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”.


Thursday, April 3, 2014

The Lies and deceit of Neville Maxwell

Apropos the shameless and deceitful statements of Neville Maxwell author of  "India's China War"  who has
recently published selective portions of the so called " Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report "  that, "Then in 1954 he compounded that mistake by laying cartographic claim to a swathe of territory in the north-west, the Aksai Chin, a claim which was beyond anything the British had ever claimed and on an  area which Chinese governments had treated as their own for at least a hundred years. To make matters worse, he ruled that there should be no negotiation over that claim either! So Indian policy had created a border dispute and also ruled out the only way it could peacefully be settled, through diplomatic negotiation", the  map given officially by Hung Ta Chen, a senior Chinese official, to the British Indian consul at Kashgar, in 1893 as well as the The “Postal map of China”, 1917, an official publication of the Government of China, published at Peking in 1917 refutes his perverted claim that the Chinese Government had treated the area  as their own for at least a hundred years. Yaqub Beg set up an independent Muslim country in East Turkistan which survived until 1877 when the Chinese troops recaptured Kashgar. W.H. Johnson’s survey established certain important points. Brinjga was the boundary post ( near the Karanghu Tagh Peak in the Kuen Lun in Ladakh), thus implying that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range. Johnson’s findings demonstrated that the whole of the Kara Kash valley was  within the territory of the Maharaja of Kashmir and an integral part of the territory of Kashmir. He noted where the Chinese boundary post was accepted. At Yangi Langar, three marches from Khotan , he noticed that there were a few fruit trees at this place which originally was a post or guard house of the Chinese. 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. The Chinese completed the reconquest of eastern Turkistan in 1878. Before they lost it in 1863, their practical authority, as Ney Elias British Joint Commissioner in Leh from the end of the 1870s to 1885, 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".The Kashmir authorities maintained two caravan routes right upto the traditional boundary. One, from Pamzal, known as the Eastern Changchenmo route, passed through Nischu, Lingzi Thang, Lak Tsung, Thaldat, Khitai Pass, Haji Langar along the Karakash valley”(obviously via Sumgal) “to Shahidulla. Police outposts were placed along these routes to protect the traders from the Khirghiz marauders who roamed the Aksai Chin after Yaqub Beg’s rebellion against the Chinese(1864-1878). Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru had  in fact also arbitrarily, unconstitutionally and illegally   published in 1954, a spurious and  bogus map out of the blue in accordance with his perverted whims and fancies which illegally did not depict areas in Kashmir which hitherto had been depicted as integral part of India by the Survey of India in the various maps published prior to 1954 pertaining to the period immediately prior to the commencement of the Constitution of India in particular inter alia the official maps attached to the White Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the Government of India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor General G.F.Heaney. Mr.Neville Maxwell also, the typical chronic liar that he is,  rushes to state that   the British had  in the mid-1930s  seized the Tibetan territory  which they re-named NEFA. any Tibetan control over part of the Assam Himalaya had always been imperialistic. The areas like Pemako or Mon-yul  in Arunachal Pradesh had always been considered by Tibetans to be beyond the Tibetan frontier. In 1954, one Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru who occupied the post of Prime Minister of India had, out of the blue,stealthily and surreptitiously published for the first time , a new map of Kashmir. In June 1954, Zhou Enlai, Prime Minister of China was in India, and in the October of the same year Jawaharlal Nehru went to China. In between, Nehru issued a memorandum which stated inter alia that the frontier should be considered a firm and definite one , which is not open to discussion with any one. A system of check posts should be spread along this entire frontier. How did he go about doing this? In 1954, thus a new official map of India was published out of the blue, stealthily by Nehru, referred to here as the `Nehru Line' which dropped the legend undefined `and showed the northern border of Kashmir with a clear firm line. Nehru, in accordance with his Memorandum which stated that the frontier should be a firm and definite one, arbitrarily, and illegally depicted a border of Kashmir which ran well in the interior of Kashmir depicting only those areas of Kashmir which according to him was definitely part of Kashmir and beyond dispute. But did he in fact  practice what he preached? That is, did he implement the alleged reason or excuse for the publication of the spurious and bogus map of 1954 in the first place?   Pertinently , it is imperative to note that the Director of the Intelligence Bureau , B.N. Mullik had recommended the setting of new posts in Kashmir in 1959 ,at inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo which was discussed in January 1959 at a meeting in the external affairs Ministry in the presence of Gen Thimayya , Chief of the Army staff and the Foreign secretary. Both the Army Chief and the Foreign Secretary had opposed the proposal to open border posts at inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol though Sarigh Jilganang Kol was situate deep inside Kashmir even according to the obnoxious 1954 ‘Nehru Line’ because according to them, the opening of the said posts would ‘provoke’ the Chinese , and create tension. The despicable attitude of the External Affairs Ministry was that “this part of the territory was useless to India. Even if the Chinese did not encroach into it , India could not make any use of it . The boundary had not been demarcated and had been shifted more than once by the British”.  So much for claim that India provoked the war! Of course, India had to throw the Chinese out of Indian territory. The very fact of their presence inside Indian territory was ipso facto declaration of war enough. Where Mr. Nehru was at fault was that he had cartographically  illegally ceded vast areas in India in a manner not known to law and after solomning undertaking to defend the border  areas, he  did not do the needful and open border posts at inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol though Sarigh Jilganang Kol . Also, he did not ensure that the Indian Army was well prepared  when the Chinese attacked. Apropos his allegation that, "...people will see that political favouritism put the Army under incompetent leadership which blindly followed the Nehru government's provocative policy",  It is obvious that the Army was  under incompetent leadership , not because the leadership purportedly "followed the Nehru government's provocative policy" but because incompetent persons like Gen Thimayya , Chief of the Army staff had objected and obstructed  to any endeavour to defend what was left of India territory after the illegal cession of Indian territory in 1954 as well as the Chinese encroachment into Indian territory.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Reply of Mr. Jimmy Wales, Founder, Wikipedia

Reply of Mr. Jimmy Wales, Founder, Wikipedia to the query  “Do admins become evil”?, and his response to  my reply! 

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Map of India published prior to 1956

The external borders of Kashmir as depicted in this map  published in The Hindu  dated October 10, 1955 though inaccurate insofar as the fact that inter alia the northern border is not depicted on the Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir and beyond, or the fact that the eastern frontier of Kashmir is not depicted to the east of historic area of Rudok in eastern  Ladakh, nevertheless portrays areas in Kashmir which ceased to be depicted as part of Kashmir illegally in 1954 by the Survey of India, which at the instance of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru depicted a new spurious and bogus fraudulent map of Kashmir out of the Blue in an illegal procedure which is ultra vires the Constitution of India which is sacrosanct and supreme, and the aforesaid procedure is ab initio illegal and null and void. The areas which ceased to be depicted as part of Kashmir  had always been recognized as part of the territorial extent of Kashmir by the government of Kashmir even at the time immediately prior to the commencement of the Constitution of India as well as the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and had also hitherto had been depicted as integral part of India by the Survey of India in the various maps published prior to 1954 in particular inter alia the official maps attached to the White Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the Government of India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor General G.F.Heaney, much of which were criminally destroyed under the orders of Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru, which give them the legal status to determine the extent of the State of Kashmir as stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India and the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and supreme and the spurious, bogus and fraudulent line published stealthily by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru out of the blue in 1954 is ab initio illegal and vitiated as null and void!

In fact, the legend Kashmir is partly depicted in this map in an area which is being illegally depicted as not part of Kashmir in the bogus and spurious map published by the Survey of India criminally in 1954 at the instance Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru in a stealthy and surreptitious manner with complete impunity, which only reinforces the truth that the new 1954 map illegally published at the instance of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru in obvious  collusion with the Chinese is blatantly illegal and an illegal cession of the territory of India in a manner not known to law did take place by this blatantly illegal act!

Monday, May 13, 2013

The perversion and deceit of the publishers of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World


The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World has in several editions published a map of Afghanistan, Pakistan and north western India. In the said map,  The purported western borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan  are depicted in a cramped and congested manner and are displayed extending  beyond the regular edges of the map and the map of Kashmir is depicted in inset maps rather than as a complete and comprehensive  single map so that the viewer does not have the benefit of viewing  a complete bird's eye full view of the entire  area! The Times Atlas of The World  is a genius of such perverted deceit! The Hindutash  and the Sanju-la Passes  in north eastern Kashmir  are  not depicted as part of Kashmir though the very same Times Atlas of the World had previously depicted the  Hindutash Pass as part of Kashmir in 1900! In this 1959  map, they have the audacity to draw two lines with the caption “undefined frontier” between them but even in this 1959 map the Hindutash and Sanju-la  Passes  are  not depicted as part of Kashmir and the international border is not depicted on the Kuen Lun range in that area even as an alleged extreme view of the border not withstanding the fact that they have portrayed two lines allegedly showing the two extreme positions and the border is shown arbitrarily shifting from the Kuen lun range to the Kara Kash river after the Kukalang and Yangi Dawan passes in northern Kashmir instead of naturally continuing along the Kilian and Sanju-la  passes in northern Kashmir
and 
proceeding to the Hindutash pass in northern Kashmir in deviation of the principle involved viz the fact that historically  the territory  of  Kashmir extends to the Kuen Lun range at the edges of the highlands of Kashmir wherein are the Kukalang, Yangi, Kilian, Sanju-la and Hindutash passes in northern Kashmir,  as though there was absolutely  no legal basis, or justification or

precedents whatsoever for depicting the Sanju-la and the Hindutash Passes in northern Kashmir as part of Kashmir by
 depicting the northern  international border of Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range!  The Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladák published in 1890 Compiled under the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in the Intelligence Branch in fact unequivocally states that Khotán is “a province in the Chinese Empire lying to the north of the Eastern Kuenlun range, which here forms the boundary of Ladák” and  “The eastern range forms the southern boundary of Khotán, and is crossed by two passes, the  Yangi or Elchi Díwan, crossed in 1865 by Johnson and the Hindútak Díwan, crossed by Robert Schlagentweit in 1857”.




So what has changed legally in the period of interregnum between 1900 and 1947 or 2013?  Was there any valid cession of territory? This, when it is the present stance of the Times Atlas of the World that the legal status of the entire territory of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed!   In this 1959 map due to their diabolical conspiracy and game plan and obvious collusion with the Chinese against India with  ulterior motives and intentions they have not shown the whole of Kashmir comprehensively as a single comprehensive map so that the viewer does not view a complete bird's eye full view of the area, but have maliciously depicted a part of Kashmir as an inset with a view to avoid displaying the area of  Hindutash in Kashmir altogether and due to this ulterior motive, they had been constrained to depict the legend  “Jammu & Kashmir”  in the area of Aksai Chin in the aforesaid  inset map. But the very same Times Atlas of the World now inter alia  in the Post 2000 A.D.  editions depict the very same  Aksai Chin area in Kashmir as either a disputed area or even allegedly  a part of “China”,  rather than depicting the area of Aksai Chin  as an integral part of Kashmir pure and simple  under blatant illegal Chinese armed military occupation. Obviously the shameless and malicious perverted publishers of the Times Atlas of the World have no morals or sense of propriety!


In the map titled “Changes of Sovereignty since World War II”, the black line depicting  “Territory ceded or Annexed  since 1939” is not shown slightly extended towards the Hindutash, Sanju –la and Kilian and the line is shown depicted along the Khunjarab and Mintaka passes deep inside Kashmir rather than  to the north of Beyik depicting the Taghdumbash Pamir and Dafdar as part of Kashmir and the border of Kashmir with the Russian Empire or Soviet Union as it was at the time of the
accession of Kashmir to the union of India and the period pertaining to the  commencement of  the Constitution of India as stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution on India.  And in the maps titled “Physical Earth” depicting the relief maps of the various continents, the legend Sub-continent of India is conspicuous in its absence and is  nowhere to be seen extending from the Vaksh and Hindukush  to the Lakshadvipa and the Chagos archipelago. Nor is the legend Tibetan Plateau or Tibet shown extended to the Amdo and Tsaidam in north eastern Tibet though the legend British Isles is nevertheless portrayed to the West of Ireland.  
By treacherously and deceitfully not depicting the border on the  ridge wherein the Kilian, Sanju-la and Hindutash passes in Kashmir are situate, particularly when two frontier lines were depicted with the legend “undefined frontier” in between, way back in 1959, the Times Atlas has forfeited an opportunity to place on record truth pertaining to the territorial extent of Kashmir which it can never undo and for which it will never be able to make amends and compensate, and  The Times Atlas can only expect  from India eternal hatred and detest.