Monday, June 3, 2019

Liberation of Shang Shung including Guge

Historians continue to debate the reasons for the expeditions to liberate Shang Shung in northern India. Some others believe that he aimed to establish a land bridge between Ladakh and Nepal to create a Sikh-Gorkha alliance against the British.However, Zorawar Singh Kahluria was only conquering lands which were historically a part of India and areas distinctly foreign to the invading Tibetans from the East which had a rich indigenous Indian civilization to the marauding Tibetans from the East. According to Rolf Alfred Stein, author of Tibetan Civilization, the area of Shang Shung comprising the area conquered by Zorawar Singh Kahluria was not historically a part of Tibet and was a distinctly foreign territory to the Tibetans. According to Rolf Alfred Stein. Rock carvings found in many parts of Ladakh indicate that the area has been inhabited from Neolithic times. Ladakh's earliest inhabitants consisted of a mixed Indo-Aryanpopulation of Mons and Dards, who find mention in the works of HerodotusNearchusMegasthenesPlinyPtolemy, and the geographical lists of the Puranas. Around the 1st century, Ladakh was a part of the Kushan EmpireBuddhism spread into western Ladakh from Kashmir in the 2nd century when much of eastern Ladakh and western Tibet was still practicing the Bon religion. The 7th century Buddhist traveler Xuanzang describes the region in his accounts. "…Then further west, The Tibetans encountered a distinctly foreign nation. - Shangshung, with its capital at Khyunglung. Mt. Kailāśa (Tise ) and Lake Manasarovar formed part of this country., whose language has come down to us through early documents. Though still unidentified, it seems to be Indo European. …Geographically the country was certainly open to India, both through Nepal and by way of Kashmir and Ladakh. Kailāśa is a holy place for the Indians, who make pilgrimages to it. No one knows how long they have done so, but the cult may well go back to the times when Shangshung was still independent of Tibet. How far Shangshung stretched to the north , east and west is a mystery…. We have already had an occasion to remark that Shangshung, embracing Kailāśa sacred Mount of the Hindus, may once have had a religion largely borrowed from Hinduism. The situation may even have lasted for quite a long time. In fact, about 950, the Hindu King of Kabul had a statue of Vişņu, of the Kashmiri type (with three heads), which he claimed had been given him by the king of the Bhota (Tibetans) who, in turn had obtained it from Kailāśa."

The territorial extent of Ladakh during the period of King Nyimagon about 975 A. D. - 1000 A.D. as depicted in A History of Western Tibet by A.H. Francke, 1907

The empire of King Tsewang Rnam Rgyal 1 and that of King Jamyang Rnam Rgyal, about 1560 and 1600 A.D.
A chronicle of Ladakh compiled in the 17th century called the La dvags rgyal rabs, meaning the Royal Chronicle of the Kings of Ladakh recorded that this boundary was traditional and well-known. The first part of the chronicle was written in the years 1610 -1640, and the second half towards the end of the 17th century. The work has been translated into English by A. H. Francke and published in 1926 in Calcutta titled the "Antiquities of Indian Tibet" . In volume 2, the Ladakhi Chronicle describes the partition by King Sykid-Ida-ngeema-gon of his kingdom between his three sons, and then the chronicle described the extent of territory secured by that son. The following quotation is from page 94 of this book: "He gave to each of his sons a separate kingdom, viz., to the eldest Dpal-gyi-ngon, Maryul of Mnah-ris, the inhabitants using black bows; ru-thogs of the east and the Gold-mine of Hgog; nearer this way Lde-mchog-dkar-po; at the frontier ra-ba-dmar-po; Wam-le, to the top of the pass of the Yi-mig rock….." From a perusal of the aforesaid work, it is obvious and evident that Rudokh was an integral part of Ladakh, and even after the family partition Rudokh continued to be part of Ladakh. Maryul meaning lowlands was a name given to a part of Ladakh. Even at that time, i.e. in the 10th century, Rudokh was an integral part of Ladakh and Lde-mchog-dkar-po, i.e. Demchok was also an integral part of Ladakh. The capital city of Zhang Zhung was called Khyunglung (Khyunglung Ngülkhar or Khyung-lung dngul-mkhar), the "Silver Palace of Garuda", southwest of Mount Kailash (Mount Ti-se), which is identified with palaces found in the upper Sutlej Valley.
The Zhang Zhung built a towering fort, Chugtso Dropo, on the shores of sacred Lake Dangra, from which they exerted military power over the surrounding district in central Tibet.
The fact that some of the ancient texts describing the Zhang Zhung kingdom also claimed the Sutlej valleywas Shambhala, the land of happiness (from which James Hilton possibly derived the name "Shangri La"), may have delayed their study by Western scholars. Zorawar Singh knew that western Tibet (Ngari) was connected to the rest of Tibet by the Mayum La, so his plan consisted of advancing as quickly as possibly into enemy territory, capturing the pass before winter, and building up his forces for a renewed campaign in the summer.

The agreement entered by Pakistan with the Chinese occupying the Sovereign state of East Turkistan

The Government of Pakistan had published an official map depicting the alignment of the northern Border of Kashmir in 1962 which depicted much of the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract as part of Kashmir and the alignment published by the Government of Pakistan predominantly was similar to and coincided with the portrayal of the northern Border of Kashmir in 1954 by the Times Atlas which had predominantly depicted the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract as a part of Kashmir under the caption "Undefined Frontier area" though at places, the official position of the Government of Pakistan deviated from the position of the Times Atlas, and the Government of Pakistan even depicted areas as part of Kashmir which were to the north of the border of Kashmir as published in 1954 by the Times Atlas. The northern border published by the Times Atlas in 1954 more or less followed the principle of watershed of the Kuen Lun range from the Taghdumbash Pamir to the Yangi Dawan pass north of Kulanaldi but east of the Yangi Dawan Pass, the border deviated from the principle of the watershed of the Kuen Lun range on the edge of the highlands of Kashmir and skipped from the Kuen Lun watershed rather than continuing on the Kilian, Sanju-la and Hindutash border passes despite the statement that “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”, in the 1890 Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak and is crossed by two other passes.The Gazetteer of Kashmír and Ladák compiled under the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in the Intelligence Branch and first Published in 1890 gives a description and details of places inside Kashmir and thus includes a description of the Híñdutásh Pass in north eastern Kashmir in the Aksai Chin area in Kashmir . The aforesaid Gazetteer states in pages 520 and 364 that “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”, “and is crossed by two passes, the Yangi or Elchi Diwan, .... and the Hindutak (i.e. Híñdutásh ) Díwán”. It describes Khotan as “ A province of the Chinese Empire lying to the north of the Eastern Kuenlun range, which here forms the boundary of Ladák[14]”. Thus the official position of the Government of Pakistan prior to 1963 was that the northern border of Pakistan was on the Kuen Lun range and the territory ceded by the Government of Pakistan was not just restricted to the Shaksgam Valley but extended to the Kuen Lun range. For an idea of the extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract, a view the map (C) from the Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicago with the caption, "The boundary of Kashmir with China as portrayed and proposed by Britain prior to 1947" would show that the geographical and territorial extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract is more or less the territory enclosed between the northern most line and the innermost lines.
In 1959 the Pakistani government became concerned over Chinese maps that showed areas the Pakistanis considered their own as part of China. In 1961 Ayub Khan sent a formal note to China; there was no reply. It is thought that the Chinese might not have been motivated to negotiate with Pakistan because of Pakistan's relations with India. The agreement resulted in the surrendering of 13,000 square miles of territory. In opinion of Jawaharlal Nehru, "According to the survey of Pakistan maps, even those published in 1962, about 11,000 square miles of Sinkiangterritory formed part of Kashmir. If one goes by these maps, Pakistan has obviously surrendered over 13,000 square miles of territory".[15]

Saturday, February 23, 2019

Imperatives to be included in the Election Manifesto of a New Secular and Progressive Nationalist Political Party in India

Declare Tibet and East Turkistan as sovereign Independent nations which are India's neighbouring countries having an international boundary with India. 

Tell the Chinese regime on its face and in no uncertain terms that China is a distant and far away country not sharing a common border neither with India nor with the Sub-continent of India and and that there is absolutely nothing to talk to the Chinese regime about India's international border with our sovereign neighbouring countries comprising Tibet and East Turkistan and India will hold talks with the de jure governments of the sovereign states of Tibet and East Turkistan at the appropriate time and place

of India's choice. 

Declare that the Chagos archipelago and Diego Garcia are integral and inalienable parts of the Republic of India and neither Mauritius nor Seychelles implanted by the British have a claim to the Chagos Archipelago. 

Declare that Socotra is a part of the Republic of India and illegally detached from the rest of India by the English in the year 1935. 

Give an ultimatum to the Bogus United Nations Organisation to unconditionally include India in the Security Council with full power of Veto within a stipulated period of time, or that India will be constrained to quit from the bogus and fraudulent United Nations
Organisation  at New York and create a genuine and credible new  United Nations  with its Headquarters at Nav Dèhlî

Demand return of all artifacts and gems and  jewels stolen from India including the Peacock Throne, Koh-i-Noor, Hope Blue Diamond and prepare a comprehensive inventory of all the stolen gems and jewels and artifacts including the Koh-i-Noor and Hope Blue Diamond now illegally housed at the Smithsonian University which were stolen and taken away from India during the course of India's history during various times and are now illegally housed abroad and demand their return as stolen property and vigorously leave no stone unturned to ensure their return home. 

Proclaim that the treacherous boundary demarcations prepared by the Colonial English with a game plan pertaining to the territorial integrity of India including the so-called McMahon Line as ab initio illegal and null and void and non est in Law. 

Declare that the illegal Line prepared by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru for northern Kashmir in
1954 in rampant collusion with the Chinese and the English  as per se ab initio illegal and ultra vires the sacrosanct and Supreme Constitution of India and reiterate that the northern boundary of Kashmir is to the north of Dafdar in the Kuen Lun Range in northern Kashmir wherein are the Taghdumbash Pamir, and Mariom Pamir, and the Kukalang, Yangi, Kilian, Sanju-la and Hindutash Passes in northern Kashmir and that Rudokh in western Ladakh extending up to the ridge wherein are the Aling Kangri and Mavang Kangri are an integral part of India. 

Declare and  proclaim that the historic territory of Guge or Shang Shung wherein is the Kailaśa and the Manasarovara are an integral part of the Republic of India. 

Declare and proclaim that the Kabaw Valley in eastern Manipur is an inalienable and integral part of the Republic of India. 

Demand the return of inter alia the Coco Islands in the northern Andaman and Nicobar Islands back to the Republic of India. 

Declare and proclaim that the princely states including the islands which did not accede to the Republic of India in 1947 till date and were permitted to remain independent due to the apathy and lethargy and  callousness of the Nehru Regime were an integral part of India prior to 1947 and these Princely states will eventually become a part of the Republic of India,  and duly issue a warning that if these princely states in collusion with the  Chinese or other enemies of India did an act which jeopardises and is  detrimental to the security and sovereignty of India, the repercussions will be swift and precise. 

Condemn, spurn and repudiate with contempt  any so-called proposal for an alleged "just and fair" settlement of the alleged and non-existing fictitious so-called "International Boundary between India and "China" which entails a so called exchange of one sacred sovereign and inalienable part of India with another sacred sovereign and inalienable part of India i.e. Arunachal Pradesh and India's beloved and inalienable Aksai Chin,as treacherous and repulsive and the diabolical game plan  will never be even considered and is obnoxious and reprehensible  and come what may,India's beloved and inalienable Aksai Chin  and the rest of the Cis -Kuenlun Tract in Kashmir extending from the Chhogori Peak K2 and the Shimshal Valley in central Kashmir  to the Kukalang Pass in northern Kashmir to the north of Bazar Dara in the Raskam Tract in Kanjut is a sacred and inalienable part of India which will never be handed over to the Chinese in illegal militarily occupation of the sovereign neighbouring nations of Tibet and East Turkistan.

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Covert conspiracy on the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir

There was a covert conspiracy on the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir!

Monday, October 10, 2016

Further illegal surrender of territory of India in Aksai Chin by the Survey of India

As per the spurious and bogus map of Kashmir published illegally in 1954 at
the behest of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru by the Survey of India, the Kuen Lun Border of India with East Turkistan from the Taghdumbash Pamir and Mariom Pamir, and the Kukalang ,Yangi Dawan,
Kilian, Sanju-La, and Hindutash Passes in northern Kashmir, had been illegally restricted and illegally confined to only a section of the northern border of Aksai Chin pertaining to the small stretch of border in the area in Kashmir comprising Yangi, Cholpanglik Peak and Muztagh Peak, but now the shameless, wretched and spineless Babus in the Survey of India with the
stealthy complicity of the Government of India have obviously in collusion with the Chinese further perpetrated one more illegality over the earlier oneof 1954 vis-à-vis Aksai Chin in north eastern Kashmir by further cartographically surrendering further inalienable parts of India in Aksai Chin to the Chinese occupying Tibet and East Turkistan by further illegally depicting areas comprising the headwaters of the Yarung Kash or Yurung-Kash in Aksai Chin as not part of Aksai Chin in Ladakh  and by portraying a line to the south of the Kuen Lun ridge rather than on the Kuen Lun Range (See the legend "Kunlun mountain range" in the top right of the uploaded map below) whereby illegally forfeiting the Kuen Lun range border in a section of the Aksai Chin and illegally
surrendering the head waters of the Yarung Kash 
or Yurung-Kashin Aksai Chin to the Chinese occupying East Turkistan and Tibet resulting in the cession of territory of the Republic of India in a manner not known to law rendering the whole procedure adopted to surrender and
cede a part of the sacred territory of India ab initio illegal and null and void and ultra vires the sacrosanct and supreme Constitution of India!
Patriotic and nationalist Indians beware of the nefarious and diabolical game plan of illegally surrendering further areas in India to the Chinese. Be afraid , be very afraid!

Sunday, January 10, 2016

The Oxford School Atlas: Stagnant, deteriorating and Redundant!

A comparison of the Oxford School Atlas revised 31st Edition, 2006 and the 28th Revised Edition, 1993 vis-à-vis  India.
The so called revised 31st Edition, 2006 makes cosmetic changes and has absolutely made no improvement when compared to the earlier editions, and has in fact undermined what little  beneficiary value was available in the 28th Revised Edition, 1993. The 1: 4000,000 scale map titled “North Western India and Pakistan” at pages 16 and 17 therein ( which excludes Baluchistan in western Pakistan and N.W.F.P. in Pakistan and the whole of Kashmir 36.20 N. 78.45 E. in northern India ) has been clandestinely and stealthily removed and instead a number of utterly useless junk  Political maps have been added to create a false superfluous  façade that there are a lot of improvements in the new edition, when there were already 1:4000000 scale maps of the whole of India published by Bartholomew, Edinburgh available  except the Himalayan States, the Andaman and Nicobar islands, Lakshadweep and north eastern India, when what ought to have been done is to provide 1:4000000 scale maps of  the rest of India viz. the Himalayan States, the Andaman and Nicobar islands , Lakshadweep and north eastern India also.

It is incredible and amazing  that even after so many years and after so many newer editions, instead of providing maps of  the whole of India in the scale of 1:4000000,  the publishers are beating around the bush and  taking recourse to such pernicious deceitful  tactics, when by now, the whole of even  the Sub-continent of India comprising of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives ought to have been  provided in the scale of 1:4000000.  In the earlier editions the whole of India in the scale of 1:4000000   excluding the Himalayan states, north eastern India, the Andaman and Nicobar islands and Lakshadweep were some how  provided, albeit  in bits and pieces. For example the whole of the state of Orissa is shown in three pieces in three different maps between them, and extra ordinary effort had been taken to include all the areas in India excluding the Himalayan states, north eastern India, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the Lakshadweep archipelago extending to the Diego Garcia and the  Chagos. But the same sustained effort had not been taken to depict inter alia north eastern India and the Himalayan States in India particularly Kashmir 
36.20 N. 78.45 E. as though to cause aspersion on the fact that these areas are an integral and inalienable part of India. Only with the ulterior intention of not depicting the whole of Sikkim, Bhutan, and eastern Arunachal Pradesh and the adjoining parts of Tibet, has an inset map of part of Assam  been shown in the map titled “Northern India” at pages 18 and 19 and the inset map of Kolkata has been shown only to deliberately avoid showing a part of Nepal, since if the publishers purportedly really wanted to depict Assam, the rest of the north eastern India in the scale of 1:4000000 could have been depicted in a separate plate and not as an inset. Similarly, the inset map titled Punjab Irrigation has been shown only to abstain from showing the areas in Afghanistan in the scale of 1:4000000  which otherwise would have been shown in the normal course.  

Plate titled China, Mongolia, and Japan:

The very most  important and crucial  map in the Atlas notwithstanding the smaller scale  viz. the map  Plate  titled China, Mongolia, and Japan of the scale 1:15000000 inter alia  depicting south western Tibet  and “Sinkiang” as independent, and more importantly depicting the Hindutash Peak in Kashmir as allegedly part of “Sinkiang” has been stealthily removed. The relevance of  the map which was profound and  significant as a geographical strategic map pertaining to the aspect of political geography was summarily and surreptitiously  removed. The publishers obviously have woken up now due to obvious reasons i.e. after they became aware that one Hindutashravi had created and published an article on the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir in a web page called Wikipedia and the article had become famous and realized that inadvertently,  Hindutash in north eastern Kashmir  was being shown all along  all these years albeit as alleged a part of “Sinkiang” , as though there was a law which prohibited the depiction of  the Hindutash pass in northern Kashmir in a physical map of the Sub-continent of India,  and  hence, they woke up  from their deep slumber and “rectified the error” to the satisfaction of those who had demanded that the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir not be portrayed in the Oxford School Atlas   by meticulously altogether removing the Plate  titled “China, Mongolia, and Japan” of the scale 1:15000000, thus rendering the whole Oxford School  Atlas utterly useless!  

Why was the Plate titled China, Mongolia, and Japan removed? 

The pertinent question is at whose behest the Oxford University Press removed that particular map?  Was it the British Government? Or was it the United States Government? Or was it the Chinese  Government? Or was it due to pressure from  the Government of India? Similarly, the map titled “Burma and Thailand” depicting inter alia the Narcondam Island in India at pages 30 and 28 of the 28th Revised Edition, 1993  has been surreptitiously removed due to obvious reasons! It was the only map of Narcondam island in the entire atlas in the scale of 1:8000000.  The political map  in colour at page 15  titled “India,  Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, and , Sri Lanka: Political” ought to have included Afghanistan and excluded (Burma) Myanmar which is in South East Asia and  has nothing whatsoever  to do with India or the Sub-continent of India. The legends Plateau of Iran and Table land of Iran have been depicted wrongly extending into Afghanistan and Baluchistan in pages 14 and 24, where as the legend Sub-continent of India is not shown any where extending into Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the legend Plateau of Tibet is not shown any where extending into the Tsaidam and Ching Hai or   Koko Nor area of Tibet.

Though the atlas carries the legend that “ all the maps in this atlas: Based upon  Survey of India map with the permission of the Surveyor General of India” and that “The external boundaries and coastlines of India on the maps  agree with the Record/Master Copy certified by the Survey of India , Dehradun vide their letter No. TB-3592/62-A-3/29 dated 11.11.2005” , the claim is a lie and the Publishers of the Oxford School Atlas have made a misrepresentation and the boundaries in many of the maps are not in conformity with even the obnoxious, bogus and spurious  Nehru Line published by the Survey of India in 1954 and the maps of India particularly in the world maps from page 78 to 88  do not even depict the areas in India adjoining the Vakhan area in Badakhshan ( including the border of India with the so called Gorno Badakhshan) in Afghanistan as part of India  and the area is clandestinely depicted as purportedly a part of "China" and the aforesaid maps do not   depict the border of India with Afghanistan and even when the border of India with Afghanistan  is purportedly depicted as in page 78 and 88, the Vakhan area in Badakhshan in Afghanistan is twisted downward to create a façade that the borders of India have been depicted in consonance with the spurious 1954 line illegally published by the Survey of India and to circumvent the fact that  the borders of India have been wrongly depicted and the geographical details in the maps in particular the Sindhu and the Satlej rivers have no bearing whatsoever  with the political borders depicted in the map of India and  the borders  of India do not extend to the northern most parts of India which are all clandestinely depicted as part of “China”. The Oxford University Press cannot be permitted to get away with such deceitful and shameless lies and punitive action has to be taken against them by the Government of India. 

So there!

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Facing the Truth, A.G.Noorani and his deceitful lies

The tirade of treacherous deceitful lies of  Mr.A.G.Noorani  continues unabated with his writings  in the second part of his article, “Facing theTruth” . He states that , On May 16, 1959, the Chinese Ambassador Pan Tsu-li made a statement to Foreign Secretary Subimal Dutt, couched in language unusual in diplomacy. It was not unfriendly. It was cautionary. It was in protest at India's blaming China for the outbreak of revolt in Tibet on May 10, 1959. It did not touch on the border dispute. Its core was clear: "China will not be so foolish as to antagonise the United States in the east and again to antagonise India in the west. Our Indian friends: What is (sic.) your mind?... It seems to us that you too cannot have two fronts... Is it not so? If it is, here then lies the meeting point of our two sides." He ended by expressing best regards to Nehru, "the leader of India". If India  protested  and was blaming China for the outbreak of revolt in Tibet on May 10, 1959, it had nothing to do per se with the border issue. The crux of the issue was that the Chinese had successfully occupied Tibet her western neighbour with the connivance and complicity  of Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru who had gifted and presented Tibet to the Chinese in a platter for a song,   and China was  militarily crushing the independence movement in the country with an iron hand and the shrewd and cunning Chinese leaders did not want the international community to express their solidarity with the Tibetan nation and wanted a free hand in their covert and overt brutal suppression of the Tibetan independence movement resulting in genocide and they very well knew that any military aid coming from the international community  to Tibet in her struggle against the illegal  Chinese military occupation would only  be via India. Mr. A.G. Noorani however does not give any details regarding the reply  to the statement drafted by Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru. Nor does he say anything regarding whether Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru's  blaming China for the outbreak of revolt in Tibet on May 10, 1959 was justified. He maintains a sphinx like silence on issues which pertain to the root of the conflict i.e. whether distant China in East Asia has a border with the sub-continent of India or South Asia in the first place! 
Map of Tibet depicting the Aksai Chin
as part of Kashmir.

If the reaction of the Chinese was cautionary, it was because the People's Republic  of China was not yet  recognised even albeit erroneously  as a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations and it seemed that India was in the brink of being included as a permanent  member of the Security Council in the place of the government of the Republic of China exiled in adjacent Taiwan and Mao Tse-tung was desperately seeking legitimacy vis-à-vis the  exiled government of China in neighbouring Taiwan.  In the words of  A.G. Noorani , "As late as 1960 Pakistan voted with the U.S. to reject the Soviet motion to include the item on the agenda. Under the rules, a decision on whether a two-thirds vote was required could be taken by a simple majority".

In 1955 India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru declined an offer by Russian Premier Nikolai Bulganin to accept a permanent seat in the Security Council. Nehru had suggested that the seat, till then held by the Republic of China exiled in adjacent Taiwan, be offered to China instead. S. Gopal writes in ‘Jawaharlal Nehru – Vol II’: “He rejected the Soviet offer to propose India as the sixth permanent member of the Security Council and insisted that priority be given to China’s admission to the UN.” In a paper titled ‘Not at the Cost of China’, Anton Harder of the Wilson Center writes that Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru lied in Parliament of India about the offer of a permanent seat. “Despite Nehru’s denial then, and online debates now, the 1955 offer from the Soviets is in fact well-documented, although perhaps not widely known"." The lies and deceit of Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru are borne out by records! In fact, the 1971, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971 whereby the Government of People's Republic of China was purportedly recognized as a member of the Security Council is contradicted by the Article 23 on UN Charter.

A.G.Noorani further states, "Later, Manzoor Qadir took up the matter with the Ambassador and got the impression that "the real reason" for China's hesitation was Kashmir. "At that time [early 1962] China did not want to get involved in another argument with India." Pakistan suggested mere identification of the boundary, leaving the status of the area to its south undetermined. "The Chinese were very difficult" when the talks began on October 12, 1962, Ayub Khan wrote. "They produced a map on the basis of which they claimed certain areas on our side of the actual line of control, the valley of Khanjarab and some area near K-2. Eventually they agreed to the actual line of control as shown on our map and it was adopted as the demarcation line with certain marginal adjustments. The watershed of the Indus Basin rivers was shown on our side and the watershed of the rivers of Yakang and certain adjoining areas on their side. There was some argument about K-2 and it was agreed that the line of control should be put right on top of K-2, this letting the mountain peak belong to both sides as had been done for Mount Everest with Nepal. Once we had agreed on the demarcation line, aerial surveys were undertaken and the whole matter was settled amicably and without any difficulty".

According to A.G.Noorani, the most rational frontier is  the watershed of the Karakoram RangeHe states that Agha Shahi, “one of the ablest diplomats South Asia has produced”,  proposed to his superiors that Pakistan seek what seemed the most rational frontier - the watershed of the Karakoram Range - and also try to obtain five hundred square miles beyond the watershed that the people of Hunza traditionally had used for salt and grazing land. The absurd stance of Mr. A.G. Noorani cannot be countenanced. The international boundaries separating areas like Kashmir, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Yemen  and Tibet which  almost predominantly comprises highlands or plateau  from the adjacent neighbouring countries is on the watershed on the edge of the highland state if not even further beyond to the north  like the territory of Khotan to the north of the Sanju-la and Hindutash Passes in northern Kashmir, and not on the interior water shed which in the case of Kashmir is the Karakoram range,  and the Nyenchen Thanglha Range in the case of southern Tibet vis-à-vis India. For example the international border of India and southern  Tibet  i.e. to the east of Mayum-la is on the ridge of the great Himalaya range and not along the Nyenchen Thanglha   range and the international border of Tibet with East Turkistan is on Altyn Tagh and the International border of Tibet with Mongolia is on the Nan Shan range and the international border of Tibet with China is on the  Yun Ling range. Would Mr.A.G.Noorani by the same stretch of imagination state that the southern border of Tibet east of  Mayum-la or Marnyak-La  is the Nyenchen Thanglha   range and not the Great Himalaya range? A.G.Noorani says, "The agreement was based on the Karakoram watershed, not the Kuen Lun; ... and not on the Ardagh Line of 1897".
Unlike Mt. Sagarmatha, which was on the southern edge of the Tibetan plateau, or Mt. Minya Konka on the eastern edge of the Tibetan plateau on the Sino-Tibetan international border, Mt.  Chhogori ( K2) is situate  in the deep interior of  Kashmir in central Kashmir far south of the Kukalang pass in northern Kashmir. 

Mr. A.G.Noorani makes contradictory mutually statements; he says that According to Shahi, Chinese Foreign Minister Chen Yi and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed Chinese Foreign Minister Chen Yi and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed on the understanding that the Pakistanis were making a firm and final offer, not just bargaining but then goes on to say that  Abdul Sattar sheds more light: "After the alignment was agreed, the Pakistan government belatedly realised that some grazing lands along the Mustagh River in the Shimshal Pass on the other side of the watershed were historically used by inhabitants of Hunza. It then appealed for an exception to the watershed principle to save hardship to the poor people. Zhou generously agreed to amendment of the boundary so that an area of 750 square miles remained on the Pakistan side." He further goes on to say that "Zhou met Pakistan's representatives at 1 a.m. and asked whether they had any other objection to the agreement. They said they had none and sought the Hunza concession as a matter of grace, not right. Zhou readily agreed"! The fact that even the Chinese were constrained to give areas north of the Karakoram  water shed to the Pakistanis ipso facto proves that in a state like Kashmir which predominantly comprised Highlands or plateau, it was the watershed on the edge of the highlands viz. the Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir  wherein are the Taghdumbash Pamir, and Mariom Pamir, and the Kukalang , Yangi, Kilian, Sanju-la and Hindutash  Passes in northern Kashmir if  not further areas to the north beyond that which is  the border and for a principality like Kanjut  which is  entirely in the Highlands and lain straddled across the Karakoram range and comprised inter alia the valley of the Hunza, the Taghdumbash Pamir and Mariom Pamir and the Raskam Valley extending to the Raskam Range or the Kuen Lun Range  all entirely in the highlands of Kashmir, the entire highland area regardless and irrespective of the internal water shed or areas to the north beyond the internal watershed within the highlands up to the edge of the highlands in the Kuen Lun range is a part of Kanjut and concepts like internal water shed or the main watershed are irrelevant for the purpose of a border. If the Pakistanis belatedly realised "that some grazing lands along the Mustagh River in the Shimshal Pass on the other side of the watershed were historically used by inhabitants of Hunza", then it is one more reason why the so-called agreement is vitiated as ab initio  illegal and null and void!That is the Agreement was not an informed one and was a result of ignorance coupled with eagerness to arrive at an agreement over a territory over which Pakistan had no de jure  jurisdiction or  locus standi. 

According to A.G.Noorani, Nehru's reaction to the agreement was that, "According to the survey of Pakistan maps, even those published in 1962, about 11,000 square miles of "Sinkiang territory" formed part of Kashmir. If one goes by these maps, Pakistan has obviously surrendered over 13,000 square miles of territory." But Mr. A.G.Norani hastens to add that "these were the maps he had ridiculed as being inaccurate"! Of course, Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru would have the propensity to say that.
Northern border of Kashmir as depicted
 by the Government of Pakistan , 1962
It reveals how unscrupulous a person he was! Wasn't he the same person who had unequivocally stated in no uncertain terms that "Kashmir's Northern frontiers, as you are aware, run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan, the Union of  Soviet Socialist Republics and China. Security of Kashmir"?  Obviously  to the dismay and ire of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru,  even a country which did not have sovereignty over Kashmir but was nevertheless  in de facto possession of a significant part of Kashmir had the guts, dexterity  and audacity to  depict a map of Kashmir which prima facie depicted the northern border of Kashmir in the Kukalang Pass sector in northern Kashmir    to a great extent correctly and   continued and persisted to  depict areas in Kashmir as part of Kashmir which the Government of India headed by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru who occupied the chair of the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, illegally no longer did since 1954 when Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru in covert collusion with the Chinese  had unconstitutionally published a spurious and bogus map of Kashmir in 1954 out of the blue, and he feared that the act of the government of Pakistan was an affront which  would  rightly expose and reveal  him, and Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru could not countenance the same.

Mr. A.G.Noorani's diabolical conspiracy, ulterior motives and game plan is revealed in this obnoxious statement of his: "As it happens India is moving closer to a boundary accord with China and towards a Kashmir settlement with Pakistan. China has consistently refused to discuss with India the sector west of the Karakoram Pass whether in the officials' talks in 1960 or on the LOAC recently. No Kashmir settlement will secure that sector to India. Why not write it off in the talks with China and, while maintaining the legal objections, accept the alignment in the accord of 1963"? Mr. A.G.Noorani wants India to "write off" "the sector west of the Karakoram Pass" or rather the sector west of the Kilian Pass in northern Kashmir. Mr. A.G.Noorani, should please get it into his  morbid head that it is not going to happen!  His quoting of the agreement makes amusing reading! Article 6 reads thus: "The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China on the boundary..."! That is to suggest  that India "shall" reopen negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China on the boundary rather than  with the sovereign de jure  Government of East Turkistan! 

Further according to Mr.A.G.Noorani, “Another falsehood that he propounded in March 1963
Map of the Shaksgam Valley and Aghil Range  in
central Kashmir by Mason dated 1927 
about Pakistan giving away to China thousands of square miles spawned a myth which continues to inflame imagination to this day. A prize specimen of this malady has just appeared in a propagandist pamphlet on Kashmir which reeks of exploded bogeys and false myths. It asserts as it author's 
ipse dixit characteristically that Pakistan "conceded to China some 5,000 square kilometres of Jammu and Kashmir territory in the Shaksgam Valley and adjacent areas north of Siachen from east of K-2 to a point little short of the Karakoram Pass". This is utterly false. The Shaksgam Valley was never part of Kashmir and the northern and eastern boundaries of Kashmir were undefined”. 
Of course, the eastern border of Kashmir with West Tibet is  undefined and not demarcated. Running southwest to northeast, the Altyn Tagh converges with the Kunlun range in Kashmir which runs southeast to northwest forming a "V" shape which converges at Pulu. The geographical divide between Ladakh in the highlands of Kashmir and the Tibetan Plateau commences in the vicinity of Pulu and continues southwards along the intricate maze of ridges situated east of Rudok in eastern Ladakh, wherein are situated Aling Kangri and Mavang Kangri and culminates in the vicinity of Mayum La.

Mr. A.G.Noorani further states, "The historical falsehood about the treaty of 1842 which he propounded in March 1959 barred the door to conciliation with China and created a deadlock - there was nothing to negotiate". According to him,  "This was intolerance twice over. Vis-à-vis  China, Nehru had said on January 18, 1961: "In our opinion, we have nothing to negotiate; our minds are quite clear. That is one thing. But so far as we are concerned we are always prepared to talk." Incidentally, this is a classic Nehruvian distinction which remains his permanent legacy in Indian diplomacy - we will talk; we will not negotiate". Mr. A.G.Noorani knows very well that the areas liberated by Zorawar Singh is historically a part of India and had nothing whatsoever to to with Tibet. Areas like Guge  or  Shang Shung  were distinctly foreign regions to the marauding Tibetans coming from the east and these areas had a rich indigenous Indian civilization and culture since time immemorial from prehistoric periods. The area of  Rudok in eastern Ladakh up to the ridges separating Ladakh from Western Tibet along the Aling Kangri and Mawang Kangri  peaks from Pulu in the north to Mayum -la in the south is also culturally, geographically and politically a part of Ladakh   and is ipso facto a part of India and thus it was inevitable that nationalist patriotic Indians should liberate the area which has been historically an integral and inalienable part of India. The geographical divide between Ladakh in the highlands of Kashmir and the Tibetan Plateau commences in the vicinity of Pulu. It continues southwards along the intricate maze of ridges situated east of Rudok, wherein are situated Aling Kangri and Mavang Kangri and culminates in the vicinity of Mayum-La.

Mr. A.G.Noorani's chronic lies can be exposed from the information furnished below! Even John Lall has furnished the information in his book, "Aksaichin and Sino-Indian Conflict". 

No one seems to be quite sure how the Kanjutis started to cultivating the Raskam valley.  The river is known by the glittering name of Zafarshan, the gold scatterer. According to Kanjuti traditions, as related by McMahon , the Mir’s eighth ancestor, Shah Salim Khan pursued the nomadic Kherghiz thieves upto Tash Khurghan and defeated them. “to celebrate this victory, Shah Salim Khan erected a stone cairn at Dafdar and sent a trophy of a Khirghiz head to the Chinese with a message that Hunza territory extended as far as Dafdar”. The Kanjutis were already in effective possession of the Raskam and no question had been raised about It. The Mir’s claims went a good deal beyond a mere right of cultivation. He “asserts that forts were built by the Hunza people with out any objection or interference from the Chinese at Dafdar, Qurghan, Ujadhbhai, Azar on the Yarkand river and at three or four other places in Raskam.” 

McMahon was able to prima facie roughly define the territorial limits of Kanjut. “The boundaries of Taghdumbash, Khunjerab and Raskam, as claimed by the Kanjuts, are the following: the northern watershed of the Taghdumbash Pamir from the Wakhijrui pass through the Baiyik peak to Dafdar, thence across the river to the Zankan nullah; thence through Mazar and over the range to Urok, a point on the Yarkand river between Sibjaida and Itakturuk. Thence it runs along the northern watershed of the Raskam valley to the junction of the Bazar Dara river and the Yarkand river. From thence southwards over the mountains to the Mustagh river leaving the Aghil Dewan and Aghil pass within Hunza limits.

McMahon’s information was substantially corroborated in 1898 by Captain H.P.P.Deasy who threw up a commission to devote himself to Trans Himalayan exploration. An item of special interest was Deasy’s description of the limits of Raskam. Starting from Aghil Dewan or pass, in the Karakoram range, the dividing line ran north-east to Bazar Dara, where it met the Yarkand river. He found an out post built of earth at Bazar Dara, surmounted by a Chinese flag, (by 1898 the Chinese had for the first time in history intruded to the area south of the Kuen Lun mountains) with a few unarmed Kirghiz in occupation. This was obviously intended as a Chinese boundary marker. From there the line ran “along the northern watershed of the Raskam valley to Dafdar in the Taghdumbash Pamir, to the north of the mills at that place, and thence to the Baiyik peak. Deasy also came upon clear evidence of what could only have been Kanjuti occupation. South of Azgar “many ruins of houses, old irrigation channels and fields now no longer tilted , testify to Raskam having formerly been inhabited and cultivated”. Anyone familiar with the care with which the Kanjuts cultivate every available strip of land in their own Hunza would have no hesitation in regarding this as proof of long standing Kanjuti occupation. The remains could not have been attributed to the Kirghiz; they were unfamiliar with the state of art. "Seven locations in the Raskam were involved. Azgar and Ursur on the right bank, and five others on the left, that is on the Mustagh-Karakoram side-Kukbash, Kirajilga, Ophrang, Uroklok, and Oitughrak, extending from Sarakamish, north of Kunjerab pass to Bazar Dara, north of the Arghil pass , comprising an area of about 3000 acres.”

The Chinese completed the reconquest of eastern Turkistan in 1878. Before they lost it in 1863, their practical authority, as Ney Elias and Younghusband consistently maintained, had never extended south of their outposts at Sanju and Kilian along the northern foothills of the Kuenlun range. Nor did they establish a known presence to the south of the line of outposts in the twelve years immediately following their return.  Ney Elias who had been Joint Commissioner in Ladakh for several years noted on 21 September 1889 that he had met the Chinese in 1879 and 1880 when he visited Kashgar. “they told me that they considered their line of ‘chatze’, or posts, as their frontier – viz. , Kugiar, Kilian, Sanju, Kiria, etc.- and that they had no concern with what lay beyond the mountains” i.e. the Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir.

In 1927, the Indian Government, according to a report in the Times, March 6, 1963 “decided that a claim of the Mir of Kashmir that his dominions were bound on the north by the northern watershed of the Kuenlun ranges was insupportable”.