There was a covert conspiracy on the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir!
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Monday, October 10, 2016
Further illegal surrender of territory of India in Aksai Chin by the Survey of India
As per the spurious and bogus map
of Kashmir published illegally in 1954 at
Sunday, January 10, 2016
The Oxford School Atlas: Stagnant, deteriorating and Redundant!
A comparison of the Oxford School Atlas revised
31st Edition, 2006 and
the 28th Revised
Edition, 1993 vis-à-vis India.
The so-called revised 31st Edition, 2006 makes cosmetic changes
and has absolutely made no improvement when compared to the earlier editions,
and has in fact undermined what little beneficiary value was
available in the 28th Revised
Edition, 1993. The 1: 4000,000 scale map titled “North Western India and
Pakistan” at pages 16 and 17 therein ( which excludes Baluchistan in western
Pakistan and N.W.F.P. in Pakistan and the whole of Kashmir 36.20 N. 78.45 E. in northern India ) has been clandestinely and stealthily removed
and instead, a number of utterly useless junk Political maps have been
added to create a false superfluous façade that there are a lot of
improvements in the new edition, when there were already 1:4000000 scale maps of the whole of India published by Bartholomew, Edinburgh available except the Himalayan
States, the Andaman and Nicobar islands, Lakshadweep and north eastern India,
when what ought to have been done is to provide 1:4000000 scale maps of
the rest of India viz. the Himalayan States, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands , Lakshadweep and north
eastern India also.
It is incredible and amazing that even after so many years and after so many newer editions, instead of providing maps of the whole of India in the scale of 1:4000000, the publishers are beating around the bush and taking recourse to such pernicious deceitful tactics, when by now, the whole of even the Sub-continent of India comprising of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives ought to have been provided in the scale of 1:4000000. In the earlier editions the whole of India in the scale of 1:4000000 excluding the Himalayan states, northeastern India, the Andaman and Nicobar islands and Lakshadweep were some how provided, albeit in bits and pieces as inset maps. For example, the whole of the state of Orissa is shown in three pieces in three different maps between them, and extraordinary effort had been taken to include all the areas in India excluding the Himalayan states, northeastern India, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the Lakshadweep archipelago extending to the Diego Garcia and the Chagos. But the same sustained effort had not been taken to depict inter alia northeastern India and the Himalayan States in India particularly Kashmir 36.20 N. 78.45 E. as though to cause aspersion on the fact that these areas are an integral and inalienable part of India. Only with the ulterior intention of not depicting the whole of Sikkim, Bhutan, and eastern Arunachal Pradesh and the adjoining parts of Tibet, has an inset map of part of Assam been shown in the map titled “Northern India” at pages 18 and 19 and the inset map of Kolkata has been shown only to deliberately avoid showing a part of Nepal, since if the publishers purportedly really wanted to depict Assam, the rest of the northeastern India in the scale of 1:4000000 could have been depicted in a separate plate and not as an inset. Similarly, the inset map titled Punjab Irrigation has been shown only to abstain from showing the areas in Afghanistan in the scale of 1:4000000 which otherwise would have been shown in the normal course.
Plate titled China, Mongolia, and Japan:
The very most important and crucial map in the Atlas notwithstanding the smaller scale viz. the map Plate titled China, Mongolia, and Japan of the scale 1:15000000 inter alia depicting south western Tibet and “Sinkiang” as independent, and more importantly depicting the Hindutash Peak in Kashmir as allegedly part of “Sinkiang” has been stealthily removed. The relevance of the map which was profound and significant as a geographical geopolitical strategic map pertaining to the aspect of political geography was summarily stealthily and surreptitiously removed. The publishers obviously have
woken up now due to obvious reasons i.e. after they became aware that one Hindutashravi had created and published an article on the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir in a web page called Wikipedia and the article had become famous and realized that inadvertently, Hindutash in north eastern Kashmir was being shown all along all these years albeit as alleged a part of “Sinkiang” , as though there was a law which prohibited the depiction of the Hindutash pass in northern Kashmir in a physical map of the Sub-continent of India, and hence, they woke up from their deep slumber and “rectified the error” to the satisfaction of those who had demanded that the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir not be portrayed in the Oxford School Atlas by meticulously altogether removing the Plate titled “China, Mongolia, and Japan” of the scale 1:15000000, thus rendering the whole Oxford School Atlas utterly useless!
Why was the Plate titled China, Mongolia, and Japan removed?
The pertinent question is at whose behest the Oxford University Press removed that particular map? Was it the British Government? Or was it the United States Government? Or was it the Chinese Government? Or was it due to pressure from the subservient and servile Government of India? Similarly, the map titled “Burma and Thailand” depicting inter alia the Narcondam Island in India at pages 30 and 28 of the 28th Revised Edition, 1993 has been surreptitiously removed due to obvious reasons! It was the only map of Narcondam island in the entire atlas in the scale of 1:8000000. The political map in colour at page 15 titled “India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, and , Sri Lanka: Political” ought to have included Afghanistan and excluded (Burma) Myanmar which is in South East Asia and has nothing whatsoever to do with India or the Sub-continent of India. The legends Plateau of Iran and Table land of Iran have been depicted wrongly extending into Afghanistan and Baluchistan in pages 14 and 24, where as the legend Sub-continent of India is not shown any where extending into Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the legend Plateau of Tibet is not shown any where extending into the Tsaidam and Ching Hai or Koko Nor area of the sovereign state of Tibet.
Though the atlas carries the legend that “ all the maps in this atlas: Based upon Survey of India map with the permission of the Surveyor General of India” and that “The external boundaries and coastlines of India on the maps agree with the Record/Master Copy certified by the Survey of India , Dehradun vide their letter No. TB-3592/62-A-3/29 dated 11.11.2005” , the claim is a blatant lie and the Publishers of the Oxford School Atlas have made a fraudulent misrepresentation and the boundaries in many of the maps are not in conformity with even the obnoxious, bogus and spurious Nehru Line published by the Survey of India in 1954 and the maps of India particularly in the world maps from page 78 to 88 do not even depict the areas in India adjoining the Vakhan area in Badakhshan ( including the border of India with the so called Gorno Badakhshan) in Afghanistan as part of India and the area is clandestinely depicted as purportedly a part of "China" and the aforesaid maps do not depict the border of India with Afghanistan and even when the border of India with Afghanistan is purportedly depicted as in page 78 and 88, the Vakhan area in Badakhshan in Afghanistan is twisted downward to create a façade that the borders of India have been depicted in consonance with the spurious 1954 line illegally published by the Survey of India and to circumvent the fact that the borders of India have been wrongly depicted and the geographical details in the maps in particular the Sindhu and the Satlej rivers have no bearing whatsoever with the political borders depicted in the map of India and the borders of India do not extend to the northern most parts of India which are all clandestinely depicted as part of “China”. The Oxford University Press cannot be permitted to get away with such deceitful and shameless lies and punitive action has to be taken against them by the Government of India.
So there!
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Facing the Truth, A.G.Noorani and his deceitful lies
The tirade of treacherous deceitful lies of Mr.A.G.Noorani continues unabated with his writings in the
second part of his article, “Facing theTruth” .
He states that , On May 16, 1959,
the Chinese Ambassador Pan Tsu-li made a statement to Foreign Secretary Subimal
Dutt, couched in language unusual in diplomacy. It was not unfriendly. It was
cautionary. It was in protest at India's blaming China for the outbreak of revolt
in Tibet on May 10, 1959. It did not touch on the border dispute. Its core was
clear: "China will not be so foolish as to antagonise the United States in
the east and again to antagonise India in the west. Our Indian friends: What is
(sic.) your mind?... It seems to us that you too cannot have two fronts... Is
it not so? If it is, here then lies the meeting point of our two sides."
He ended by expressing best regards to Nehru, "the leader of India". If
India protested and was blaming
China for the outbreak of revolt in Tibet on May 10, 1959, it had nothing to do
per se with the border issue. The crux of the issue was that the Chinese had successfully occupied Tibet her western neighbour with the connivance and complicity of Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru who had gifted and presented Tibet to the Chinese in a platter for a song, and China was militarily crushing the independence movement in the country with an iron hand and the shrewd and cunning Chinese leaders did not want the international community to express their solidarity with the Tibetan nation and wanted a free hand in their covert and overt brutal suppression of the Tibetan independence movement resulting in genocide and they very well knew that any military aid coming from the international community to Tibet in her struggle against the illegal Chinese military occupation would only be via India. Mr. A.G. Noorani however does not give any details regarding the reply to the statement drafted by Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru. Nor does he say anything regarding whether Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru's blaming China for the outbreak of revolt in Tibet on May 10, 1959 was justified. He maintains a sphinx like silence on issues which pertain to the root of the conflict i.e. whether distant China in East Asia has a border with the sub-continent of India or South Asia in the first place!
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".
 |
| 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!
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 Range.
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 "
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 "
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.
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!  |
| Northern border of Kashmir as depicted by the Government of Pakistan , 1962 |
Further according to Mr.A.G.Noorani, “Another falsehood that he
propounded in March 1963
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.
 |
| Map of the Shaksgam Valley and Aghil Range in central Kashmir by Mason dated 1927 |
Mr. A.G.Noorani further states, "The
historical falsehood about the treaty of 1842 which he propounded in March 1959
barred the door to conciliation with China and created a deadlock - there was nothing to negotiate". According to him, "This
was intolerance twice over. Vis-à-vis China, Nehru had said on
January 18, 1961: "In our opinion, we have nothing to negotiate; our minds
are quite clear. That is one thing. But so far as we are concerned we are
always prepared to talk." Incidentally, this is a classic Nehruvian
distinction which remains his permanent legacy in Indian diplomacy - we will
talk; we will not negotiate". Mr. A.G.Noorani knows
very well that the areas liberated by Zorawar Singh is historically a part of India and had nothing whatsoever to to with
Tibet. Areas like Guge or Shang Shung were distinctly foreign
regions to the marauding Tibetans
coming from the east and
these areas had a rich indigenous Indian civilization and culture since time immemorial from prehistoric
periods. The area of Rudok in eastern Ladakh up to the ridges separating Ladakh from Western Tibet along the Aling Kangri and Mawang Kangri peaks from Pulu in the north to Mayum -la in the south is also culturally, geographically and politically a part of Ladakh and is ipso facto a part of India and thus it was inevitable that nationalist patriotic Indians should liberate the area which has been historically an integral and inalienable part of India. The geographical divide between Ladakh in the highlands of
Kashmir and the Tibetan Plateau commences in the vicinity of Pulu. It continues
southwards along the intricate maze of ridges situated east of Rudok, wherein are situated Aling Kangri and
Mavang Kangri and culminates in the vicinity of Mayum-La.
Mr. A.G.Noorani's chronic lies can be exposed from the information furnished below! Even John Lall has furnished the information in his book, "Aksaichin and Sino-Indian Conflict".
No one seems to be quite sure how the Kanjutis started to
cultivating the Raskam valley. The river is known by the glittering name of
Zafarshan, the gold scatterer. According to Kanjuti traditions, as related by
McMahon , the Mir’s eighth ancestor, Shah Salim Khan pursued the nomadic
Kherghiz thieves upto Tash Khurghan and defeated them. “to celebrate this
victory, Shah Salim Khan erected a stone cairn at Dafdar and sent a trophy of a
Khirghiz head to the Chinese with a message that Hunza territory extended as
far as Dafdar”. The Kanjutis were already in effective possession of the Raskam
and no question had been raised about It. The Mir’s claims went a good deal
beyond a mere right of cultivation. He “asserts that forts were built by the
Hunza people with out any objection or interference from the Chinese at Dafdar,
Qurghan, Ujadhbhai, Azar on the Yarkand river and at three or four other places
in Raskam.”
McMahon was able to prima facie roughly
define the territorial limits of Kanjut. “The boundaries of Taghdumbash,
Khunjerab and Raskam, as claimed by the Kanjuts, are the following: the
northern watershed of the Taghdumbash Pamir from the Wakhijrui pass through the
Baiyik peak to Dafdar, thence across the river to the Zankan nullah; thence
through Mazar and over the range to Urok, a point on the Yarkand river between
Sibjaida and Itakturuk. Thence it runs along the northern watershed of the
Raskam valley to the junction of the Bazar Dara river and the Yarkand river.
From thence southwards over the mountains to the Mustagh river leaving the
Aghil Dewan and Aghil pass within Hunza limits.
McMahon’s information was substantially corroborated in 1898 by
Captain H.P.P.Deasy who threw up a commission to devote himself to Trans
Himalayan exploration. An item of special interest was Deasy’s description of
the limits of Raskam. Starting from Aghil Dewan or pass, in the Karakoram
range, the dividing line ran north-east to Bazar Dara, where it met the Yarkand
river. He found an out post built of earth at Bazar Dara, surmounted by a
Chinese flag, (by 1898 the Chinese had for the first time in history intruded
to the area south of the Kuen Lun mountains) with a few unarmed Kirghiz in
occupation. This was obviously intended as a Chinese boundary marker. From
there the line ran “along the northern watershed of the Raskam valley to Dafdar
in the Taghdumbash Pamir, to the north of the mills at that place, and thence
to the Baiyik peak. Deasy also came upon clear evidence of what could only have been Kanjuti occupation. South of Azgar “many ruins of houses, old irrigation channels and fields now no longer tilted , testify to Raskam having formerly been inhabited and cultivated”. Anyone familiar with the care with which the Kanjuts cultivate every available strip of land in their own Hunza would have no hesitation in regarding this as proof of long standing Kanjuti occupation. The remains could not have been attributed to the Kirghiz; they were unfamiliar
with the state of art. "Seven locations in the Raskam were involved. Azgar
and Ursur on the right bank, and five others on the left, that is on the
Mustagh-Karakoram side-Kukbash, Kirajilga, Ophrang, Uroklok, and Oitughrak,
extending from Sarakamish, north of Kunjerab pass to Bazar Dara, north of the
Arghil pass , comprising an area of about 3000 acres.”
The Chinese completed the reconquest of eastern Turkistan in 1878. Before they
lost it in 1863, their practical authority, as Ney Elias and Younghusband
consistently maintained, had never extended south of their outposts at Sanju
and Kilian along the northern foothills of the Kuenlun range. Nor did they
establish a known presence to the south of the line of outposts in the twelve
years immediately following their return. Ney Elias who had been Joint Commissioner
in Ladakh for several years noted on 21 September 1889 that he had met the
Chinese in 1879 and 1880 when he visited Kashgar. “they told me that they
considered their line of ‘chatze’, or posts, as their frontier – viz. , Kugiar,
Kilian, Sanju, Kiria, etc.- and that they had no concern with what lay beyond
the mountains” i.e. the Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir.
In 1927, the Indian Government, according to a report in the Times,
March 6, 1963 “decided that a claim of the Mir of Kashmir that his dominions
were bound on the north by the northern watershed of the Kuenlun ranges was
insupportable”.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
The Lies and deceit of Neville Maxwell
Apropos the shameless and deceitful statements of Neville Maxwell author of "India's China War" who has
recently published selective portions of the so called " Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report " that, "Then in 1954 he compounded that mistake by laying cartographic claim to a swathe of territory in the north-west, the Aksai Chin, a claim which was beyond anything the British had ever claimed and on "an area which Chinese governments had treated as their own for at least a hundred years". To make matters worse, he ruled that there should be no negotiation over that claim either! So Indian policy had created a border dispute and also ruled out the only way it could peacefully be settled, through diplomatic negotiation", the map given officially by Hung Ta Chen, a senior Chinese official, to the British Indian consul at Kashgar, in 1893 as well as the The “Postal map of China”, 1917, an official publication of the Government of China, published at Peking in 1917 refutes his perverted claim that the Chinese Government had treated the area as their own for at least a hundred years. Yaqub Beg set up an independent Muslim country in East Turkistan which survived until 1877 when the Chinese troops recaptured Kashgar. W.H. Johnson’s survey established certain important points. Brinjga was the boundary post ( near the Karanghu Tagh Peak in the Kuen Lun in Ladakh), thus implying that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range. Johnson’s findings demonstrated that the whole of the Kara Kash valley was within the territory of the Maharaja of Kashmir and an integral part of the territory of Kashmir. He noted where the Chinese boundary post was accepted. At Yangi Langar, three marches from Khotan , he noticed that there were a few fruit trees at this place which originally was a post or guard house of the Chinese. Ney Elias who had been Joint Commissioner in Ladakh for several years noted on 21 September 1889 that he had met the Chinese in 1879 and 1880 when he visited Kashgar. “they told me that they considered their line
of ‘chatze’, or posts, as their frontier – viz. , Kugiar, Kilian, Sanju, Kiria, etc.- and that they had no concern with what lay beyond the mountains. The Chinese completed the reconquest of eastern Turkistan in 1878. Before they lost it in 1863, their practical authority, as Ney Elias British Joint Commissioner in Leh from the end of the 1870s to 1885, and Younghusband consistently maintained, "had never extended south of their outposts at Sanju and Kilian along the northern foothills of the Kuenlun range. Nor did they establish a known presence to the south of the line of outposts in the twelve years immediately following their return".The Kashmir authorities maintained two caravan routes right upto the traditional boundary. One, from Pamzal, known as the Eastern Changchenmo route, passed through Nischu, Lingzi Thang, Lak Tsung, Thaldat, Khitai Pass, Haji Langar along the Karakash valley”(obviously via Sumgal) “to Shahidulla. Police outposts were placed along these routes to protect the traders from the Khirghiz marauders who roamed the Aksai Chin after Yaqub Beg’s rebellion against the Chinese (1864-1878). The kingdom of Ladakh had always historically comprised Shangshung, Nari-Khorsum including Guge. This was even prior to
period Ladakh or Maryul came under the Tibetan influence! By no stretch of influence was Aksai Chin 35°03'25.5"N 80°49'04.8"E, Ladakh a disputed area. It was historically since time immemorial an integral part of Ladakh or Maryul pure and simple. Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru had in fact also arbitrarily, unconstitutionally and illegally published in 1954 out of the blue, a per se outright spurious and bogus map out of the blue in accordance with his perverted whims and fancies which illegally did not depict areas in Kashmir which hitherto had been depicted as an integral part of India by the Survey of India in the various maps published prior to 1954 pertaining to the period immediately prior to the commencement of the Constitution of India in particular inter alia the official maps attached to the White Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the Government of India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor General G.F.Heaney. Mr.Neville Maxwell also, the typical chronic liar that he is, rushes to state that the British had in the mid-1930s seized the Tibetan territory which they re-named NEFA. any Tibetan control over part of the Assam Himalaya had always been imperialistic. The areas like Pemako or Mon-yul in Arunachal Pradesh had always been considered by Tibetans to be beyond the Tibetan frontier. In 1954, one Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru who occupied the post of Prime Minister of India had, out of the blue,stealthily and surreptitiously published for the first time , a new map of Kashmir. In June 1954, Zhou Enlai, Prime Minister of China was in India, and in the October of the same year Jawaharlal Nehru went to China. In between, Nehru issued a memorandum which stated
inter alia that the frontier should be considered a firm and definite one , which is not open to discussion with any one. A system of check posts should be spread along this entire frontier. How did he go about doing this? In 1954, thus a new official map of India was published out of the blue, stealthily by Nehru, referred to here as the `Nehru Line' which dropped the legend undefined `and showed the northern border of Kashmir with a clear firm line. Nehru, in accordance with his Memorandum which stated that the frontier should be a firm and definite one, arbitrarily, and illegally depicted a border of Kashmir which ran well in the interior of Kashmir depicting only those areas of Kashmir which according to him was definitely part of Kashmir and beyond dispute as part of Kashmir. But did he in fact practice what he preached? That is, did he implement the alleged reason or excuse for the publication of the spurious and bogus map of 1954 in the first place? Pertinently , it is imperative to note that the Director of the Intelligence Bureau , B.N. Mullik had recommended the setting of new posts in Kashmir in 1959 ,at inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo which was discussed in January 1959 at a meeting in the external affairs Ministry in the presence of Gen Thimayya , Chief of the Army staff and the Foreign secretary. Both the Army Chief and the Foreign Secretary had opposed the proposal to open border posts at inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol though Sarigh Jilganang Kol was situate deep inside Kashmir even according to the notorious obnoxious and ab initio illegal 1954 ‘Nehru Line’ because according to them, the opening of the said posts would ‘provoke’ the Chinese , and create tension. The despicable attitude of the External Affairs Ministry was that “this part of the territory was useless to India. Even if the Chinese did not encroach into it, India could not make any use of it. The boundary had not been demarcated and had been shifted more than once by the British”. So much for claim that India provoked the war! The 1954 Nehru Line is ab initio illegal and null and void and ultra vires the sacrosanct and supreme Constitution of India and non est in law and is waiting to be annulled! Of course, India had to throw the Chinese out of Indian territory. The very fact of their presence inside Indian territory was ipso facto declaration of war enough. Where Mr. Nehru was at fault was that he had cartographically illegally ceded vast areas in India in a manner not known to law and after solomning undertaking to defend the border areas which were comprised even inside the illegal Nehru Line which he himself had published in 1954 out of the blue, he did not do the needful and open border posts at inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol though Sarigh Jilganang Kol. So the very reason for perpetrating the notorious spurious and bogus 1954 Nehru Line on the nation of India was ignored making the alleged purpose and rationale behind the creation of the map infructuous and a lie that vitiates the entire procedure by fraud, deception and treachery! Mr. Nehru also in collusion with the Chinese acquiesced the illegal military occupation of Tibet and also ensured that the Tibetans could not publicise the facts pertaining to the illegal Chinese occupation of their country so that the international community would take cognizance of the same. Also, he did not ensure that the Indian Army was well prepared when the Chinese attacked. Apropos his allegation that, "...people will see that political favouritism put the Army under incompetent leadership which blindly followed the Nehru government's provocative policy", It is obvious that the Army was under incompetent leadership , not because the leadership purportedly "followed the Nehru government's provocative policy" but because incompetent persons like Gen Thimayya , Chief of the Army staff had objected and obstructed to any endeavour to defend what was left of India territory after the illegal cession of Indian territory in 1954 as well as the Chinese encroachment into Indian territory. In fact, rather than being provocative, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru had all along been in collusion with the Chinese regime and working to the detriment of India. Rather than listen to the deceitful and treacherous lies, Indians should expose and denounce and repudiate the crimes committed against the people of India. Nehru needs to be exposed for all his collusive acts against India. It is imperative to call a spade a spade! The Flight of the Dalai Lama is a book written by Noel Barber wherein he elucidates Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru's wickedest lies and his deceit and treachory and his wilful misuse of the Coonstitutional Post which he occupied in the Republic of India and worked to subserve the interests of China come what may, and unfortunately, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru was not brought to justice before his death.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Reply of Mr. Jimmy Wales, Founder, Wikipedia
Reply of Mr. Jimmy Wales, Founder, Wikipedia to the query “Do
admins become evil”?, and his response to
my reply!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
