Talk:Taghdumbash Pamir

Tribute nature of Hunza relationship
Based on this book from late 1800s, the relationship between locals here and Hunza (Kanjutis) was described as "blackmail". This is to prevent them from attacking. The locals were still described in the book as "nominally" under Chinese domain. Sounds to me like earlier Mir of Hunza basically blackmailed Qing dynasty into cede some of its frontier town tax revenues, Qing was happy to go along with it. --Voidvector (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Such are the mysterious ways of Chinese suzerainty. I also recall that Shah Salim Khan was taken as a hostage by the Yarkandis when he was a child and raised in Yarkand. After growing up he was allowed to go back to Hunza and become the Mir. The Hunza history also claims that the Khirgiz of Taghdumbash attacked Hunza, and in response Salim Khan pursued them back to Dafdar and obtained the trophy head.
 * By the way, the present day Sino-Indian conflict possibly arises from this event. The British wanted the Chinese to relinquish their "shadowy suzerainty" over Hunza, and in return offered all the area up to the Karakoram range and half of Aksai Chin (via the Macartney–MacDonald Line). The Chinese never responded to the proposal, even though the Yarkandis were said to have been favourable to it. Then the British gradually pulled Hunza out of the Chinese suzerainty through subtle tactics and the Chinese then reoccupied Taghdumbash Pamir, the rest of the northern tract up to the Karakoram Pass and eventually the whole of Aksai Chin.
 * India can now claim that Macartney–MacDonald Line is a fair deal, but nothing beyond. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * India can now claim that Macartney–MacDonald Line is a fair deal, but nothing beyond. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting, Kirghiz were known to be slavers in the 1880s, possibly earlier, maybe he was in Yarkand for many years because of that? Some of the commanders and generals were slaves that rose through the ranks.
 * These are all very interesting. When you read into the details, you realize a lot of the political/legal concepts were quite different back then. And in the 1800s and 1900s countries were basically scrabbling to reconcile those differences. Nowadays we still have reconcile them when trying to describe them. --Voidvector (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources say "hostage", not "slave". It was common to demand a subsidiary ruler to send his son as hostage so that he wouldn't rebel. I think the "authority" mentioned by Ahmad Hassan Dani is Qudratullah Beg . The Chapter 38 gives this narrative:
 * The political/legal concepts weren't all that different in other empires, only with the Chinese, because they had very subtle ways of doing things. There is an entire paper that describes how the British had worried about the biannual gift exchanges that were taking place between Ladakh and Lhasa. The worry was, did these gift exchanges make Ladakh a subsidiary of Lhasa? They didn't. But the British weren't sure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The political/legal concepts weren't all that different in other empires, only with the Chinese, because they had very subtle ways of doing things. There is an entire paper that describes how the British had worried about the biannual gift exchanges that were taking place between Ladakh and Lhasa. The worry was, did these gift exchanges make Ladakh a subsidiary of Lhasa? They didn't. But the British weren't sure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)