The territorial extent of Kanjut

No one seems to be quiet sure how the Kanjutis started to cultivating the Raskam valley.^[6] 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.^[7]

“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.^[8]

McMahon’s information was substantially corroborated in^[9] "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.”

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.

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.^[10] 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.^[11]

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”.^[12]

Dvipa Sukhadhara and the mainland part of India

Indians have been in limine  residing in the Socotra archipelago since ancient times and the name Socotra is itself derived from Dvipa Sukhadhara in India's Sanskrit. Indians were residing in the islands at least since 1st century BCE and 6th century CE and were practicing agriculture. The 1st century author of Periplus of the Erythraean Sea mentions that Indians lived in Sukhadhara Dvipa since the 1st century CE, and the same has also been established In 2001 by a group of Belgian speleologists of the Socotra Karst Project. The Belgian Socotra Karst Project (SKP)] has revealed numerous Indian inscriptions particularly in the island´s most impressive caves: Hoq Cave at the north-east coast of Socotra in the Brahmi script of near western India and Kharoshti script of north western India comprising what is now the area of present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan in the northwestern part of the Sub-continent of India. According to the Arab historian, al-Masudi writing in the tenth century AD, it was Aristotle, the tutor of Alexander, who titillated the latter's interest in Socotra by referring to the availability of myrrh, which was widely used for medicinal purposes. According to al-Masudi, (quoted in Ubaydli 1989:150) moreover, the Greek colonists were handpicked by Aristotle and came from his native town. "They overcame the Indians who were there and took hold of the island" An important early Christian] leader who was himself most probably a Socotran was Theophilus (called Theophilos the Indian or Theophilus the Arian). "Theophilus was an adherent of Arianism, a heresy that was widespread through the church for centuries. Arius, the originator of this pernicious fallacy, denied the Holy Trinity and the Deity of Christ". Samuel H. Moffett alias Samuel Hugh Moffett (Samuel Hugh Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia (Harper San Francisco 1992) p.267) describes the ministry of Theophilus and his missionary journeys that took place in 354 AD:, Theophilus “the Indian” a native of the Islands of Socotra (A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707, Page 41, By Stephen Neill published by Cambridge University Press) in the Indian Ocean… was held in Rome as a hostage, converted to Christianity, and was sent by Roman Emperor Constantius II on an embassy that included visit to his homeland in the Islands of Socotra, and to “other parts of India.” According to the Acts of Thomas St. Thomas initially arrived in northwestern India to the Kingdom of Gomdapharnasa or Gudapharasa comprising Baluchistan, Sistan, Kabul and Panjab and then he departed from the mainland part of   northwestern India and sojourned in the island of Socotra in 52 AD following a shipwreck where the inhabitants were converted to Christianity before returning back to the mainland part of the country where he arrived at the port of Kodungallur in Kerala in southern India. The city of Andrapolis named in the Acts, where Judas Thomas and Abbanes landed in  India, has been identified as Sandaruck (one of the ancient Alexandrias) in the province of Baluchistan in northwestern India. 
Socotra was also a part

of Bombay Presidency in  India at a time when India was  administered by the British but was stealthily, surreptitiously and clandestinely detached and separated from the rest of India in 1937 and ab initio illegally removed from the rest of India as part of their game plan along with the bag and baggage of Aden, which is not part of India unlike Socotra under the guise and façade of separating Aden which was a foreign territory arbitrarily clubbed with India, unlike  Socotra which was per se historically an integral and inalienable part of India since time immemorial and is a part of the Chagos- Socotra Ridge, or The so-called  Carlsberg Ridge like a Trojan Horse, vide the Government of India Act, 1935. Sukhadhara dvipa perhaps was also geologically a part of the mainland lndian landmass but was obviously detached during the course of plate tectonics as India began an eventful journey and moved northwards towards Asia in consonance with her tryst with destiny. 

This fraudulent and deceitful outrageous and covert ab initio illegal partition of India which was per se null and void ought to have created an uproar, outrage, ruckus, unrest and pandemonium all over the rest of India and The leadership of the Indian National Congress ought to have issued an ultimatum to the Anglo-Saxon regime calling upon the Anglo-Saxon regime to rescind the fraudulent separation of Socotra from the rest of India and the partition of India which would have resulted in the undoing and vitiating of this deceitful and fraudulent partition of India which was a momentarily a treacherous fait accompli by  stealth and deceit then and there, but as usual, the so-called Indian National Congress and its leaders were sleeping by design or default and did not wake up from their slumber! Alas, did a certain, one all-knowing  Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru even think at all about the island? Did the word Socotra ever emanate from his lips. His whole conduct and demeanour was that of a happy-go-lucky person in collusion with the Anglo-Saxon regime in the British Isles! A person who was the wolf in sheep's clothing who ran with the hare and hunted with the hounds! Had it been China,  it would have been just the opposite and all hell would have broken loose! 

Recognition of Tibet as a Sovereign Nation

Why should at all Tibet be a part of the Chinese empire? Is Korea or Japan or Burma a part of China? The underlining reason for the succumbing and capitulation by the Dalai Lama is coercion and duress and If he wants Tibet to be a part of another country, Tibet can accede to India which is the mother country and the source of Tibetan culture and civilization. Is China going to decolonise Tibet and take back the Chinese settlers? Is China going to recognise Amdo and Kham and Altyn Tagh as an inalienable and integral part of Tibet and declare the partition of Tibet as illegal and unlawful? Is China going to return to Tibet the territory in Tibet annexed to adjoining Chinese western frontier provinces and undo the annexation of parts of Tibet to adjoining East Turkistan to the north of the International Boundary on the Altyn Tagh Range? Is China going to apologise for the Crimes against Humanity and genocide committed on the Tibetans and pay reparations to Tibet and Is China going to recognise a reunified Tibet comprising the areas of southern Tibet, Altyn Tagh and Amdo, and Kham as a state on par with China in a federation comprising inter alia China , Tibet, Southern Mongolia , and East Turkistan? What nonsense is the Dalai Lama talking? The proud Tibetan people should denounce and repudiate his unscrupulous statements and show him his place and ask him to mind his business as the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism

and not meddle in the Political affairs of Tibet vis-à-vis the legal status of Tibet as a Sovereign state! As stated by me, the issue of independence of Tibet is not to be decided just by the Tibetans alone. India has an unfettered and absolute right to a unified and Sovereign and neutral Tibet which is historically the traditional neighbouring country of India and a shield and barrier between distant and far away State of China in East Asia and India which cannot and will not be compromised! Sooner rather than later there will be a sea change in the foreign policy of India vis-à-vis China and India will have to go back to the basic crux of the issue rather than beating around the bush which is that historically China is a distant and far away country in East Asia which shares a border neither with the Republic of India nor the Sub-continent of India. There has to inevitably be a Sea Change in the foreign policy of India and the Government of India should in recognition of the sovereign status of our historical and traditional neighbouring countries, i.e. Tibet and East Turkistan in no uncertain terms tell the Chinese bluntly in their face unequivocally that China is a country in distant and far away East Asia which historically shared a border with neither the Republic of India nor the Sub-continent of India and there is nothing for the Government of India to talk to the rogue state militarily and illegally occupying the sovereign states of Tibet and East Turkistan and that India will in due course at the appropriate time and place talk to the legitimate de jure Governments of the Sovereign States of East Turkistan and Tibet. Historically India and China had friendly relations only because both the two countries were far away and distant and so remote from each other. India was the sub-continent of India or South Asia and China was in East Asia and between both these two nations was the buffer lands of Tibet, Mongolia and East Turkistan which had to be traversed by Chinese monks in search of knowledge and wisdom from India, China has no more right to Tibet or business in Tibet than India has and China has no more right to claim a border at Mount Everest than India has a right to claim an International Border with China at Minyak Gangkar. So there!

 The institution of Dalai Lama is an alien and foreign concept and imposition in Tibet and has nothing per se to do with the historical nation of Tibet. The Dalai Lama who is in collusion with the regime in China is either by default or design is hand in glove with the regime in China is undermining the immediate prospects of Tibetan Independence and is an impediment to the eventual inevitable independence of Tibet and the re-establishment of a Sovereign and independent state of Tibet which is waiting to happen, which is a historically a neutral buffer and barrier between India or the Sub-continent of India on one side and China or East Asia on an other side. It is for the people of Tibet to decide whether they want to retain a diluted format or version of the per se useless and pernicious institution of Dalai Lama bereft of dictatorial power and authority as a purely religious and apolitical office with all the powers of the Dalai Lama drastically curtailed and stripped as a Constitutional office as is the King of the English, or whether they would altogether abolish the obnoxious foreign and alien institution of Dalai Lama which is an alien foreign construct in Tibet and establish an irreligious, secular modern progressive sovereign and independent state of Tibet bereft of all the impositions of extraneous pernicious medieval superstitious beliefs, theocracy and customs, which are not germane to the original historical civilization of Tibet.

It is high time that there is a Sea change in the foreign

policy of India towards China and India goes back to the basic issue and condemn and denounce one Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru rather than beat around the bush and try to redress the anti- Indian policies of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru who in collusion with inter alia the Chinese and Government of the United Kingdom to the detriment of India has inflicted the greatest damage to India and India will continue to bleed for a prolonged and indefinite period of time, and tell the Chinese in no uncertain terms that China is a distant country in East Asia and China neither has a common border with India nor the Sub-continent of India and India has nothing whatsoever to talk to the Chinese pertaining to India's international border with Tibet and East Turkistan and India only needs to liberate the areas in India under Chinese occupation peacefully or otherwise and nothing else, and that Tibet is not a part of China but historically a buffer and shield between India or the Sub-continent of India and distant China in East Asia. Any outcome of the illegal border talks with the Chinese is per se on the basis of subservience. coercion and duress and is ab initio illegal and null and void and will be denounced and repudiated by the people of India. The Indian Government should not shamelessly create a situation whereby the proud people of India should be made to denounce and repudiate the so called border talks with a distant and far away country which does not at all share a border with India and has a military presence along the frontiers of India only because of its blatant illegal military occupation of Tibet and East Turkistan. So there!

The entire so-called border talks which is being conducted by these well dressed subservient, spineless, shameless and anti-national Babus under duress and coercion with a distant and far away country, China in East Asia which neither shares an International Border with India nor the Sub-continent of India but is in illegal military occupation of our Sovereign neighbouring nations of Tibet and East Turkistan is only to subserve the purpose of China and to give legitimacy to its illegal occupation of the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract in northern

Kashmir particularly India's beloved Aksai Chin and is  per se ab initio illegal and null and void and also ultra vires the Sacrosanct Constitution of India! The foolish Government of India should not create a situation where a so-called successful "deal is clinched" and a "historic agreement is arrived" with China which will result in creating a situation which will be a further mess and a further burden cast on the proud people of India to repudiate, denounce and  undo and vitiate it, where there will be a revolution in India and the whole procedure will be waiting to be inevitably repudiated and denounced by the proud people of India.

The Chagos archipelago including Diego García is historically part of the Lakshadvipa archipelago in India and is historically an inalienable part of India.

But the only indigenous population The Chagos, which lies in the southern part of the Lakshadvipa Archipelago in the Sub-Continent of India, had was the Indian population hailing from the rest of the Lakshadvipa archipelago which also includes the Maldives, Sri Lanka and the mainland part of India. The

earliest settlement was only established in the Chagos Archipelago in 1793, until when the Island was mostly unpopulated but for the Indians residing there and the islands were predominantly uninhabited when first visited by European explorers, and remained that way until the French successfully established a small colony on the island of Diego Garcia, composed of 50–60 men and "a complement of slaves". The slaves came from what are now Mozambique and Madagascar via Mauritius. Thus, the original Chagossian colony established since 1793 comprised a mixture of the indigenous Indian people and the Bantu and Austronesian peoples! In addition, from 1820–1840, the atoll of Diego Garcia in the Chagos became the staging post for slave ships trading between Sumatra, the Seychelles, and the French island of Bourbon, adding a population of Malay slaves into the Chagos gene pool. Other than the Indian people, none of the peoples who were settled in the Chagos, be they from Mozambique, Madagascar, Sumatra, the Seychelles, or the island of Bourbon can claim the status to be indigenous or aboriginals in The Chagos archipelago. Surely, Tam Dalyell, British Member of Parliament should know of the ambit and scope of the meaning of the term “indigenous”! The Chagos archipelago is historically part of the Lakshadvipa archipelago in India and is historically an inalienable part of India and thus the People of the Chagos archipelago are thus ipso facto citizens of the Republic of India and the Government of India should demand the return of the archipelago back to India. The Chagos Archipelago has nothing to do whatsoever neither with Mauritius nor the Seychelles and islands are geographically, historically and culturally part of the Lakshadvipa archipelago in India. The Chagos Archipelago is geographically a part of the so-called Chagos - Lakshadweep Ridge, a long submarine mountain range in the Indian Ocean. The Chagos also form a terrestrial eco-region together with the Maldives and the Lakshadweep. 

The façade about the sovereignty of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago was deliberately concocted in consonance with the diabolical game plan of the Government of Britain to obfuscate and suppress in order to divert and hijack the fact that the Chagos Archipelago is historically and geographically an integral part of  India and  in order to undermine and subvert the fact that the Chagos Archipelago is per se historically an inalienable part of India. India should not play into the hands of the Government of the U.K when they deceitfully and fraudulently seek India's help in resolving the issue of The Chagos. Here is a Government which is blatantly continually violating all canons of International law and not permitting and allowing the displaced people of  Chagos to return back to their homeland in the Chagos Archipelago! India should in no uncertain terms tell the British Government in their face that India would help the British Government in resolving the issue of Chagos by making them unconditionally return and restore the Chagos Archipelago to the possession, control and sovereignty of India.   The islands were called by their various names in Indian languages viz. Foalhavahi(ފޯޅަވަހި) and Feyhandheebu in Dhivehi, as Phehandweep (फेहंद्वीप) in Hindi and other northern Indian languages, and as Paeikaana Theevukal பேகான தீவுகள் in Tamil and were historically part of Indian kingdoms. It is inevitable that the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago will be restored to India and the people of the Chagos archipelago whose ancestry substantially also goes back to the mainland part of India are, were and will be citizens of the Republic of India.

Decision of the Government of India to carry out strategic research should not be an exercise to absolve Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru of his responsibility for his conduct

According to the  Army Chief General Bipin Rawat, as enshrined in Article 1 and at Entry 15 of the sacrosanct Constitution of India, the whole of Jammu and Kashmir is part of India. Then, he goes on to talk about the whole of Jammu and Kashmir or comprehensively a "complete state of Jammu and Kashmir which includes POK and Gilgit Baltistan", but incredibly does not at all mention about Aksai Chin in the Nagri Khor-sum, Ladakh. Then he says, "this illegal Territory occupied by Pak..." "POK is  actually a Terrorist Controlled Country, or a Terrorist Controlled part of Pakistan" .  Why is General Rawat not referring to Aksai Chin when he talks of the territorial extent of Kashmir in its entirety? He was mandated and has an  obligation to refer to Aksai Chin whilst referring to the territorial extent of Kashmir in its entirety. What he says does not at all inspire confidence! Was his reference to Gilgit and Baltistan as "illegal Territory" or "terrorist controlled part of Pakistan", a slip of the tongue? The whole thing is in a bad taste. Subsequently, he continues, that The Government Of India Ministry has taken a decision to carry out  strategic  research on our boundary issues including research on the northern boundary of India. As far as the northern Borders was concerned, “the historical Section has been tasked and you will be happy to note that we met the Reksha Mantri today  along with Claude Arpe who is a fellow with the USI (The United Service Institution of India) on what is the way forward on addressing…! It is important for the people of our nation and for us in uniform to get a deeper insight into our borders. …This history must be known to them and soon you will get the “actual history” in the open domain for the people to understand as to what is the legacy of our borders. ..When you look at the website of the MHA, you will see,  the length of our northern borders..  the length of our borders is shown something like 3,540 odd kilometers measured from Karakoram pass”. As Maroof Raza showed, the northern boundary of India starts not with the Karakoram Pass in the interior of Kashmir in central Kashmir, but at the Trijunction of What was then the territory held by the Soviet Union as Gorno Badakhshan in the historical northeastern Afghanistan, Chinese controlled Eastern Turkistan and India to the north of the Beyik Pass in the area of  Dafdar in the Taghdumbash and Mariom Pamir areas in Kanjut in Kashmir. So there! 

We lost that martial spirit after Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose or Ashfaqullah Khan and when the scheming and conniving regime of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru a veritable wolf in sheep's clothing,  who ran with the hare and hunted with the hounds, took over after obviously being in veritable collusion with the British and the Chinese to the detriment of India even after alleged so-called independence in 1947 and successfully destroyed the Survey of India and converted India into a nation full of effeminate and emasculated Indians who are unable to even read a map and understand that the alleged so-called borders depicted therein are anti-Indian! Please peruse the Article, Survey of India.  

The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1956 in Section 4 under Part II under the caption "The State" reads, "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".The same had been reiterated  by both Maharaja Hari Singh as well as Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru.  The territorial extent of the State of Kashmir was as stipulated 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”. Two maps, viz. 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 give them the legal status to determine the extent of the State of Kashmir as stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution on India. The said official maps presented with the White Papers prove that the northern border of Kashmir with East Turkistan at the time of the accession of the state to the Union of India and the period prior to the commencement of the Constitution of India was on the Kuen Lun Range, the natural and historic border of Kashmir with neighbouring Trans-Kuen Lun State of East Turkistan.

The outcome of this 

Ladakh or Maryul in 1415 AD. politically 

comprised all the areas historically part 

of Ladakh like Shang Shung including 

Guge, and the headwaters of the 

Yurungkash and the Kara Kash 

including the Hindutash and 

Sanju-la passes and the 

Karanghu-Tagh in the Kuen Lun 

Range in northern Kashmir as 

depicted in the Albert Herrmann, 

Historical and Commercial 

Atlas of China, Harvard University 

Press, 1935 and drawn and 

printed by Georg Westermann, Germany.

strategic research should if at all the strategic research has an iota of credibility should inevitably and point-blank result in the restoration of the depiction of the northern border of Kashmir with East Turkistan by the Survey of India to the north of the Dafdar, the northernmost political limit of the present Republic of India and on the Taghdumbash and Mariom Pamir and on the Kuen Lun Range on which are the Kukalang, Yangi (north of Bazar Dara), Kilian, Sanju-La and Hindutash Passes in Kashmir and the rescinding of the ab initio illegal and ultra vires the sacrosanct Constitution of India  line published by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru in 1954 as non est in law.  
Also, the eastern International Indo-Tibetan  boundary of Ladakh with the sovereign State of Tibet would be depicted to commence from the Pulu area at the point where the Kuen Lun Range in Kashmir which historically runs southeast to northwest and the Altyn Tagh range in Tibet running southwest to northeast, converge forming a "V" shape and continue southwards along the Ridges which separate the Highlands of Kashmir in the Sub-continent of India from Tibet wherein are the Mawang Kangri and Aling  Kangri Peaks and culminate at the area of the Marnyak La and Mayum La at the Trijunction of Uttara Khand, Nepal and the Sovereign State of Tibet. 

The Gazetteer of Kashmír and Ladák compiled under

the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in the Intelligence Branch and first Published in 1890 by the Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta.  gives a description and details of places inside Kashmir and thus includes a description of the Híñdutásh Pass in north eastern Kashmir in the Aksai Chin area in Kashmir. The aforesaid Gazetteer states in pages 520 and 364 that “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”, “and is crossed by two passes, the Yangi or Elchi Diwan, .... and the Hindutak (i.e. Híñdutásh ) Díwán”. It unequivocally  describes Khotan as “ A

province of the Chinese Empire lying to the north of the Eastern Kuenlun range, which here forms the boundary of Ladák”. Besides, the W. H. Johnson map which depicts Hindutash and Sanju-La passes in Ladakh as part of Kashmir and the Map referred to in Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China, and Tibet dated the 5th July 1914, depicts the southern International border of Khotan  with India on the Kuen Lun range in the area of Hindutash in Kashmir as a red line.  

“The findings of W.H. Johnson’s survey established certain important points”. "Brinjga was in his view 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". 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) 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 W.H. Johnson hold good to this day and nothing at all has changed legally. W.H. Johnson’s findings pertain to the north eastern border of Kashmir adjacent of Khotan. As far as the rest of Kashmir’s northern border is concerned, the sovereignty of Kanjut (sometimes referred to wrongly as Hunza) over the Raskam and the Taghdumbash Pamir which even extended beyond Dafdar with in the borders of Kashmir Proper to the area of Tashkurghan is a fact which was even admitted by the then Chinese rulers of East Turkistan. So, the territorial extent of Kashmir extends to the Kuen Lun range and also beyond. In the entire northern border of Kashmir, one would conclude that in view of the map referred to in Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China , and Tibet, which depicts the

southern border of Khotan and East Turkistan with Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range in the area of Hindutash in Kashmir as a red line, the northern border of Kashmir on the Kuen Lun is most secure in the Hindutash area in northeastern Kashmir.   According to Dorothy Woodman, in the book Himalayan Frontiers “W.H. Johnson’s survey established certain important points”. "Brinjga was in his view the boundary post" ( near the Karanghu Tagh Peak in the Kuen Lun range 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". According to Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, they conclude in their book “Himalayan Battleground”, at Pg. 116 “that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range”. 

Thus it is obvious, in the light of the aforesaid evidence, that the northern Boundary of Kashmir is to the north of Dafdar, the northernmost part of the Republic of India and on the Taghdumbash Pamir and Mariom Pamir and on the crests of the Kuen Lun Range wherein are the Kukalang, Yangi, Kilian and the Sanju-La and Hindutash Passes in northern Kashmir and that the eastern Boundary of Ladakh with the Sovereign State of Tibet is on the ridges separating the Highlands of Kashmir in the Sub-continent of India  from Tibet extending from Pulu to Marnyak La  wherrein are inter alia the Aling Kangri and Mawang Kangri Peaks and any credible research would inevitably come to the aforesaid finding and consequently the territorial extent of Kashmir at the period prior to the commencement of the Constitution of India is also clear, and if any so-called research on the northern Boundary of Kashmir with Khotan and East Turkistan  is manipulated to publish a contradictory finding, the same would only be an endeavour to subvert and undo the very purpose for conducting the research on the northern international boundary of Kashmir in the first place! 

At the end of the day, the poignant question is how much of integrity do these persons who are allegedly going to conduct the alleged strategic research have and whether they at all have any inclination to place India on the top of their priority and would not permit anything whatsoever including the prospects of incurring of the displeasure of the Chinese Rogue Regime, to come in the way of India’s strategic interests in the long run, or whether they have an ulterior diabolical and nefarious purpose in this whole procedure and would espouse the interests of China and render the whole procedure obsolete and infructuous. How many more years should India be made to suffer the ignominy, insult and humiliation of inter alia the ab initio illegal and null and void  bogus and spurious 1954 Nehru Line fabricated at the instance of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru which is per se ultra vires the sacrosanct Constitution of India and non est in law before the same is inevitably verily denounced and repudiated and undone! And whether the research and its outcome would regard with contempt as irrelevant, extraneous and not germane, the prospects of the incurring the displeasure of the Rogue state China is! 

Permanent Membership for India in the Security Council of the United Nations with full power of Veto

It is incredible that India is not a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council with full power of Veto . Such a thing was permitted to happen since in 1947 India was handed over to Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru who was a British loyalist and was not at all keen about a dominant role for India in International affairs and rather continued Britain’s decadent and pernicious policies even after the purported independence of India in 1947 vis-à-vis in particular Tibet and did not have the interest of India at heart. 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 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 Nehru lied in Parliament 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"." Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru lied in the Parliament of India and undermined India and acted to the detriment of India and the same was not an innocent "mistake" but a wilful one in diabolical collusion with the English and the Chinese and the same is borne out by records! India should make it clear that the entire proceedings of the Security Council are vitiated as ab initio illegal and null and void right from 1947 as India was not a member of the Security Council. India cannot permit the present permanent members to take their own sweet time to confer permanent membership in accordance with their whims and fancies and should demand membership as a matter of right and make it well known that India intends to express her own opinion on various international issues particularly the issues like inter alia the brief reunification of Iraq, independence for Tibet and the right of the Palestinians in exile to return to their country pursuant to Nakba and take back possession and ownership of their lands in their ancestral villages and towns. 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. India should rather call upon and issue an ultimatum and a deadline to these members and demand that India be conferred with permanent membership of the Security Council with full privileges to veto and usurp membership rather than being given in due course at a prolonged and unstimulated time. If the demand is not conceded, India should quit from this bogus, spurious and fake United Nations which is just a replica of the decadent and spurious League of Nations with cosmetic changes to give a façade to the actual nature of this bogus organization and create a parallel genuine and credible United Nations Organisation with its head Quarters at Nav Dehli and India will actuate the international community to quit the fraudulent and bogus United Nations en masse and become members of the genuine United Nations at Nav Dehli and India shall be one of the permanent 4 members of the Security Council will full power of Veto. So there!  We lost that martial spirit after Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose or Ashfaqullah Khan and when the scheming and conniving regime of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru who ran with the hare and hunted with the hounds, took over after obviously being in collusion with the British and the Chinese to the detriment of India even after alleged so-called independence in 1947 and successfully destroyed the Survey of India and converted India into a nation full of effeminate and emasculated Indians who are unable to even read a map and understand that the alleged so-called borders depicted therein are anti-Indian!