Product Code Database
Example Keywords: hat -science $22-119
barcode-scavenger
   » » Wiki: Khurnak Fort
Tag Wiki 'Khurnak Fort'.
Tag

The Khurnak Fort () Ngari Prefecture, KNAB Place Name Database, retrieved 18 May 2022. is a ruined on the northern shore of , which spans eastern in India and in the region of China. The area of the Khurnak Fort is disputed by India and China, and has been under Chinese administration since 1958.

Though the ruined fort itself is not of much significance, it serves as a landmark denoting the middle of Pangong Lake. The fort lies at the western edge of a large plain formed as the of a river called Changlung Lungpa, which falls into Pangong Lake from the north. The plain itself is called Ote Plain locally, but is now generally called the Khurnak Plain.


Geography
The Khurnak Fort stands on a large plain called Ot or Ote at the centre of on its northern bank. In recent times, the plain has come to be called the "Khurnak Plain", after the fort. The plain divides into two halves: to the west is the Pangong Tso proper and to the east are a string of lakes called Nyak Tso, Tso Ngombo, or other names.

The Khurnak Plain is 8 miles long and 3 miles wide. It is, in fact, the mouth of a valley called "Changlung Lungpa" ( also called "Chang Parma", meaning "northern middle"). The river that flows through the valley—about 40 to 50 miles long—brings down waters from numerous glaciers lying between Pangong Lake and the Chang Chenmo Valley. The plain is formed by the alluvial deposits of the river encroaching into the bed of the lake.

"The silt, which in former times has been carried down from the above area, has formed the plain of Ote, the broad barrier to what would otherwise be a continuous long reach of water."
The growth of the plain over the millennia has reduced the lake in its vicinity to a narrow channel "like a large river" for about 2–3 miles, with a minimum breadth of 50 yards. The constrained flow of water from east to west makes the lower lake to the west ( Pangong Tso) considerably more saline than the eastern lake ( Tso Ngombo).: "The waters of the western end are far more salt than those of that near Ote, noticeable even to the taste, but it is not until the stream that connects the two portions is fairly entered that it is by any means drinkable; thence for the whole distance eastward we used to take water..."

The top of the Changlung Lungpa valley is marked by a grazing ground called . Here, the valley branches into two valleys, one going northwest to the pass and the other going northeast to the pastures of and . Migpal is connected via mountain passes to both the Chang Chenmo Valley in the northwest and the well-watered village of Noh in the southeast.

H. H. Godwin-Austen noted in 1867 that all of Khurnak Plain had considerable growth of grass and formed a winter grazing area for the nomads. The snow never stayed for long on the Khurnak Plain, even when the lake itself froze. The Changpa nomads of Noh (also called Üchang or Wujiang)

"Discussing One possibility is the existence (in modern times at least) of a place called Üchang ( dBus byang, Chinese Wujiang) at the eastern end of the Panggong Tsho, missed by Vitali.
and camped out at the plain during the winter. To protect the tents against the wind, walls of stone and earth were built, and the floors were dug 3 feet deep. Strachey also labelled the Khurnak Plain as "Uchang Tobo", which might indicate a connection with the village of Noh.


Access
The Khurnak Plain is accessible from both Ladakh and Rudok via multiple routes. Strachey noted two access routes from Ladakh, one via and the other via the Chang Chenmo valley and . These were usable in the summer. A third route from the south, crossing the narrow channel of the lake, shown in later maps as a ford, would have been the easiest route to the Khurnak Plain (Map 3). The ability to ford the lake here was found erroneous in later British testimonies.

From the Tibetan side, a route along the northern shore of Pangong Lake was available. witnessed it being used as a trade route by Ladakhi traders going to Rudok.

"Occasionally we would meet on the northern track a caravan of sheep, laden with corn put up in small sacks, and travelling from Leh or Tanksi. One that we met this day consisted of 200 sheep: it was quite a pleasure to see how well-trained the animals were, and how orderly they marched along without being especially looked after."
The route was difficult to traverse in parts because of cliffs jutting into the lake. However, this was no impediment in winter when the lake froze.
"In one place the cliffs plunged down into the water so precipitously that it looked for a time as if we should be unable to proceed further. ... We had but to wait two or three days for the ice to thicken, and then we drew the baggage past the place of danger on an improvised sledge."
In addition, a longer route from Noh via Migpal was also available.
"To the south of the great tributary of the Pangong, the Mipal Valley, could be followed for many miles..."
(Map 3)


Khurnak Fort
Godwin-Austen mentioned the Khurnak Fort, whose ruins stood on a low rock (elevation: 4,257 m) on the northwestern side of the plain. Judging from its site, he believed that it belonged to Tibetans who presumably built it "years ago". But its proximity to Leh and the strength of its Thanadar (governor), he thought, placed it in Kashmiri territory. The Khurnak Plain was a "disputed ground", according to Godwin-Austen, which was claimed by the Ladakhis as well as the Tibetans of Rudok.
"The said plain is a disputed piece of ground, the men of the Pangong district claim it; though, judging by the site of an old fort standing on a low rock on the north-western side of the plain, I should say it undoubtedly belongs to the Lhassan authorities, by whom it was built years ago; proximity of Leh and greater part of the Thanadar there, places it in the Kashmir Rajah's territory."

Evidently, the purpose of the fort was to guard against Ladakhis crossing to the Khurnak Plain from the south, crossing the narrow channel of the lake. Such activity was witnessed during the times of the British Raj as well.: "In some years the guards at Khurnak do not appear; in others they come down in force, then they are simply masters of the situation as they can prevent the rafts landing." The Khurnak Plain, being a prized winter pasture ground, was the preserve of the shepherds from Noh, the only permanently inhabited place on the north shore of Pangong Lake. Ladakhis, who lived south of Pangong Lake, had their winter pastures in , much further to the south.P. Stobdan, Shift in India's Border Defence Provokes China, Maagzter, June 2020. "The area is locally known as Skakjung located 300 kilometres east of Leh and is traditionally the only winter pasture for several villages including Chushul, Tsaga, Niddar, Nyoma, Mud, Dungti, Kuyul, Loma etc. This area is located on the left bank of Indus between Dungti and Fuktse but the area extends even up to Demchok."


History
In 1863, British topographer Henry Haversham Godwin-Austen described Khurnak as a disputed claimed both by inhabitants of and Tibetan authorities from Lhasa. He personally believed that it should belong to the latter due to the "old fort standing on a low rock on the north-western side of the plain" previously built by the Tibetans.

Godwin-Austen remarked that the Kashmiri authorities in had recently exerted their influence in the region such that Khurnak was effectively controlled by the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir.

According to , the majority of British maps published between 1918 and 1947 showed Khurnak as being in Tibet.


Sino-Indian border dispute
Prior to 1958, the boundary between India and China was considered to be at the Khurnak Fort
(2025). 9788173871276, Indus Publishing. .
and Indian forces visited it from time to time and had a post there.Pg. 74, La Question de la frontière Sino-Indienne, 1967 China wrested its control since around July 1958, according to most sources. See:

During the 1960 talks between the two governments on the boundary issue, India submitted official records, including the 1908 Settlement Report, which recorded the amount of revenue collected at Khurnak, as proof of jurisdiction over Khurnak. The Chinese claim line of 1956 did not include the Khurnak Fort, but the 1960 claim line included the Khurnak Fort.

In 1963, Khurnak Fort was described by the US National Photographic Interpretation Center as follows:

As of 2019, a PLA border patrol company of the Western Theater Command was stationed nearby.


See also
  • List of locations in Aksai Chin


Notes

Bibliography


External links
Page 1 of 1
1
Page 1 of 1
1

Account

Social:
Pages:  ..   .. 
Items:  .. 

Navigation

General: Atom Feed Atom Feed  .. 
Help:  ..   .. 
Category:  ..   .. 
Media:  ..   .. 
Posts:  ..   ..   .. 

Statistics

Page:  .. 
Summary:  .. 
1 Tags
10/10 Page Rank
5 Page Refs
1s Time