I've now been to both Tibet (1998) and Ladakh in India (2005), so this begs the question, which is best?   For the moment, I'll take my sarcastic hat off (that's evident from the remarks I make all over these pages) and put my serious hat on.   Now let's make it clear before I get any flack that I got a lot out of both trips and enjoyed both too.

To summarise, Tibet is under occupation by the Chinese and no real settlement of it's future (except for that imposed by the Chinese) looks in sight.   Although the main monasteries (gompas) are intact or rebuilt, many of the smaller village temples and monasteries have not been restored and the stupas (chortens) that used to dot the landscape are no longer there (my views are quite clear in 'A True Story').   The Buddhism you see is very much a controlled affair, with the Chinese keeping a very close watch on the Buddhist institutions they once tried to destroy.   This failed and instead control was seen as a more effective long term policy.   If anyone gets out of hand, they disappear and only reappear once they have been 're-educated'.

This wholesale devastation has not happened in Ladakh and Ladakh in parts is very like the Tibet in appearance that many people imagine (Shangri La or Shambala if you like).   People don't disappear for expressing their views and their beliefs can be expressed without them being referred to as 'superstition'.   India, although not perfect, is a democracy.

What I am saying here seems to justify the opinion of many people who avoid Tibet and come to Ladakh either so their money does not end up in Chinese hands or because they are worried about travelling in an occupied land.   On the face of it, I seem to be saying Ladakh.

Wrong - the winner for me by a long way (and this surprises me too) is Tibet.   So how do I put this in simple language?

Ladakh may not have the Chinese, but one thing during the summer months that can at times overwhelm it is 'tourists'.   As I said elsewhere on these pages, I spent quite a lot of time on my own during this trip and one of those times was in Leh itself.   When I walked from Leh Palace to the Japanese-built Shanti Stupa on the northwest edge of Leh, all I could along the sides of the tree-lined streets were tourist guesthouses, restaurants, internet cafes and places offering international direct dial at so-called cheap rates.   Even in smaller places such as Alchi, there's quite a market now in tourist accommodation (basic guesthouses are now becoming small hotels with en suite facilities) and I felt just as likely to walk into a tourist round any given corner as a local.   It's only a matter of time before Ladakh catches the eye of larger tourist concerns and not just the small group or individual traveller.   Any remaining elements of Shambala in the midst of this growing commercialism feels as though it's being swamped or swept away and I feel there's a danger of Ladakh becoming a Buddhist theme park rather than somewhere the odd traveller may go to see a local culture hardly touched by the outside world.   Tourism is inadvertently in danger of doing in Ladakh exactly what the Chinese are trying to do in Tibet.   Tourists just don't seem the realise the harm they do.

Lhasa, Shigatse and Gyantse in Tibet may have Chinese populations and there may be a concerted effort to control Buddhism.   However, the Tibetans themselves seem all too ready to hang onto their deep seated beliefs in the face of Chinese modernisation and even the Chinese have to realise that they cannot control these people's souls.   It may also be that the glass ceiling that the Chinese have put in place (favouring Han and Tibetan supporters over and above the general Tibetan population), reducing access to better jobs and pay, may have conversely turned a few Tibetans back towards Buddhism.

I'm not that sure that the deep embrace of Buddhism has such a grip in Ladakh anymore, as especially in the Drugpa (Red Hat) monasteries, numbers opting to be monks are dwindling as the attractions of the modern world draw people to pastures new (the tourist trade and jobs in the big cities) and the opportunities it has to offer.   The fortunes of the Gelugpa (Yellow Hat) monasteries in Ladakh and Himachal Pradesh definitely seem to be on the up, but how much of this is due to the presence of the Tibetan refugee population and (outside the political arena) western sympathies with the Tibet situation, I don't know.   Also, how far Islam and the influx of Kashmiri traders will upset the balance is not yet completely clear - a final settlement of the Kashmir issue may see many of these people return to Srinagar as tourism switches back to the Vale of Kashmir.   In my opinion, a settlement may be a blessing in disguise for Ladakhi Buddhism, with a reduction in pressure from both Islam and tourism.

There was something about the earlier Tibet trip that was not there in Ladakh.   I feel that the way of life in Ladakh has possibly been changed forever by the arrival of mass tourism that has steadily gathered pace since India opened up Ladakh in 1974.   In Tibet, many Tibetans conversely cling on to their Buddhism and faith in the Dalai Lama in spite of the influence of the Chinese.   This in my view gave Tibet an edge that Ladakh did not.   Tibet was an education and whether Tibet had come first or second, I felt that I learnt a lot more from that trip, not just about Tibet and Buddhism and their way of life, but the whole Tibet issue.

Whether you choose to agree or disagree with the above, it all depends on what you were looking for.   If you're just doing the tourist thing or want to enjoy spectacular mountain scenery (and wow, it's something else), then Ladakh is for you.   If you really want to learn, then Tibet for me was the real education.