be correct but I removed them from Wiki just now because I couldn't figure out which royal family they belong to... i.e. in other sources. DTM (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Minor observation: isn't "Chepzi" shown on the south bank of Chepzilung in the 1954 AMS map, with "Chepzile" on the north bank? The modern outpost may be on both sides (or all four sides), given the time that has passed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it is shown as Ladakh in the 1954 AMS map as well.

When a river is a border (as is the case to the east of Chepzi), it is generally not shown on maps, and it is taken to be the midstream of the river. But the border is drawn when the river itself is deemed to belong to one side or the other.

I presume that Chepzi is not mentioned in British documents as it might have been a small hamlet at that time, and taken as part of Chumar's estates. But it would be nice to see Strachey's report in full. We only have random bits and pieces that have been quoted here and there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

What I was referring to is the black dot corresponding to the label "Chepzi" in File:Chumar-sector-US-Army-map-1954.png (and the larger image File:Map India and Pakistan 1-250,000 Tile NI 44-13 Tso Morari.jpg) that is south of the Chepzilung and west of the Pare Chu. In that map, the border is also drawn in red just north of the Chepzi dot, along the Chepzilung and Kyumsalung Panglung. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

My surmise is that the black dots are either campsites or small hamlets. The "main village" (a term that MarkH21 contests) is shown by a red star. Currently the village is on the north. I would expect it was the same when that map was drawn.

Obviously, if there is a rive with grasslands, you would expect people to make use of both sides and camp out on both sides. It is unlikely that people would invent a separate name for each of the campsites. This is the same situation we had for Demchok, with its endless battles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The names only correspond to black dots ("buildings or landmark feature" per the legend) or one of the other figures in the legend. The red stars (distance markers, "figures in red denote approximate distances in miles between stars" from the legend) are scattered throughout the map without labeled names.

The only observation that I'm stating here is that the 1954 map shows "Chepzi" as on the south bank with "Chepzile (camping ground)" on the north bank, so it's not definitive that Chepzi is on the northern bank of these rivers. (I'm not saying that anything in the article as currently written should change based on this, and I haven't taken a look at whatever other maps or documents may show or suggest.) — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, good observation. I accept. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• DiplomatTesterMan, The Federal's information was already contained in this The Hindu article, except for the mentions of "Royal family". (That is the difference between a low-grade source and a high-grade one. Please note that carefully.)

The big picture is that, in 1947 India redrew the boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the locals stopped their customary practices. (For all you know, they might not even have known that the boundaries had been redrawn, but the "Rupsho Rajas" surely must have known?) The "stopping" seems to have happened only the 1980s when the PLA came there, as far as farming was concerned, only in the last decade for nomadic pastoralists. These concerns should not be dismissed lightly, and the Army's "clarification" completely misses the point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, regarding this revert, whether they are nobility or not, they owned land there, which is the important bit. That is evidence that it was under Ladakhi/Kashmiri administration earlier. In fact, there is corroboration available from the Officials report, which says in Report of the Officials, Indian Report, Part 3 (1962, p. 4)

On this side [of Charding Nullah] there are only two zamindars. The one is the agent of the Gopa and the other is the agent of the previous Kardar of Rokshu [Rupshu]…

"Kardars" were revenue officials in the Kashmiri administration but in reality they would generally be landlords as well. This particular Kardar owned land in Demchok and Chepzi, as the documents say he did.

Erstwhile landlords are generally frowned upon in the modern world, and The Hindu omitted mentioning it, but it certainly knew of the "16 kanals" of land. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

So we have

1. The 1904–1905 account in the 1962 report saying that there was a Kardar (perhaps corresponding to the claimed "Rupsho Raja") owning land in Demchok, Ladakh
2. The column from a minor digital news/commentary platform with unconfirmed primary claims and two attached photos of documents acknowledging complaints about land in Demchok and "khasra NOs 326 and 327" (perhaps that corresponds to something in/near Chepzi)
3. The initial article from The Hindu about villagers saying that they could not reach their grazing areas near Chepzi due to the PLA
4. The follow-up article from The Hindu about the Indian Army's response that the grazing areas near Chepzi are beyond Indian borders

The unverified photos in the column also only say that they complained about the Indian military preventing them from accessing their land; the wording of the documents do not confirm the complaints nor do they mention that it was due to the PLA (which was connected to the sentence that I had removed).

The issue is that there is no RS saying that there was a family of local nobility/Dorjes/Rupsho Rajas/whoever who owned farmland or a palace in Chepzi. Just focusing on Chepzi, all of the following claims are only supported by Dawa Dorje's own quotes within this column:

1. The Dorje family/Rupsho Rajas were local nobility/rajas/etc.
2. The Dorje family/Rupsho Rajas owned farmland and a palace in or near Chepzi
3. The Dorje family/Rupsho Rajas were prevented from accessing their own farmland and palace in/near Chepzi by the PLA

The original material in this article still uses all of the above claims: And the local nobility family of "Rupsho Rajas" continue to own the farmland and a palace at Chepzi. They claim that their access to these lands has been blocked by the People's Liberaiton Army in recent years. The initial article in The Hindu only supports that villagers in general (not specifically the Dorje family/Rupsho Rajas) have complained about not reaching their grazing areas due to the PLA.

Now perhaps the Dorje family owned land near Chepzi. Perhaps they owned a palace near Chepzi. Perhaps they were even local nobility. But whichever of those are included in the WP article need to be verifiable to an RS stating them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing the article in The Hindu just now! This specific topic just isn't treating me well!... MarkH21, according to you what can be legitimately put in the articles for Chumur and Chepzi related to the above two articles, one, The Federals' and two, The Hindus. DTM (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Basically what's there now. The two articles from The Hindu directly support that there are villagers from Chumar who say that they have not been able to access the Chepzi grazing pastures due to recent PLA movements and that the Indian Army responded that there was no PLA aggression & the Chepzi grazing pastures is not within Indian borders. All necessarily in-text attributes of course. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Chumar border incidents section in which article?

@Kautilya3: Shouldn’t this "Border incidents" section predominantly be in the article Chumar (where some of this material is already present)? The section material doesn’t really mention Chepzi and is more directly related to Chumar? It might make more sense to leave the section here short and point with a {{further}} tag at Chumar#Sino-Indian border dispute. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a summary for now. The corresponding discussion in the Chumar will be much larger, I expect. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)