Thursday, November 19, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No comments: