Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
McMahon Line is only an interim line
The crux of the issue regarding the McMahon line is that it was not demarcated on the crests of the Himalayas on the watershed Separating the Arunachal Himalaya from the Tibetan Plateau.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Criminal Destruction of Evidence
I have to refute some of the views of Mr. Noorani. Apropos the statement, “India unilaterally revised its official map”, Mr. Noorani should not misrepresent and distort facts. The said so-called unilateral revision was to the determent of India and not in her favour or to her advantage. It cartographically illegally ceded vast integral areas of India which were shown in a colour wash in the Pre 1947 maps pertaining to the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India which ipso facto proved that the area included in the “colour wash” is an integral part of India and was followed up with the criminal destruction of massive precious evidence pertaining to the territorial extent of India by the dastardly burning of the said precious antique maps provided the Chinese with a veritable carte blanche to claim further areas inside India including the rest of Aksai Chin, i.e. to the south of the Hindutash and Sanju Passes in Ladakh, Kashmir.
In an act which can only be described as dastardly criminal destruction of incriminating evidence pertaining to the territorial extent of India, at the instance of Nehru a veritable treasury of antique pre 1947 maps pertaining to the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India which would jeopardize his bogus illegal map issued in 1954 in accordance with his whims and fancies and expose him, were summarily burnt!
Maps published by the Survey of India pertaining to the crucial period of the commencement of the Constitution of India were ordered by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru to be burnt and the order was carried out meticulously as purportedly confessed by Ram Sathe, India’s last Consul General in East Turkistan, and all incriminating evidence pertaining to the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India and the territorial extent of Kashmir, thus destroyed!
Just what does Mr. Noorani mean when he says, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru "shut the door to negotiations on the (India-China) boundary on July 1, 1954", ….And this — Nehru's refusal to negotiate, and the 1960 rebuff to Chou En-lai when he was visiting and appeared ready to settle the issue — may well have sowed the seeds of the 1962 India-China war". Did he want Mr. Nehru to succumb, capitulate to the intimidations, threats and demands of the Chinese and under duress subserviently agree to their demands and hand them integral and inalienable areas in India in a platter? Mr. Noorani is just making mischievous misrepresentations in his writings and ought to be exposed. Surely, he can't be so naive! Mr. Noorani's motives are suspect. There is a conspiracy being hatched out to undermine India by misrepresenting and distorting and indulging in Suppressio veri suggestio falsi and facilitate the illegal handing of India's beloved Aksai Chin to the Chinese. India should be weary of this person.
A map drawn towards the end of the sixth century A.D clearly shows the Kuen Lun range as the southern limits of East Turkistan. Another map drawn in 1607 by a Buddhist priest , Jen Chao depicts the Tsungling mountains just adjacent to Khotan as the southern limits of Turkistan. Another map from the work, Chin ting huang yu hsi yut’u chih which might be translated as “Annals and Maps of the Western Territories of the Empire” published in 1762 depict the southern boundary of Turkistan with India at Sanju Tagh in the Kuen Lun range. Another map from the Chin ting hsin chiang chih lueh, an account of Sinkiang published by a commission set up by scholars and officials of Peking in 1821 contains several maps of Sinkiang in book 3. The map on page 4(b)of book 3 depicts the southern limits of East Turkistan as the Tsungling by which is meant the Kuen Lun range and the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting through the Kuen Lun Mountains. Another map from the book Hsi yu shui tao chi which can be translated as “Remarks on the rivers of the western Countries”, written by Hsu Hsing-po published in 1824 shows a map in eight sheets and sheet number 7 depicts the southern limits of Khotan as the “southern Mountains” or Nanshan which is obviously one of the northern ranges of the Kuen Lun since for both the the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting through the mountains. A Nei fu yu t’u map of 1760 depicted the southern limits of Khotan as lying along a range of mountains immediately to the south of Khotan from which the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash were said to have their origin and the mountain range situate immediately to the south of Khotan is the Kuen Lun range. The 1820 edition of the Ta Ch’ing yi t’ung chih depicted the Nimangyi mountains immediately south of Khotan and the same work stated that these mountains were the same as the Ho lang kwei and the Ho shi mo tissue mountains. Ho lang kwei was the Kurangu range of the Kuen Lun range. A map from the Ta Ch’ing hui tien tu of 1818 also showed the Nimangyi mountains as the southern limits of East Turkistan. A map from the Chin ting hsin chiang chih lueh of 1821 depicts the southern limits of the country along one of the northern ranges of the Kuen Lun with both the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting through the mountains.
The very fact that the northern border of Kashmir was not depicted and only a legend “undefined frontier” was depicted in the area of northern Kashmir, and western Kashmir extending up to the tri-junction of Tibet , Uttarakhand and Nepal only proved that there was no clear border demarcation or delineation and the northern border of Kashmir was along the crests and water shed of the Kuen Lun range and beyond, and the western border of Kashmir was to the east of Rudokh which was historically part of Ladakh and Guge wherein is situate the Kailash and Manasarovar lakes is also historically part of Ladakh and Uttaranchal and thus ipso facto historically part of India .
In fact, the demarcation of the entire Indo Tibetan international border in the said Middle Sector extending from Pulu to the vicinity of the Mayum la and Marnyak La passes should commence from Pulu Pass, which is situate in the area where the tri-junction of Tibet , Kashmir and East Turkistan in the area where the Kuen Lun (Raskam) range in northern Kashmir and the Altyn Tagh range in northern Tibet converge, and continue along the Mavang Kangri and Aling Kangri Ridges which geographically and historically divide and separate the highlands of Kashmir from the Tibetan plateau , and culminate in the vicinity of the Mayum La and Marnyak La. If Mr. Noorani has the treacherous audacity to say, “each had its vital non-negotiable interest securely under its control. India had the McMahon Line while China had the Xinjiang-Tibet road across the Aksai Chin in Ladakh", It is perverted personal View.Mr. Noorani is colluding with the Chinese and espousing an alleged solution for the border issue whereby one inalienable part of India is given up for another inalienable part of India. He ought to have said,"It is as impossible for the Chinese to cede Khotan to the north of the Hindutash and Sanju Passes in Kashmir in the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir, as it is for India to cede Arunachal Pradesh to the Chinese occupying inter alia East Turkistan and Tibet". India does not intend to hand over India’s beloved inalienable Aksai Chin to the Chinese even if the same is important to the Chinese to continue with their military occupation of Tibet and East Turkistan. If Mr. Noorani wants to support the Chinese in their claims to territory in India for obvious extraneous reasons, the rule of law and freedom of expression prevalent in India permits him, but so do I have the right to expose him and others of his lot. And apropos his so-called “fair solution”, I shudder and get cold sweat when I think of this sort of “resolution” of the issue in the terms of the “fair solution” propounded by Mr. Noorani and people of his lot and am thankful that it never happened! It will never happen! It is an all together different fact that if it had happened, it will be ab initio vitiated by fraud , duress, undue influence, subservience and fraud.
In an act which can only be described as dastardly criminal destruction of incriminating evidence pertaining to the territorial extent of India, at the instance of Nehru a veritable treasury of antique pre 1947 maps pertaining to the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India which would jeopardize his bogus illegal map issued in 1954 in accordance with his whims and fancies and expose him, were summarily burnt!
Maps published by the Survey of India pertaining to the crucial period of the commencement of the Constitution of India were ordered by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru to be burnt and the order was carried out meticulously as purportedly confessed by Ram Sathe, India’s last Consul General in East Turkistan, and all incriminating evidence pertaining to the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India and the territorial extent of Kashmir, thus destroyed!
Just what does Mr. Noorani mean when he says, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru "shut the door to negotiations on the (India-China) boundary on July 1, 1954", ….And this — Nehru's refusal to negotiate, and the 1960 rebuff to Chou En-lai when he was visiting and appeared ready to settle the issue — may well have sowed the seeds of the 1962 India-China war". Did he want Mr. Nehru to succumb, capitulate to the intimidations, threats and demands of the Chinese and under duress subserviently agree to their demands and hand them integral and inalienable areas in India in a platter? Mr. Noorani is just making mischievous misrepresentations in his writings and ought to be exposed. Surely, he can't be so naive! Mr. Noorani's motives are suspect. There is a conspiracy being hatched out to undermine India by misrepresenting and distorting and indulging in Suppressio veri suggestio falsi and facilitate the illegal handing of India's beloved Aksai Chin to the Chinese. India should be weary of this person.
A map drawn towards the end of the sixth century A.D clearly shows the Kuen Lun range as the southern limits of East Turkistan. Another map drawn in 1607 by a Buddhist priest , Jen Chao depicts the Tsungling mountains just adjacent to Khotan as the southern limits of Turkistan. Another map from the work, Chin ting huang yu hsi yut’u chih which might be translated as “Annals and Maps of the Western Territories of the Empire” published in 1762 depict the southern boundary of Turkistan with India at Sanju Tagh in the Kuen Lun range. Another map from the Chin ting hsin chiang chih lueh, an account of Sinkiang published by a commission set up by scholars and officials of Peking in 1821 contains several maps of Sinkiang in book 3. The map on page 4(b)of book 3 depicts the southern limits of East Turkistan as the Tsungling by which is meant the Kuen Lun range and the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting through the Kuen Lun Mountains. Another map from the book Hsi yu shui tao chi which can be translated as “Remarks on the rivers of the western Countries”, written by Hsu Hsing-po published in 1824 shows a map in eight sheets and sheet number 7 depicts the southern limits of Khotan as the “southern Mountains” or Nanshan which is obviously one of the northern ranges of the Kuen Lun since for both the the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting through the mountains. A Nei fu yu t’u map of 1760 depicted the southern limits of Khotan as lying along a range of mountains immediately to the south of Khotan from which the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash were said to have their origin and the mountain range situate immediately to the south of Khotan is the Kuen Lun range. The 1820 edition of the Ta Ch’ing yi t’ung chih depicted the Nimangyi mountains immediately south of Khotan and the same work stated that these mountains were the same as the Ho lang kwei and the Ho shi mo tissue mountains. Ho lang kwei was the Kurangu range of the Kuen Lun range. A map from the Ta Ch’ing hui tien tu of 1818 also showed the Nimangyi mountains as the southern limits of East Turkistan. A map from the Chin ting hsin chiang chih lueh of 1821 depicts the southern limits of the country along one of the northern ranges of the Kuen Lun with both the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting through the mountains.
The very fact that the northern border of Kashmir was not depicted and only a legend “undefined frontier” was depicted in the area of northern Kashmir, and western Kashmir extending up to the tri-junction of Tibet , Uttarakhand and Nepal only proved that there was no clear border demarcation or delineation and the northern border of Kashmir was along the crests and water shed of the Kuen Lun range and beyond, and the western border of Kashmir was to the east of Rudokh which was historically part of Ladakh and Guge wherein is situate the Kailash and Manasarovar lakes is also historically part of Ladakh and Uttaranchal and thus ipso facto historically part of India .
In fact, the demarcation of the entire Indo Tibetan international border in the said Middle Sector extending from Pulu to the vicinity of the Mayum la and Marnyak La passes should commence from Pulu Pass, which is situate in the area where the tri-junction of Tibet , Kashmir and East Turkistan in the area where the Kuen Lun (Raskam) range in northern Kashmir and the Altyn Tagh range in northern Tibet converge, and continue along the Mavang Kangri and Aling Kangri Ridges which geographically and historically divide and separate the highlands of Kashmir from the Tibetan plateau , and culminate in the vicinity of the Mayum La and Marnyak La. If Mr. Noorani has the treacherous audacity to say, “each had its vital non-negotiable interest securely under its control. India had the McMahon Line while China had the Xinjiang-Tibet road across the Aksai Chin in Ladakh", It is perverted personal View.Mr. Noorani is colluding with the Chinese and espousing an alleged solution for the border issue whereby one inalienable part of India is given up for another inalienable part of India. He ought to have said,"It is as impossible for the Chinese to cede Khotan to the north of the Hindutash and Sanju Passes in Kashmir in the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir, as it is for India to cede Arunachal Pradesh to the Chinese occupying inter alia East Turkistan and Tibet". India does not intend to hand over India’s beloved inalienable Aksai Chin to the Chinese even if the same is important to the Chinese to continue with their military occupation of Tibet and East Turkistan. If Mr. Noorani wants to support the Chinese in their claims to territory in India for obvious extraneous reasons, the rule of law and freedom of expression prevalent in India permits him, but so do I have the right to expose him and others of his lot. And apropos his so-called “fair solution”, I shudder and get cold sweat when I think of this sort of “resolution” of the issue in the terms of the “fair solution” propounded by Mr. Noorani and people of his lot and am thankful that it never happened! It will never happen! It is an all together different fact that if it had happened, it will be ab initio vitiated by fraud , duress, undue influence, subservience and fraud.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Communication to Wikipedia
Hello,
I am a Lawyer and I reside in India. I created an Article in Wikipedia called titled Hindutash which is the name of a pass in Kashmir. Ever since I created the article Hindutash One Fowler&fowler has been for reasons best known to him, trying to hijack the article and give a totally contradictory picture. They have never had anything new to add to the article but deny what all I had stated! I had added new information with out breaching Wikipedia’s stress on verifiability and no Original Research . My reiteration that Hindutash is part of Kashmir is inter alia on Legal Grounds which I have summarized in my Talk Page
Fowler&fowler has been right from the beginning inconsistent in his reasons for stating that the pass is allegedly in “China” and has always come up with new reasons. First Fowler&fowler wanted references. When references were provided, he turned his stance. He is ignorant about the subject and I have time and again exposed his ignorance for which he has not had the integrity to apologise for his misrepresentation. Now the latest reason given by him is that allegedly, neither the Government of India or the Government of Kashmir allegedly claims that Hindutash is part of Kashmir. I have given reply which is legal in nature. I informed him/her and RegentsPark that as far as India is concerned, since Kashmir’s accession to India is allegedly disputed, Does India have even the locus standi to claim that Hindutash is part of Kashmir in the first instance and does it matter at all whether the government of India claims Hindutash or not? As far as Kashmir is concerned, the Present Government of Kashmir is not a pan Kashmir Government since no elections have been conducted in the Pakistani and Chinese occupied areas in Kashmir. And the last Pan Kashmir government was the one which was prevalent at the time of the accession of Kashmir to the new dominion of India on 26, October 1947 “in its entirety” . As far as the only Pan Kashmir Government is concerned I have given details in the My talk page as well as the discussion page of Hindutash that the then Pan Kashmir Government did assert that the Kuen Lun which includes Hindutash, Sanju Pass and the rest of Aksai Chin are part of Kashmir. Also peruse the report in The Times Newspaper inserted by me as well as the depiction of Hindutash as part of Kashmir by The Times Atlas in 1900. This depiction by the Times Atlas in the year 1900 is significant in view of the fact that it is very recent in the light of the fact that the accession of the princely state of Kashmir to the new Dominion of India” was on October 26, 1947 "in its entirety”. In the interregnum i.e. between 1900 and October 26, 1947, there have never been any border agreements whatsoever deciding the issue of the northern border of Kashmir, as confessed by Regent's Park (Rose Garden) , “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. But he does not have the integrity to even abide by his own statements when the same is not convenient for him. Also I had pointed out that as early as 1890, the Gazetteer of Kashmir includes the Item on Hindutash and the description of Hindutash is at page 364. The item and description of Hindutash spelt “Hindutak” therein is included in the Gazetteer of Kashmir inter alia at pages 364, 520 and 800 only because Hindutash is in Kashmir. As far as the territorial extent of Kashmir is concerned, only the Constitutions of India and Kashmir are sacrosanct and supreme. What constitutes the territory of Kashmir is stipulated in the Constitution of India. The territorial extent of the State of Kashmir is as stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India, read with Article 1 of the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads
“The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”.
Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir states, “The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State"
In Wikipedia itself, there are two arbitrary articles on Kashmir. One on the so-called “greater Kashmir” purportedly dealing with the whole area of Kashmir including the Chinese occupied part of Kashmir and the Pakistani occupied part of Kashmir , all though, the whole area of Kashmir legally acceded to India “in its entirety” (see external link in my Talk Page) and the whole of Kashmir is legally part of India, and the other on the State of Jammu and Kashmir which arbitrarily excludes the Chinese occupied part of Kashmir and the Pakistani occupied part of Kashmir, though the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is incomplete with out the Chinese and Pakistani occupied parts of Kashmir.
When I told RegentsPark that, “You first undertake now to protect my edit in the event of my stating in all the Wikipedia articles concerning Kashmir that the whole of Kashmir legally acceded to India and the accession is irreversible and the whole of Kashmir is an inalienable part of India and that Pakistan and the Chinese are in illegal blatant occupation of inalienable parts of India, and then you claim that since the Government Of India is allegedly not disputing the status of Hindutash, the pass would by default allegedly become a part of “China”, he does not reply.
It can be seen from the information available in the discussion page of Hindutash as well as my talk page as well as the
edit summaries that all the endeavour for consensus came from my side and none at all from Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark and they actually spurned my attempt to arrive at a consensus! Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark rather always took an entrenched and rigid stance and continually reverted in toto to their preferred POV version and they are the ones who are guilty of edit warring. There was not an iota of attempt on the part of Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark to retain any of the acclaimed information that I had added in the article and desist from continually summarily reverting to their preferred POV version and thus avoid Edit warring. After spurning my endeavour for consensus, they are trying to turn the table on me and create and fabricate a case as though I was disruptive and against consensus, which is just false and misrepresents the true facts. Right from day one they have been conspiring to victimize me and were obsessed with the idea of banning me from Wikipedia. This is again some thing that is borne out by records since every thing is logged! First, they engaged one YellowMonkey to block me for one month on fabricated unexplained grounds with out even giving me an opportunity to defend myself and state my position. I was not even given an intimation that I could if I felt that I had been wrongly blocked, contest the block!
His initial reason for blocking me was the incomprehensible reason “spa; one guy reverting about five and over”, with out conferring with me and giving me an opportunity to defend myself, and so I sent him an email during the pendency of the said block, but he never replied.
When I, after the expiry of the block, left an indignant message in his talk page and asked him to tell me why he did not reply to my email during the pendency of the said block after arbitrarily blocking me, he does not reply and but instead in the “Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents” , he states, “he's made a long diatribe against me for blocking him and reblocking him for socking”. You can notice that he has cunningly not stated his original reason for blocking me which is the foundation and the base, but only stated about the subsequent alleged reason for reblocking “for socking”, which ipso facto shows that the earlier reason was just conjured up just to victimize me at the instance of RegentsPark! And there had been a conspiracy to build up and foist a case on me. He also has stated there that I allegedly am “completely against consensus but reverts all the time anyway” which also is a lie and is a misrepresentation and can be established from evidence that is borne out by records since all my activity and the activities of RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler in Wikipedia are logged.
Now look at the reasons given by YellowMonkey, AdjustShift, and RegentsPark. What locus standi or capability does RegentsPark have to adjudicate that my views “on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE” as though he is competent and was a scholar on the issue when he had himself confessed that, “I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies” .According to him in his reply to Ottava Rima, “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”. Statements like this are highly disruptive. He further states, "I'm not sure what your interest is in this matter", which is strange and intriguing since one does not need to have interest to question him if he protects an article supporting one side in a content dispute!
When Ottava Rima questioned RegentsPark, Fowler&fowler had no business to interfere but he intimidated Ottava Rima and caused once again disruption.
Since Ottava Rima had stated that “The sides are entrenched so it is best to get a larger community consensus”, I had replied way back on 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC) that, “I did try to arrive at a consensus . I informed her/him that, “In a scenario where I reiterate that the Hindutash pass is part of Kashmir and the only thing that Fowler&fowler does is to state that the pass is allegedly in so called Xinjiang, a newly coined name which is detested by the East Turkistanis, the only consensus that can be arrived is to altogether abstain from any reference to the political location of Hindutash and just state that the historic Pass is located in the Kuen Lun range on the edge of the Highlands of Kashmir. And that the northern border of Kashmir has not been demarcated or delineated. And leave it to the readers to make their own conclusions. That is the only consensus that can be arrived at, if you intention is to arrive at a consensus”. So Ottava Rima was obviously wrong in his inference that both the sides were entrenched. Fowler&fowler was all along taking a rigid and entrenched stance not me. This is a content dispute predominantly between myself and Fowler&fowler. The stance of Fowler&fowler is that Hindutash is allegedly in so-called Xinjiang which he alleges is in "China", while i reiterate that Hindutash is in Ladakh in Kashmir.
The information that , to quote
Fowler&fowler, “the Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”, was not initially provided to him. But even after he was made aware of the said information, he is continuing with his misrepresentation. Does he mean to say that the “renowned” Times Atlas depicted a boundary “which are way beyond WP:FRINGE”. This depiction in the year 1900 is so recent when viewed in the light of the fact that Kashmir acceded to the new Dominion of India “in its entirety” only on 26, October 1947. And, as confessed by RegentsPark, “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. If AdjustShift states that, “After analyzing Hindutashravi's edits, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption”, he has a moral duty to substantiate with evidence that is borne out by records as every thing is logged. And, YellowMonkey’s statement that I am allegedly “completely against consensus but reverts all the time anyway”,
is also a blatant lie. These unilateral statements were made with out giving me an opportunity to refute them before their unilateral and arbitrary decision to block me was taken. Had I also been online and participated in the said deliberations , I could have easily nipped their allegations in the bud!
When I was blocked thus, I contested the block but administrators who were evidently colleagues of inter alia RegentsPark, deliberately twisted and misrepresented my statements and made counter allegations which can easily be disproved with evidence which is borne out by records as informed by me in my messages to JohnHill and Abecedare. If at all Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler had an iota of intention to arrive at a consensus, given the acclaimed references and corroborative evidence provided by me in the articles on inter alia Hindutash, Sanju Pass and Aksai Chin, the issue could have been amicably sorted out long ago. But they i.e. Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler have been spurning my attempt all along because they just wanted to retain their POV version come what may, through hook or crook!
After the expiry of the block, I was in the process of attempting to arrive at a consensus as can be seen from my message to JohnHill but Abecedare has blatantly supporting RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler in a content dispute at the instance of RegentsPark again blocked me for alleged “long-term and continued disruption”. Though I had sought an explanation from him and asked him to substantiate it he has till date evaded. He wants me to, “Propose your changes at Talk:Hindutash and wait for general agreement before making any further changes to the article”. If you read my reply to his demand, you will see that it is just and fair. But he would have none of it! I fail to understand why I alone should be subjected to this unjust condition which is not at all applicable to the other editors and is discriminative and entails that I just succumb and capitulate to their preferred Point of View version, particularly when the only endeavour for consensus came from my side and they were spurning it and taking an inflexible rigid and entrenched stance and did not at all reciprocate my effort to arrive at a consensus. No one does it and is expected to do it. Every editor makes changes in an article and then discusses the changes in the discussion page and not the other way about! What is important and necessary is that after an editor has made changes to an article, he or she discusses the changes in the discussion page of the relevant article and there is a honest genuine, sincere attempt to arrive at a consensus if there are editors who disagree to the changes by discussion.
The conduct of JohnHill is a case in point. Unlike the conduct of RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler who have been reverting my edit of inter alia Hindutash , Sanju Pass, and Aksai Chin in to to, JohnHill in his edit of Sanju Pass, retained most of the information which I had added to Sanju Pass which had been earlier deleted by Rayshade which were acclaimed sources and not my Point of View or original research. However, he did not retain the information which I had added to the article on Hindutash which I had incidentally created and was proud of. I had sent a message to him stating that he should similarly retain the information which I had added to the Hindutash and thus assist in, to quote him, “trying to settle this silly dispute now”. He did not give a positive reply but on the contrary stated, “So, please may I ask you to please write these articles up in as accurate, fair and neutral a manner as possible? Heavily supporting one side at the expense of the other…..Accuracy and balance could make these really excellent contributions to the Wikipedia”. Since I had already explained to him that I had always been endeavouring for consensus, and actually the only endeavour for consensus had come from my side, I was indignant and sought an explanation from him on this particular statement of his. I left a message dated 26 October 2009 to him in my discussion page since I was blocked and could not use his discussion page or the discussion page of Hindutash. Since he did not respond to my message, I sent him an email on 15 , December wherein I informed him that there was a message for him in my Talk Page and asked him to explain his statement.
He has in his reply dated 15, December 2009 totally evaded the issue that I had raised but instead, he has made changes to the article on the Sanju pass and discarded the acclaimed information that I had add to the Sanju Pass article which he had earlier retained. He has not sought for consensus before he made this major changes in the article but has simply given the alleged reasons in the discussion page of Sanju Pass for his act of discarding all the acclaimed information that I had added, that he had earlier retained. He has not sought for my consent before he made the changes for what ever extraneous reasons, though he very well knew that I was the aggrieved party.
My point is that JohnHill is well within his rights to do it. He knew very well when he discarded the acclaimed information that I had added , that I will be annoyed by his act. He also knew that since I am blocked, I cannot edit the article myself and undo his changes and make my own changes in the article. But the crucial point is he is well within his rights to do it, as I am well within my rights to undo his arbitrary and unilateral changes and make my own changes in the article on Sanju Pass. The important thing is what transpires subsequently and how both the sides behave subsequently i.e. will both the sides discuss the issue peacefully and in a cultured manner and arrive at a consensus. And that is the crucial point. In my case, I have always been endeavouring for consensus. This is something that can be verified and established with evidence which is borne out of records since all my activity in Wikipedia is logged.
Now John Hill is stating that, “For just one example, he claims that the 1890 Gazetteer of Kasmir and Ladakh states: "The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan". I have checked and the Gazetteer contains no such quote”, thus imputes that I am dishonest and lying. I refute his allegation. I am disadvantaged since I am blocked. I have the right to refute his insinuation that I am dishonest in the discussion page of Sanju Pass and not in my discussion Page which is ineffective. I cannot do that. What can I do? If any Wikipedia administrator can meet me in Chennai, I can show him the said Book , “Gazetteer of Kasmir and Ladakh” which states: "The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan" . He has removed one by one all details from the article which gave it a semblance of Neutrality including the W.H.Johnson Map. Is this is his idea when he states, “write these articles up in as accurate, fair and neutral a manner as possible” ?
So,
1. I would like you to look into the allegation that I am against consensus and am causing disruption and come to an opinion from evidence which is borne out by records as every thing is logged in Wikipedia. Please peruse my edit summaries also.
2. Who was taking a rigid entrenched stance and continually reverting
in toto their preferred version and thus guilty of edit warring?
3. Who has been in limine guilty of disruption?
4. Was there an iota of attempt on the part of
Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark to retain any of the acclaimed information that I had added in the article and desist from continually summarily reverting to their preferred POV version and thus avoid Edit warring ?
5. Also please look at the conduct of Abecedare who in spite of my
attempts in ways more than one to, after indefinitely blocking me has not substantiated his allegation that I am guilty of long-term and continued disruption.
6. Also , I will be glad to know your opinion about what you think about the various legal grounds for my assertion and reiteration that Hindutash is de jure part of Kashmir, which can be found in the discussion page of Hindutash as well as my discussion page. I have also
summarized the legal grounds in my message to User Abecedare in my discussion page.
If you come to a conclusion in my favour please un block me. In any case please respond to this email .
What is incredible and amazes me is the extent and amount of Impunity which these Administrators enjoy and the utter absence of accountability. They are not made accountable for their arbitrary and unilateral statements and their statements are being taken in their face value! And they are not subject to accountability. Take the statement of Toddst1, who has as an excuse for removing my right to appeal the block stated that, “"You said above, "I don’t intend to waste my time and energy in futile conversation if the other editors do not reciprocate my endeavour for consensus." That's all we need to hear. End of discussion. I am removing your privilege to edit this page as 4 unblock requests are enough. Toddst1 (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)". What alternative did I have when RegentsPark, had stated that, “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”? Statements like this are highly disruptive”. After this act of Toddst1 (talk), I had sent him an email which I have reproduced in my Discussion Page.
The issue is not whether a racket consisting of a coterie of dishonest unscrupulous administrators can shamelessly support an influential editor in a content dispute and actually block the other editor for unsubstantiated and arbitrary conjured up reasons, can be permitted to get away with it with impunity ; but whether , if Wikipedia desists and abstains from taking severe punitive action against these Administrators viz. inter alia YellowMonkey, RegentsPark , Toddst1, Hersfold , Abecedare, and lifebaka and editor Fowler&fowler and thus would be blatantly prejudiced to India, can be permitted to be available in India. These people should be made to apologise to me and their status as administrator should be rescinded . Amazingly, all of them willfully evaded the issue of who had been all along endeavouring for consensus and who spurned the endeavour, but took recourse to making unsubstantiated, arbitrary false counter allegations which can be easily disproved with evidence which is borne out by records as every thing in Wikipedia is logged!
Thanks,
Yours Sincerely,
Ravi
I am a Lawyer and I reside in India. I created an Article in Wikipedia called titled Hindutash which is the name of a pass in Kashmir. Ever since I created the article Hindutash One Fowler&fowler has been for reasons best known to him, trying to hijack the article and give a totally contradictory picture. They have never had anything new to add to the article but deny what all I had stated! I had added new information with out breaching Wikipedia’s stress on verifiability and no Original Research . My reiteration that Hindutash is part of Kashmir is inter alia on Legal Grounds which I have summarized in my Talk Page
Fowler&fowler has been right from the beginning inconsistent in his reasons for stating that the pass is allegedly in “China” and has always come up with new reasons. First Fowler&fowler wanted references. When references were provided, he turned his stance. He is ignorant about the subject and I have time and again exposed his ignorance for which he has not had the integrity to apologise for his misrepresentation. Now the latest reason given by him is that allegedly, neither the Government of India or the Government of Kashmir allegedly claims that Hindutash is part of Kashmir. I have given reply which is legal in nature. I informed him/her and RegentsPark that as far as India is concerned, since Kashmir’s accession to India is allegedly disputed, Does India have even the locus standi to claim that Hindutash is part of Kashmir in the first instance and does it matter at all whether the government of India claims Hindutash or not? As far as Kashmir is concerned, the Present Government of Kashmir is not a pan Kashmir Government since no elections have been conducted in the Pakistani and Chinese occupied areas in Kashmir. And the last Pan Kashmir government was the one which was prevalent at the time of the accession of Kashmir to the new dominion of India on 26, October 1947 “in its entirety” . As far as the only Pan Kashmir Government is concerned I have given details in the My talk page as well as the discussion page of Hindutash that the then Pan Kashmir Government did assert that the Kuen Lun which includes Hindutash, Sanju Pass and the rest of Aksai Chin are part of Kashmir. Also peruse the report in The Times Newspaper inserted by me as well as the depiction of Hindutash as part of Kashmir by The Times Atlas in 1900. This depiction by the Times Atlas in the year 1900 is significant in view of the fact that it is very recent in the light of the fact that the accession of the princely state of Kashmir to the new Dominion of India” was on October 26, 1947 "in its entirety”. In the interregnum i.e. between 1900 and October 26, 1947, there have never been any border agreements whatsoever deciding the issue of the northern border of Kashmir, as confessed by Regent's Park (Rose Garden) , “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. But he does not have the integrity to even abide by his own statements when the same is not convenient for him. Also I had pointed out that as early as 1890, the Gazetteer of Kashmir includes the Item on Hindutash and the description of Hindutash is at page 364. The item and description of Hindutash spelt “Hindutak” therein is included in the Gazetteer of Kashmir inter alia at pages 364, 520 and 800 only because Hindutash is in Kashmir. As far as the territorial extent of Kashmir is concerned, only the Constitutions of India and Kashmir are sacrosanct and supreme. What constitutes the territory of Kashmir is stipulated in the Constitution of India. The territorial extent of the State of Kashmir is as stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India, read with Article 1 of the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads
“The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”.
Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir states, “The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State"
In Wikipedia itself, there are two arbitrary articles on Kashmir. One on the so-called “greater Kashmir” purportedly dealing with the whole area of Kashmir including the Chinese occupied part of Kashmir and the Pakistani occupied part of Kashmir , all though, the whole area of Kashmir legally acceded to India “in its entirety” (see external link in my Talk Page) and the whole of Kashmir is legally part of India, and the other on the State of Jammu and Kashmir which arbitrarily excludes the Chinese occupied part of Kashmir and the Pakistani occupied part of Kashmir, though the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is incomplete with out the Chinese and Pakistani occupied parts of Kashmir.
When I told RegentsPark that, “You first undertake now to protect my edit in the event of my stating in all the Wikipedia articles concerning Kashmir that the whole of Kashmir legally acceded to India and the accession is irreversible and the whole of Kashmir is an inalienable part of India and that Pakistan and the Chinese are in illegal blatant occupation of inalienable parts of India, and then you claim that since the Government Of India is allegedly not disputing the status of Hindutash, the pass would by default allegedly become a part of “China”, he does not reply.
It can be seen from the information available in the discussion page of Hindutash as well as my talk page as well as the
edit summaries that all the endeavour for consensus came from my side and none at all from Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark and they actually spurned my attempt to arrive at a consensus! Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark rather always took an entrenched and rigid stance and continually reverted in toto to their preferred POV version and they are the ones who are guilty of edit warring. There was not an iota of attempt on the part of Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark to retain any of the acclaimed information that I had added in the article and desist from continually summarily reverting to their preferred POV version and thus avoid Edit warring. After spurning my endeavour for consensus, they are trying to turn the table on me and create and fabricate a case as though I was disruptive and against consensus, which is just false and misrepresents the true facts. Right from day one they have been conspiring to victimize me and were obsessed with the idea of banning me from Wikipedia. This is again some thing that is borne out by records since every thing is logged! First, they engaged one YellowMonkey to block me for one month on fabricated unexplained grounds with out even giving me an opportunity to defend myself and state my position. I was not even given an intimation that I could if I felt that I had been wrongly blocked, contest the block!
His initial reason for blocking me was the incomprehensible reason “spa; one guy reverting about five and over”, with out conferring with me and giving me an opportunity to defend myself, and so I sent him an email during the pendency of the said block, but he never replied.
When I, after the expiry of the block, left an indignant message in his talk page and asked him to tell me why he did not reply to my email during the pendency of the said block after arbitrarily blocking me, he does not reply and but instead in the “Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents” , he states, “he's made a long diatribe against me for blocking him and reblocking him for socking”. You can notice that he has cunningly not stated his original reason for blocking me which is the foundation and the base, but only stated about the subsequent alleged reason for reblocking “for socking”, which ipso facto shows that the earlier reason was just conjured up just to victimize me at the instance of RegentsPark! And there had been a conspiracy to build up and foist a case on me. He also has stated there that I allegedly am “completely against consensus but reverts all the time anyway” which also is a lie and is a misrepresentation and can be established from evidence that is borne out by records since all my activity and the activities of RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler in Wikipedia are logged.
Now look at the reasons given by YellowMonkey, AdjustShift, and RegentsPark. What locus standi or capability does RegentsPark have to adjudicate that my views “on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE” as though he is competent and was a scholar on the issue when he had himself confessed that, “I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies” .According to him in his reply to Ottava Rima, “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”. Statements like this are highly disruptive. He further states, "I'm not sure what your interest is in this matter", which is strange and intriguing since one does not need to have interest to question him if he protects an article supporting one side in a content dispute!
When Ottava Rima questioned RegentsPark, Fowler&fowler had no business to interfere but he intimidated Ottava Rima and caused once again disruption.
Since Ottava Rima had stated that “The sides are entrenched so it is best to get a larger community consensus”, I had replied way back on 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC) that, “I did try to arrive at a consensus . I informed her/him that, “In a scenario where I reiterate that the Hindutash pass is part of Kashmir and the only thing that Fowler&fowler does is to state that the pass is allegedly in so called Xinjiang, a newly coined name which is detested by the East Turkistanis, the only consensus that can be arrived is to altogether abstain from any reference to the political location of Hindutash and just state that the historic Pass is located in the Kuen Lun range on the edge of the Highlands of Kashmir. And that the northern border of Kashmir has not been demarcated or delineated. And leave it to the readers to make their own conclusions. That is the only consensus that can be arrived at, if you intention is to arrive at a consensus”. So Ottava Rima was obviously wrong in his inference that both the sides were entrenched. Fowler&fowler was all along taking a rigid and entrenched stance not me. This is a content dispute predominantly between myself and Fowler&fowler. The stance of Fowler&fowler is that Hindutash is allegedly in so-called Xinjiang which he alleges is in "China", while i reiterate that Hindutash is in Ladakh in Kashmir.
The information that , to quote
Fowler&fowler, “the Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”, was not initially provided to him. But even after he was made aware of the said information, he is continuing with his misrepresentation. Does he mean to say that the “renowned” Times Atlas depicted a boundary “which are way beyond WP:FRINGE”. This depiction in the year 1900 is so recent when viewed in the light of the fact that Kashmir acceded to the new Dominion of India “in its entirety” only on 26, October 1947. And, as confessed by RegentsPark, “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. If AdjustShift states that, “After analyzing Hindutashravi's edits, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption”, he has a moral duty to substantiate with evidence that is borne out by records as every thing is logged. And, YellowMonkey’s statement that I am allegedly “completely against consensus but reverts all the time anyway”,
is also a blatant lie. These unilateral statements were made with out giving me an opportunity to refute them before their unilateral and arbitrary decision to block me was taken. Had I also been online and participated in the said deliberations , I could have easily nipped their allegations in the bud!
When I was blocked thus, I contested the block but administrators who were evidently colleagues of inter alia RegentsPark, deliberately twisted and misrepresented my statements and made counter allegations which can easily be disproved with evidence which is borne out by records as informed by me in my messages to JohnHill and Abecedare. If at all Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler had an iota of intention to arrive at a consensus, given the acclaimed references and corroborative evidence provided by me in the articles on inter alia Hindutash, Sanju Pass and Aksai Chin, the issue could have been amicably sorted out long ago. But they i.e. Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler have been spurning my attempt all along because they just wanted to retain their POV version come what may, through hook or crook!
After the expiry of the block, I was in the process of attempting to arrive at a consensus as can be seen from my message to JohnHill but Abecedare has blatantly supporting RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler in a content dispute at the instance of RegentsPark again blocked me for alleged “long-term and continued disruption”. Though I had sought an explanation from him and asked him to substantiate it he has till date evaded. He wants me to, “Propose your changes at Talk:Hindutash and wait for general agreement before making any further changes to the article”. If you read my reply to his demand, you will see that it is just and fair. But he would have none of it! I fail to understand why I alone should be subjected to this unjust condition which is not at all applicable to the other editors and is discriminative and entails that I just succumb and capitulate to their preferred Point of View version, particularly when the only endeavour for consensus came from my side and they were spurning it and taking an inflexible rigid and entrenched stance and did not at all reciprocate my effort to arrive at a consensus. No one does it and is expected to do it. Every editor makes changes in an article and then discusses the changes in the discussion page and not the other way about! What is important and necessary is that after an editor has made changes to an article, he or she discusses the changes in the discussion page of the relevant article and there is a honest genuine, sincere attempt to arrive at a consensus if there are editors who disagree to the changes by discussion.
The conduct of JohnHill is a case in point. Unlike the conduct of RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler who have been reverting my edit of inter alia Hindutash , Sanju Pass, and Aksai Chin in to to, JohnHill in his edit of Sanju Pass, retained most of the information which I had added to Sanju Pass which had been earlier deleted by Rayshade which were acclaimed sources and not my Point of View or original research. However, he did not retain the information which I had added to the article on Hindutash which I had incidentally created and was proud of. I had sent a message to him stating that he should similarly retain the information which I had added to the Hindutash and thus assist in, to quote him, “trying to settle this silly dispute now”. He did not give a positive reply but on the contrary stated, “So, please may I ask you to please write these articles up in as accurate, fair and neutral a manner as possible? Heavily supporting one side at the expense of the other…..Accuracy and balance could make these really excellent contributions to the Wikipedia”. Since I had already explained to him that I had always been endeavouring for consensus, and actually the only endeavour for consensus had come from my side, I was indignant and sought an explanation from him on this particular statement of his. I left a message dated 26 October 2009 to him in my discussion page since I was blocked and could not use his discussion page or the discussion page of Hindutash. Since he did not respond to my message, I sent him an email on 15 , December wherein I informed him that there was a message for him in my Talk Page and asked him to explain his statement.
He has in his reply dated 15, December 2009 totally evaded the issue that I had raised but instead, he has made changes to the article on the Sanju pass and discarded the acclaimed information that I had add to the Sanju Pass article which he had earlier retained. He has not sought for consensus before he made this major changes in the article but has simply given the alleged reasons in the discussion page of Sanju Pass for his act of discarding all the acclaimed information that I had added, that he had earlier retained. He has not sought for my consent before he made the changes for what ever extraneous reasons, though he very well knew that I was the aggrieved party.
My point is that JohnHill is well within his rights to do it. He knew very well when he discarded the acclaimed information that I had added , that I will be annoyed by his act. He also knew that since I am blocked, I cannot edit the article myself and undo his changes and make my own changes in the article. But the crucial point is he is well within his rights to do it, as I am well within my rights to undo his arbitrary and unilateral changes and make my own changes in the article on Sanju Pass. The important thing is what transpires subsequently and how both the sides behave subsequently i.e. will both the sides discuss the issue peacefully and in a cultured manner and arrive at a consensus. And that is the crucial point. In my case, I have always been endeavouring for consensus. This is something that can be verified and established with evidence which is borne out of records since all my activity in Wikipedia is logged.
Now John Hill is stating that, “For just one example, he claims that the 1890 Gazetteer of Kasmir and Ladakh states: "The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan". I have checked and the Gazetteer contains no such quote”, thus imputes that I am dishonest and lying. I refute his allegation. I am disadvantaged since I am blocked. I have the right to refute his insinuation that I am dishonest in the discussion page of Sanju Pass and not in my discussion Page which is ineffective. I cannot do that. What can I do? If any Wikipedia administrator can meet me in Chennai, I can show him the said Book , “Gazetteer of Kasmir and Ladakh” which states: "The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan" . He has removed one by one all details from the article which gave it a semblance of Neutrality including the W.H.Johnson Map. Is this is his idea when he states, “write these articles up in as accurate, fair and neutral a manner as possible” ?
So,
1. I would like you to look into the allegation that I am against consensus and am causing disruption and come to an opinion from evidence which is borne out by records as every thing is logged in Wikipedia. Please peruse my edit summaries also.
2. Who was taking a rigid entrenched stance and continually reverting
in toto their preferred version and thus guilty of edit warring?
3. Who has been in limine guilty of disruption?
4. Was there an iota of attempt on the part of
Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark to retain any of the acclaimed information that I had added in the article and desist from continually summarily reverting to their preferred POV version and thus avoid Edit warring ?
5. Also please look at the conduct of Abecedare who in spite of my
attempts in ways more than one to, after indefinitely blocking me has not substantiated his allegation that I am guilty of long-term and continued disruption.
6. Also , I will be glad to know your opinion about what you think about the various legal grounds for my assertion and reiteration that Hindutash is de jure part of Kashmir, which can be found in the discussion page of Hindutash as well as my discussion page. I have also
summarized the legal grounds in my message to User Abecedare in my discussion page.
If you come to a conclusion in my favour please un block me. In any case please respond to this email .
What is incredible and amazes me is the extent and amount of Impunity which these Administrators enjoy and the utter absence of accountability. They are not made accountable for their arbitrary and unilateral statements and their statements are being taken in their face value! And they are not subject to accountability. Take the statement of Toddst1, who has as an excuse for removing my right to appeal the block stated that, “"You said above, "I don’t intend to waste my time and energy in futile conversation if the other editors do not reciprocate my endeavour for consensus." That's all we need to hear. End of discussion. I am removing your privilege to edit this page as 4 unblock requests are enough. Toddst1 (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)". What alternative did I have when RegentsPark, had stated that, “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”? Statements like this are highly disruptive”. After this act of Toddst1 (talk), I had sent him an email which I have reproduced in my Discussion Page.
The issue is not whether a racket consisting of a coterie of dishonest unscrupulous administrators can shamelessly support an influential editor in a content dispute and actually block the other editor for unsubstantiated and arbitrary conjured up reasons, can be permitted to get away with it with impunity ; but whether , if Wikipedia desists and abstains from taking severe punitive action against these Administrators viz. inter alia YellowMonkey, RegentsPark , Toddst1, Hersfold , Abecedare, and lifebaka and editor Fowler&fowler and thus would be blatantly prejudiced to India, can be permitted to be available in India. These people should be made to apologise to me and their status as administrator should be rescinded . Amazingly, all of them willfully evaded the issue of who had been all along endeavouring for consensus and who spurned the endeavour, but took recourse to making unsubstantiated, arbitrary false counter allegations which can be easily disproved with evidence which is borne out by records as every thing in Wikipedia is logged!
Thanks,
Yours Sincerely,
Ravi
Monday, March 29, 2010
An antique map of East Turkistan showing the southernmost limits of the Country along the Kuen Lun range
Map of the Western Regions (held by the Chinese) appended to the Hsi-yu-tu-chih, compiled on the orders of Emperor Chien-lung in 1762. An English version of the map is also given. "The map makes clear that Sinkiang extended in the south only upto the Kuen Lun Range".The aforesaid map is reproduced in the Government of India Publication, viz. The Atlas of the Northern Frontier of India at Pg.20.
"An Orographical map of the Western Regions"
"An Orographical map of the Western Regions"
Friday, March 6, 2009
How the English created a dispute in the northern border of Kashmir where there had been none since time immemorial
The Government of Kashmir had during the time before the accession of the princely state to the rest of India asserted and reiterated that the northern border of Kashmir extended to the Kuen Lun range and beyond. The Govt. of Kashmir had built a fort at Shahidulla which was virtually on the southern flanks of the Kuen Lun range to command the Kuen Lun border area. The Map of Kashmir pertaining to the survey of W.H. Johnson, depicted the northern border of Kashmir upto Kathai Tam in the Kilian valley. According to Ney Elias who was British Joint Commissioner in Leh from the end of the 1870s to 1885, “officials of the Kashmir Durbar occupied Shahidulla for 20 years after the capture of Ladakh in 1842”. He did not cite specific evidence, but there was positive information that in 1864, the Wazir of Ladakh, Mehta Mangal had a fort built there. A Ladakhi named Ahmad assisted by 34 others build the fort. There is substantial contemporary evidence that the Wazir of Ladakh stationed officials in the Shahidulla outpost after it was built in 1864. The writer retained by the Government of India at Leh kept the Kashmir resident regularly informed about the happenings in the border area. On 24, July 1866 he reported that there were ten soldiers of the Maharaja stationed at Shahidulla area (Shahidulla area virtually on the southern flanks of the Kuen Lun range extended inter alia upto the Kilian pass and Khathaitham in Kashmir) “on the Border of Khotan and Ladakh”. What is more, the Hajis and the merchants from Yarkand complain loudly against the exactions levied from them by the Maharaja’s men stationed at the posts of Shahidulla. 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.Similarly, the findings of the survey of W.H. Johnson , who was the Civil Assistant of the Trigonometrical Survey of India, in July 1865, established certain important pertinant points”. "Brinjga was in his view the boundary post" (near the Karanghu Tagh Peak north of Khushlashlangar, 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". To quote from “Himalayan Battleground” by Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, page 116 “The Khan wrote Johnson ‘that he had dispatched his Wazier, Saifulla Khoja to meet me at Bringja, the first encampment beyond the Ladakh boundary for the purpose of escorting me thence to Ilichi’… thus the Khotan ruler accepted the Kunlun range as the southern boundary of his dominion.” According to Johnson, “the last portion of the route to Shadulla (Shahidulla in Kashmir) is particularly pleasant, being the whole of the Karakash valley which is wide and even, and shut in either side by rugged mountains. On this route I noticed numerous extensive plateaux near the river, covered with wood and long grass. These being within the territory of the Maharaja of Kashmir, could easily be brought under cultivation by Ladakhees and others, if they could be induced and encouraged to do so by the Kashmeer Government. The establishment of villages and habitations on this river would be important in many points of view, but chiefly in keeping the route open from the attacks of the Khergiz robbers.” The findings of the survey of W.H. Johnson hold good to this day and nothing at all has changed legally. The map pertaining to the findings of the survey of W.H. Johnson who was the Civil Assistant of the Trigonometrical Survey of India, 
in July 1865 unequivocally depicts the northern border of Kashmir with Khotan in the area of the historic Hindutash pass in north eastern Kashmir, more-or-less on the crests of the Kuen Lun range not withstanding the fact that the map does not reflect the true findings pertaining to the survey of W.H. Johnson and does not depict Khushlash Langar as part od Aksai Chin. Colonel Walker who was the Surveyor General in 1867 “insisted that the map as published was far different from Johnson’s Original”.
It conveniently suited the English to arbitrarily treat the area in the Highlands of Kashmir between the Kuen Lun range and the Karakoram range as “no-man’s land”. Since India, unlike The America or Australia (where the English went out of their way in protecting the interests of their possessions) could not be colonized by Anglo-Saxons after exterminating the nationals, the English were least concerned or emotionally motivated about securing Kashmir’s historic and natural frontiers on the Kuen Lun and beyond. So as long as the Russians, who were out competing with the Chinese to grab as much of eastern part of Turkistan, an alien and foreign territory over which neither the Chinese nor Russians had an iota of claim, as possible, were not a threat to their rule in the rest of India, they did not care a damn if the Chinese encroached into the cis-Kuen Lun part of Kashmir.
So, when the Government of Kashmir in 1885, at a time when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, prepared to unify Kashmir and the Wazir of Ladakh , Pandit Radha Kishen initiated steps to restore the old out post of Shahidulla, Ney Elias who was British Joint Commissioner in Ladakh and spying on the Government of Kashmir raised objections. “This very energetic officer’ , he wrote to the resident, who duely forwarded the letter to the Government of India, “wants the Maharaja to reoccupy Shahidulla in the Karakash valley ….I see indications of his preparing to carry it out, and, in my opinion, he should be restrained, or an awkward boundary question may be raised with the Chinese without any compensating advantage”. (italics mine to highlight) In the circumstances, since Elias had represented to the Supreme Government, it was a relatively simple matter for him to ensure that the plans were dropped. He told the Wazir that he had reported against the scheme to the Resident, and pretty soon the subservient Wazir succumbed and assured him that he did not intend to implement it. Elias was also promptly meticulously backed up by the Government of India. A letter dated 1st September was sent to the officer on Special Duty (as the Resident was called before 1885) instructing him to take suitable opportunity of advising His Highness the Maharaja not to occupy Shahidulla”. Elias had already killed the proposal. Thus, the English after treacherously perniciously successfully preventing the reunification of Kashmir vis-à-vis the outpost in the Shahidulla area in Kashmir and the natural and historic border of Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range and beyond, by vehemently opposing it at a time when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their restive eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, rather than as much as supporting the endeavour much less aiding it, prevented the unification of Kashmir.
Thus, after successfully preventing the reunification of Kashmir, when the Chinese encroached into Kashmir in 1892 and illegally placed an alleged boundary mark pillar deep in Kashmir along with a board which stated that “this board is under the sway of the Kakan, the Chinese Emperor, “the distance was taken from Shahidulla, which was the limit of Kashmir territory, Raja Sir Amar Singh in his letter of 2 November,” described this action as ‘a transgression of Khatais (Cathays) over the Ladakh boundary. The Kashmir State has no intention of making any encroachment on foreign territory, but I hope you and the Government of India will enable (i.e. assist) it to maintain the territory already acquired and in its possession, and in that case, the unlawful aggression of the Khatais must be repelled , and the original boundary restoured”, The Wazir Wazart of Ladakh, complained to the Vice- President of the Jammu –Kashmir State Council of the Chinese Amban who had constructed the Pillar. The Wazir said that as far as he had been able to ascertain, his own frontier was considered upto Shahidulla, 16 stages from Ladakh, where one of his predecessors had built a fort which was still standing. This proved, he added “the state frontier extends to that place”, the English did nothing of the sort and betrayed the Government and people of Kashmir. As a matter of fact, the English had surreptitiously illegally decided that “the Indus watershed should be considered as the boundary of the Kashmir territories to the north”, vide the instructions of the Government of India of 21 August 1890 stealthily sent to the Resident’s predecessor, Nisbet, and asked the Resident to convey this to the Durbar and the Joint Commissioners in Ladakh. But Nisbet had either deliberately or accidently done what deserved to be done with the instruction, either keep the instructions to himself or better still destroy it! The English were hand in glove with the Chinese in their occupation of the areas of Kashmir between the Kuen Lun range and the Karakoram.
The statement of John Lall author of “Aksaichin and Sino-Indian Conflict” at page 95 that , “Considering that the State’s officials abandoned Shahidulla as long ago as 1867, the Raja’s assertion that it was in their possession was a flight of fancy”, is a misrepresentation per se and a lie that needs to be refuted. First Mr. John Lall, The State of Kashmir never abandoned the Shahidulla outpost commanding the Kilian and Kathaitham areas in northern Kashmir and the Kuenlun range in 1867 as claimed by you. As late as in 1885, at a time when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, the Government of Kashmir prepared to unify Kashmir and the Wazir of Ladakh , Pandit Radha Kishen initiated steps to restore the out post of Shahidulla, but this legitimate act had been opposed slyly by the English who even if they did not support it, even if they did not aid it, could have at the least ignored the endeavour as none of their business to decide for the Kashmiris where the northern border of their state, was! And desisted from objecting to the endeavour. So Mr. John Lall, you are required to refrain from lying and making misrepresentation to suit your perverted mindset and whims and fancies. Facts are facts and nothing can change them. Neither you, nor any one of your lot!
“What”, if one asks the Hypothetical question, “if the English government had not opposed the endeavour of the Government of Kashmir to reunify Kashmir?” The English, if they did not support it, even if they did not aid it, could have at the least ignored the endeavour as none of their business to decide for the Kashmiris where the northern border of their state, was! And desisted from objecting to the endeavour. The practical authority of the Chinese, 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. At that time, when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas (trans- Kuen Lun from the East Turkistani side and cis- Kuen Lun from the Kashmiri side) in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their restive eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, the Kashmir would have easily reunified Kashmir vis-à-vis the outpost in the Shahidulla area in Kashmir and the natural and historic border of Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range and beyond at Kilian, Kathai Tam and Sanju areas in Kashmir. Once the Government of Kashmir consolidated the unification which was the easiest thing given the absence of imperialist adversaries, the Chinese would never ever have even considered or harboured the very idea or notion of controlling an area beyond the natural frontiers of their restive dominion along northern foothills of the Kuen Lun range as stated by Ney Elias , “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 subsequent incident of planting an alleged border pillar by the Chinese deep inside the territory of Kashmir would never have occurred. The Chinese were given a carte blanche and an invitation to trespass into Kashmir by the act of the English in opposing the unification of Kashmir and conspiring with the Chinese, and once they got a foothold in Kashmir their imperialist designs were facilitated manifold giving result to all the present plethora of border troubles and further facilitating the hostile anti-Indian cartographers like the notorious hostile Times Atlas in their endeavour to go berserk in their experiments to draw various anti-Indian maps! And the whole of the Sub-continent of India is suffering today due to the wanton mischief indulged by the English then. This is a wake up call for the People of India and Paksitan and the rest of the sub-continent of India. The English may purportedly support one side against the other, but are they really supporting a side? They are just playing off one side against the other and indulging to attain their nefarious designs. We south Asians should be weary of them and see through their nefarious designs and treat it with the contempt it deserves. At the end of the day, reunification of India is the only solution.
Unfortunately the Government of Kashmir succumbed to the English threats and intimidations in the year 1885 and did not implement the endeavour immediately but kept it pending and delayed it though the Government of Kashmir never forfeited the sovereignty of Kashmir over the Shahidulla out post area extending to Kilian pass and Kathaitham as was reiterated by Raja Sir Amar Singh in his aforesaid letter of 2 November, and the English having opposed and sabotaged the endeavour were required and were bound to protect the territory of Kashmir when in the first place the Chinese encroached into the area and placed alleged border pillars as a result of the deliberate nefarious and willful act of the English and the English were entirely responsible for the encroachment and were liable and bound to redress the situation and restore the status quo anti , but the English had been all along hand-in-glove with the Chinese and covertly conspiring with the Chinese to cheat and betray the Government and people of Kashmir and had surreptitiously and stealthily in collusion with the Chinese already taken a decision for the People of Kashmir that “the Indus watershed should be considered as the boundary of the Kashmir territories to the north”. However, even the English could not escape from the inevitable fact that the northern border of Kashmir extended to the crests of the Kuen Lun range and beyond. Viceroy Hardinge had written to the Secretary of State for India on September 12, 1912:, “The following would be a good line: From Beyik Peak, where the line would start, eastwards to Chang pass, Dehde (Dafdar?) and Taghdumbash being left on our side; thence through Sargon pass along crest of (Kuen Lun )range, and so to crest of Kuen Lun range north of Raskam after crossing the Yarkand river; thence along crest of Kuen Lun range to Sanju or Grim pass via the passes named in the map of 1891,” (“reference is invited to map prepared by Survey of India in 1891 to illustrate explorations of Capt. Younghusband”) “viz: Kukahang,(Kukalang?) Dozaki, Yargi,” (Yangi to the north of Kulanaldi?) “and Kilik; thence along Kuen Lun watershed” (via obviously the Hindutash pass) “to frontier of Tibet crossing Karakash river,” ( obviously in the vicinity of Ali Nazar) “the plain of Aksai Chin left on our side of the frontier”. F.D., 535/15 Enclosure in No. 208. Kashgar. September 12, 1912.
When Kashmir acceded to the rest of India , the territorial integrity of Kashmir vis-à-vis the Kathai Tam and Kilian and the rest of the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir wherein are the Hindutash and Kukalang passes in Kashmir remained intact and un-forfeited despite the crooked mechanisms of the English. Dafdar the northernmost part of Kashmir bordering the former Russian Empire turned “U.S.S.R.” continued to be part of Kashmir. To quote Nehru himself from his telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, he says, "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' ". Also, the Maharaja Hari Singh states in his correspondence with Lord Mountbatten dated October 26, 1947, “Besides, my State has a common boundary with ‘the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ and with ‘China’ ” It was this territorial integrity of Kashmir which was recorded and preserved in the Constitution of India after the independence of India in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads “The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”, and thankfully, the same continues to this date with out any obnoxious and illegal amendment.
in July 1865 unequivocally depicts the northern border of Kashmir with Khotan in the area of the historic Hindutash pass in north eastern Kashmir, more-or-less on the crests of the Kuen Lun range not withstanding the fact that the map does not reflect the true findings pertaining to the survey of W.H. Johnson and does not depict Khushlash Langar as part od Aksai Chin. Colonel Walker who was the Surveyor General in 1867 “insisted that the map as published was far different from Johnson’s Original”.
It conveniently suited the English to arbitrarily treat the area in the Highlands of Kashmir between the Kuen Lun range and the Karakoram range as “no-man’s land”. Since India, unlike The America or Australia (where the English went out of their way in protecting the interests of their possessions) could not be colonized by Anglo-Saxons after exterminating the nationals, the English were least concerned or emotionally motivated about securing Kashmir’s historic and natural frontiers on the Kuen Lun and beyond. So as long as the Russians, who were out competing with the Chinese to grab as much of eastern part of Turkistan, an alien and foreign territory over which neither the Chinese nor Russians had an iota of claim, as possible, were not a threat to their rule in the rest of India, they did not care a damn if the Chinese encroached into the cis-Kuen Lun part of Kashmir.
So, when the Government of Kashmir in 1885, at a time when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, prepared to unify Kashmir and the Wazir of Ladakh , Pandit Radha Kishen initiated steps to restore the old out post of Shahidulla, Ney Elias who was British Joint Commissioner in Ladakh and spying on the Government of Kashmir raised objections. “This very energetic officer’ , he wrote to the resident, who duely forwarded the letter to the Government of India, “wants the Maharaja to reoccupy Shahidulla in the Karakash valley ….I see indications of his preparing to carry it out, and, in my opinion, he should be restrained, or an awkward boundary question may be raised with the Chinese without any compensating advantage”. (italics mine to highlight) In the circumstances, since Elias had represented to the Supreme Government, it was a relatively simple matter for him to ensure that the plans were dropped. He told the Wazir that he had reported against the scheme to the Resident, and pretty soon the subservient Wazir succumbed and assured him that he did not intend to implement it. Elias was also promptly meticulously backed up by the Government of India. A letter dated 1st September was sent to the officer on Special Duty (as the Resident was called before 1885) instructing him to take suitable opportunity of advising His Highness the Maharaja not to occupy Shahidulla”. Elias had already killed the proposal. Thus, the English after treacherously perniciously successfully preventing the reunification of Kashmir vis-à-vis the outpost in the Shahidulla area in Kashmir and the natural and historic border of Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range and beyond, by vehemently opposing it at a time when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their restive eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, rather than as much as supporting the endeavour much less aiding it, prevented the unification of Kashmir.
Thus, after successfully preventing the reunification of Kashmir, when the Chinese encroached into Kashmir in 1892 and illegally placed an alleged boundary mark pillar deep in Kashmir along with a board which stated that “this board is under the sway of the Kakan, the Chinese Emperor, “the distance was taken from Shahidulla, which was the limit of Kashmir territory, Raja Sir Amar Singh in his letter of 2 November,” described this action as ‘a transgression of Khatais (Cathays) over the Ladakh boundary. The Kashmir State has no intention of making any encroachment on foreign territory, but I hope you and the Government of India will enable (i.e. assist) it to maintain the territory already acquired and in its possession, and in that case, the unlawful aggression of the Khatais must be repelled , and the original boundary restoured”, The Wazir Wazart of Ladakh, complained to the Vice- President of the Jammu –Kashmir State Council of the Chinese Amban who had constructed the Pillar. The Wazir said that as far as he had been able to ascertain, his own frontier was considered upto Shahidulla, 16 stages from Ladakh, where one of his predecessors had built a fort which was still standing. This proved, he added “the state frontier extends to that place”, the English did nothing of the sort and betrayed the Government and people of Kashmir. As a matter of fact, the English had surreptitiously illegally decided that “the Indus watershed should be considered as the boundary of the Kashmir territories to the north”, vide the instructions of the Government of India of 21 August 1890 stealthily sent to the Resident’s predecessor, Nisbet, and asked the Resident to convey this to the Durbar and the Joint Commissioners in Ladakh. But Nisbet had either deliberately or accidently done what deserved to be done with the instruction, either keep the instructions to himself or better still destroy it! The English were hand in glove with the Chinese in their occupation of the areas of Kashmir between the Kuen Lun range and the Karakoram.
The statement of John Lall author of “Aksaichin and Sino-Indian Conflict” at page 95 that , “Considering that the State’s officials abandoned Shahidulla as long ago as 1867, the Raja’s assertion that it was in their possession was a flight of fancy”, is a misrepresentation per se and a lie that needs to be refuted. First Mr. John Lall, The State of Kashmir never abandoned the Shahidulla outpost commanding the Kilian and Kathaitham areas in northern Kashmir and the Kuenlun range in 1867 as claimed by you. As late as in 1885, at a time when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, the Government of Kashmir prepared to unify Kashmir and the Wazir of Ladakh , Pandit Radha Kishen initiated steps to restore the out post of Shahidulla, but this legitimate act had been opposed slyly by the English who even if they did not support it, even if they did not aid it, could have at the least ignored the endeavour as none of their business to decide for the Kashmiris where the northern border of their state, was! And desisted from objecting to the endeavour. So Mr. John Lall, you are required to refrain from lying and making misrepresentation to suit your perverted mindset and whims and fancies. Facts are facts and nothing can change them. Neither you, nor any one of your lot!
“What”, if one asks the Hypothetical question, “if the English government had not opposed the endeavour of the Government of Kashmir to reunify Kashmir?” The English, if they did not support it, even if they did not aid it, could have at the least ignored the endeavour as none of their business to decide for the Kashmiris where the northern border of their state, was! And desisted from objecting to the endeavour. The practical authority of the Chinese, 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. At that time, when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas (trans- Kuen Lun from the East Turkistani side and cis- Kuen Lun from the Kashmiri side) in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their restive eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, the Kashmir would have easily reunified Kashmir vis-à-vis the outpost in the Shahidulla area in Kashmir and the natural and historic border of Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range and beyond at Kilian, Kathai Tam and Sanju areas in Kashmir. Once the Government of Kashmir consolidated the unification which was the easiest thing given the absence of imperialist adversaries, the Chinese would never ever have even considered or harboured the very idea or notion of controlling an area beyond the natural frontiers of their restive dominion along northern foothills of the Kuen Lun range as stated by Ney Elias , “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 subsequent incident of planting an alleged border pillar by the Chinese deep inside the territory of Kashmir would never have occurred. The Chinese were given a carte blanche and an invitation to trespass into Kashmir by the act of the English in opposing the unification of Kashmir and conspiring with the Chinese, and once they got a foothold in Kashmir their imperialist designs were facilitated manifold giving result to all the present plethora of border troubles and further facilitating the hostile anti-Indian cartographers like the notorious hostile Times Atlas in their endeavour to go berserk in their experiments to draw various anti-Indian maps! And the whole of the Sub-continent of India is suffering today due to the wanton mischief indulged by the English then. This is a wake up call for the People of India and Paksitan and the rest of the sub-continent of India. The English may purportedly support one side against the other, but are they really supporting a side? They are just playing off one side against the other and indulging to attain their nefarious designs. We south Asians should be weary of them and see through their nefarious designs and treat it with the contempt it deserves. At the end of the day, reunification of India is the only solution.
Unfortunately the Government of Kashmir succumbed to the English threats and intimidations in the year 1885 and did not implement the endeavour immediately but kept it pending and delayed it though the Government of Kashmir never forfeited the sovereignty of Kashmir over the Shahidulla out post area extending to Kilian pass and Kathaitham as was reiterated by Raja Sir Amar Singh in his aforesaid letter of 2 November, and the English having opposed and sabotaged the endeavour were required and were bound to protect the territory of Kashmir when in the first place the Chinese encroached into the area and placed alleged border pillars as a result of the deliberate nefarious and willful act of the English and the English were entirely responsible for the encroachment and were liable and bound to redress the situation and restore the status quo anti , but the English had been all along hand-in-glove with the Chinese and covertly conspiring with the Chinese to cheat and betray the Government and people of Kashmir and had surreptitiously and stealthily in collusion with the Chinese already taken a decision for the People of Kashmir that “the Indus watershed should be considered as the boundary of the Kashmir territories to the north”. However, even the English could not escape from the inevitable fact that the northern border of Kashmir extended to the crests of the Kuen Lun range and beyond. Viceroy Hardinge had written to the Secretary of State for India on September 12, 1912:, “The following would be a good line: From Beyik Peak, where the line would start, eastwards to Chang pass, Dehde (Dafdar?) and Taghdumbash being left on our side; thence through Sargon pass along crest of (Kuen Lun )range, and so to crest of Kuen Lun range north of Raskam after crossing the Yarkand river; thence along crest of Kuen Lun range to Sanju or Grim pass via the passes named in the map of 1891,” (“reference is invited to map prepared by Survey of India in 1891 to illustrate explorations of Capt. Younghusband”) “viz: Kukahang,(Kukalang?) Dozaki, Yargi,” (Yangi to the north of Kulanaldi?) “and Kilik; thence along Kuen Lun watershed” (via obviously the Hindutash pass) “to frontier of Tibet crossing Karakash river,” ( obviously in the vicinity of Ali Nazar) “the plain of Aksai Chin left on our side of the frontier”. F.D., 535/15 Enclosure in No. 208. Kashgar. September 12, 1912.
When Kashmir acceded to the rest of India , the territorial integrity of Kashmir vis-à-vis the Kathai Tam and Kilian and the rest of the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir wherein are the Hindutash and Kukalang passes in Kashmir remained intact and un-forfeited despite the crooked mechanisms of the English. Dafdar the northernmost part of Kashmir bordering the former Russian Empire turned “U.S.S.R.” continued to be part of Kashmir. To quote Nehru himself from his telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, he says, "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' ". Also, the Maharaja Hari Singh states in his correspondence with Lord Mountbatten dated October 26, 1947, “Besides, my State has a common boundary with ‘the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ and with ‘China’ ” It was this territorial integrity of Kashmir which was recorded and preserved in the Constitution of India after the independence of India in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads “The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”, and thankfully, the same continues to this date with out any obnoxious and illegal amendment.
Monday, December 22, 2008
How the new Indian Express cheats and tricks Indians!
How the new Indian Express cheats and tricks Indians!
24 die as blast rock Peshawar hotel is a new item in the Indian Express dated May 15 2007.
Check the map appearing in the news item. You will find that the Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir is depicted as not a part of India. Is that all? Prima facie it would appear to the ignorant Indians that all that the map just depicts is that the Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir is shown as not part of Kashmir.
But look more carefully! The area in Kashmir illegally ceded by the Pakistanis to the Chinese inter alia in the Raskam and Shaksgam Areas of Kanjut (capital is Baltit in the Hunza valley) including inter alia Dafdar, Kukalang and Kilian - Khathaithum are also depicted simply as not a part of Kashmir.
But wait, It does not stop there! Look again more carefully! Is there any thing more obnoxious, offensive and derogatory in the map? It is not just that only the Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir is depicted as not a part of India even the rest of Kashmir is also depicted as not part of India. How does the Indian Express manage to successfully trick and cheat the ignorant Indians? They have meticulously and cleverly superimposed or overlaid the legend “Islamabad” on the what according to the Indian Express is the International Boundary between “India” and Kashmir so that the vast majority of the ignorant Indians are oblivious of the pernicious act of the Indian Express.
So finally, does it at least end there would be the poignant question in your mind. Probe and you will then notice that the Aksai Chin area in eastern Kashmir has also been depicted as not a part of Kashmir. The Indian Express has stealthily and surreptitiously not shown the whole of Aksai Chin in the map to prevent people from realizing that Aksai Chin has not been depicted as part of Kashmir. More over, to trick Indians they have cleverly super imposed the right margin of the map with the illegal international border which they have depicted separating Aksai Chin from the rest of Kashmir.
The most repugnant thing about the map is not just that Kashmir has been depicted as not part of India. It is also is not just that Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir is not depicted as part of Kashmir. It is also not just that the area in Kashmir illegally ceded by the Pakistanis to the Chinese inter alia in the Raskam and Shaksgam Areas of Kanjut (capital of Kanjut is Baltit in the Hunza valley) including inter alia Dafdar, Kukalang and Kilian - Khathaithum are also depicted simply as not a part of Kashmir. It is also is not just that India’s beloved pride, the Aksai Chin area in eastern Kashmir has been depicted as not a part of Kashmir. It is the manner in which they went about doing the aforesaid depiction taking recourse to stealth and the scale of the map. They have wantonly taken advantage of the ignorance of the oblivious Indians to cheat and trick Indians. By deceit and trickery, they are actually teasing the ignorant and oblivious Indians by saying “look, we will humiliate and insult you in every conceivable way and also get away with it and you miserable oblivious Indians will not even notice or realise …..” And we Indians are actually paying them to do it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
