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.
Himalaya which is not even geographically a part of the Tibetan Plateau, the Chinese occupiers of Tibet should integrate North West Tibet comprising the area in northwestern Tibet between the Altyn Tagh Range and the Kuen Lun Range as well as North East Tibet comprising the Amdo area in northeastern Tibet as well as the area in East Tibet comprising the Kham region in eastern Tibet extending till Mount Minyak Gangkar (Minya Konka) in eastern Tibet on the international border of Tibet and China!
Line was demarcated deliberately along the foothills of the Assam Himalaya rather than on the watershed of the Assam Himalaya just because of the deceit of the Colonial English and their collusion with the Chinese. The whole McMahon Line except to the north east of Pachakshiri is ab initio illegal and the international border of India with the Sovereign States of Tibet and Burma is much further to the north on the border Passes and Peak comprising inter alia Sharkha Leb La, Yarto Tra la, Druk La, Namcha Barwa Peak , Su La , Atakang La, Yuko, Juk and Lagya on the Indo-Tibetan International Border and Zhasha Pass on the International border of India with Burma and the Namcha Barwa Peak is actually on the International border of the two Sovereign states of India and Tibet. 
a common border neither with India nor the Sub-continent of India and inevitably, there is going to be a Sea Change in the Foreign Policy of India vis-à-vis China and inevitably, the Government of India will tell the Chinese in no uncertain terms that China does not share a border neither with the Sub-continent of India nor with India and there is nothing there to talk to the Chinese regarding the international border and India will at the appropriate time and place talk to the de jure governments of the Sovereign nations of Tibet and East Turkistan! So there!
