Talk:Hindutash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page[edit]

user:Hindutashravi: I don't know what irredentist fantasy you are operating under, but the so-called Hindutash Davan was never a part of Kashmir or Ladakh. It was shown to be a part of Chinese Turkestan in the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer Map of India. In 1857, when the Schlagintweit brothers explored the area, it was even farther from the boundaries of Kashmir than it was in 1909. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindutashravi: You don't have any references. You claim your citation is "Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladakh," but who published it and where? Please provide precise references before you revert; otherwise, I will be forced to bring it up on the Wikipedia notice board. OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits by user:Hindutashravi[edit]

Hindutashravi: There are many problems with your edits:

  • You have seem to have simply copied and pasted from old accounts. Until I added the references, there were no references on this page; well, none except: Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak (sic)" (with no dates, publisher, title of article, page numbers etc.).
  • Now that I have compiled some citations and read them, I can tell at a glance that at least some of your sentences are a direct copy and paste form H. Trotter's account (given in the reference I added to the article). Here are Trotter's words,

    "On the Karakash River, above Fotash, is a camping-ground called Sumgal, from which Robert Schlagintweit crossed the Kuen Luen Range by the Hindu-tagh Pass, estimated by him at 17,379 feet high. At the top of this pass is a glacier much crevassed and extremely steep. It is a long and difficult march from its foot to the village of Bushia, where are numerous tents and caves occupied by Kirghiz, and supplies can be obtained in large quantities. It is eight marches thence to Khotan, and the road is described as bad. The road by the Hindu-tigh Pass can only be used by foot-passengers.

And here is your version: "Robert Schlagintweit crossed this pass from a camping ground called Sumgal, on the Karakash River. He estimated its height to be 17,879 feet. At the top there is a much-crevassed and extremely steep glacier. The road by this pass can only be used by foot-passengers." Per WP:MOS, you should either quote exactly or to paraphrase adequately; in either case, you have to provide the exact reference, not (johnson:trotter) as you do.
  • You seem to be using archaic terminology. You say, "The road to it leaves the Karakoram route ... and lies for two marches up the Karakash river." No one uses expressions like "two marches" any more, especially in an encyclopedia. Those expressions were used in the 19th century, especially in account of long treks, but in Wikipedia one needs distance, unless none is available.
  • Finally, the biggest problems with your edits is that they claim that the Kunlun mountains were (and still are) the farthest northern boundaries of India. In fact, they never were. The Maharaja of Kashmir briefly encouraged that notion in the 1860s, but the British never took that notion seriously. In all the maps I have added to the page (except for that of W. H. Johnson, who later joined the service of the Maharaja of Kashmir), especially all the British maps from 1875 onwards, it the Karakorums that form the northern boundary and not the Kunlun mountains. So please stop asserting this outdated notion, especially when you don't seem to have any reliable references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Too little text, too many maps[edit]

They should be removed to Commons as per WP:NOT. --Ghirla-трёп- 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is still a stub. I am working on adding text. So, please don't move anything anywhere. OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Factually incorrect information in edits[edit]

To user:Hindutashravi: Per the Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir pages in Wikipedia, the historic Hindutash pass is not in Kashmir. It is in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China. As you can see in the US Government map in the Kashmir page, File:Kashmir region-map 2004.jpg (top right in map), the Karakash River (which flows west-northwest in that region) downstream of Dahongliutan is in Xinjiang proper, not even in the disputed territory. That means that Kangxiwar and Xaidulla are also both in Xinjiang, and, consequently, the pass is as well. Please don't keep adding factually incorrect information to the article. If you feel that the pass is in the Kashmir region, please take up the issue on the Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir pages and have their maps corrected. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To User:Fowler&fowler: Dear Mr. Fowler & Fowler, You just do not seem to under stand or you pretend not to understand the difference between de jure boundary and the de facto situation. As for your reliance on the so called U. S. Government map, how unscrupulous can you become? Neither the United States nor any other country can draw and decide the external borders of third countries. The map is not just pernicious and perverted, but is also absolutely useless and lack consistency. Only shows how much hollow and Foul your claims are! Earlier you were harping that “You don't have any references. You claim your citation is "Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladakh," but who published it and where?” After I incorporated the necessary references and also more, you could not obviously counter the citations, but never the less after the hibernation you have reverted back to your vandalism. The fact of the matter is that you cannot say that my citations are spurious or that my quotations are false. But you, never the less for obvious reasons continue with your vandalism, but now with out stating reasons. You could also not digest or tolerate it when bona fide contributors like 152.77.24.38 attempted to enhance the article like by including the height in meters. Your credibility can be judged from your act of removing Baltit Fort from the article on Kashmir or by the fact that The Johnson map which depicted Hindutash as part of Kashmir was the last of the maps that you scanned and incorporated in the article. Only proves that you had a mindset, and that it is your version which is prejudiced and a “POV” addition. After the newly provided more details on the sources and references for the article on Hindutash, you are expected to desist from further vandalism, and hopefully you will behave in a reasonable manner! If you continue with your vandalism, I will have to report you (after I find out how to) and also request for Protection of the Article on Hindutash which is my original contribution and that is despite the fact that you obviously have big contacts in Wikipedia . Your sweeping statement that “ In all the maps (1878, 1909, and 1911) I have added to the page (except for that of W. H. Johnson, who later joined the service of the Maharaja of Kashmir), especially all the British maps from 1875 onwards, it the Karakorums that form the northern boundary and not the Kunlun mountains. So please stop asserting this outdated notion” has been effectively disproved by my newly added map pertaining to the Simla Convention, 1914. You said, “Why don't we continue the substantive discussion on the talk page Talk:Hindutash? I will reply to your post there” but never replied! So much for your credibility. For all your prejudice, envy and jealousy towards India, you are masquerading as an Indologist or something. The cat is now out of the bag.Hindutashravi (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please upload a map here published since 1947 by the Union of India, Republic of India, Pakistan, People's Republic of China, United Kingdom, United States, USSR or by the United Nations that shows the region of the Hindutash pass to be a part of the Republic of India. Alternatively, please produce any official statement by the Government of India claiming this region to be a part of India. If you can't you are barking up the wrong tree. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hindutashravi, you may also wish to find out more about article ownership, referencing your edits, and compromising with your fellow editors based on best referencing/editing practices. Otherwise, I'm quite afraid that reporting people may be a (further) waste of time. Saravask (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To User:Fowler&fowler: Dear Mr. Fowler&fowler, You have just only evaded the issues that I raised in my previous message. You just do not seem to under stand or you pretend not to understand the difference between de jure boundary and the de facto situation. Would you bother to reply to my issues one by one? However, I will reply to the issues raised by you. In India, as stated by me earlier in your Talk page, only the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and supreme. What constitutes the territory of Kashmir is stipulated in the Constitution of India. The territorial extent of the State of Kashmir is as stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India, read with Article 1 of the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads “The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”. So, What is the territorial extent of Kashmir at the time of the commencement of the Constitution of India? To know that one can inter alia refer to the statement of Pandit Nehru himself from his telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, he says and I quote, "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'”. This is only possible only because inter alia Dafdar in the Taghdumbash Pamir in Kanjut is part of Kashmir. Also, the Maharaja Hari Singh states in his correspondence with Lord Mountbatten dated October 26, 1947, “Besides, my State has a common boundary with ‘the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ and with ‘China’ ”. To make any valid changes in the territorial extent of Kashmir legally, the Constitution of India has to be amended. There is just no other alternative. In India, One has to follow the rule of law and the procedure in accordance with law. Any depiction of the border of India which contradicts the Constitution of India is ab initio illegal, null and void and ultra vires the Constitution of India and has no legal sanction. The maps published by the political parties in India or by the present Governments of India are thus ab initio illegal, null and void and ultra vires the Constitution of India and have no legal sanction, since the maps inter alia do not depict the state of Kashmir as having a border with the `the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' or its successor state viz. Tajikistan which controls “Gorno” Badakhshan, an area which is historically part of Afghanistan but was annexed by the Russians. The fact that the map is published by the Government of India , ipso facto does not make the map any more credible or legal, or have legal sanction because as I stated earlier, in India the Constitution of India is supreme. At the time of the commencement of the Constitution of India, the official maps published by the Survey of India deliberately either did not depict the northern border of India or only showed the legend “undefined”( see the external link Territory of Kashmir that I have provided in the Article). The Chinese in occupation of East Turkistan say that the border of East Turkistan with Kashmir has never been demarcated or delineated. “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. As I suspected, at the end of the day, your only irrelevant ground is that the said foreign countries do not depict Hindutash as part of Kashmir. As stated by me earlier, countries like Rwanda, United States or Palestine or U.K. or France or for that matter any other country or the so called “United Nations” have no locus standi to draw the map of third countries like India. As for China and Pakistan, China has shamelessly taken advantage of the fact that a part of India is under Pakistani occupation to enter into an illegal “border agreement” to annex a large area of Kashmir extending inter alia from Chogori (K2) in central Kashmir and Shaksgam to Kukalang and Dafdar. And Pakistan has, to get the support of the Chinese in the Kashmir issue illegally given this area in a platter and also acquiesced of the Chinese illegal occupation of Aksai Chin in northeastern Kashmir. Last but not the least, You cannot deny that Hindutash is situate geographically in the Highlands of Kashmir and the very name literally means in Indian Stone in the Uighur language. As a lay man, you might not be able to understand the legal technicalities of this communication. You may have to consult a legal or constitutional expert. But please refrain from vandalism.Hindutashravi (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To User:Saravask: I suspect that you have not even bothered to read the article and are acting at the behest of Fowler&fowler. The Article does have sufficient references and you cannot wish away the map referred to in Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China , and Tibet, or the findings of W.H. Johnson’s survey or the quotations from “Himalayan Battleground” by Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, page 116 and Himalayan Frontiers by Dorothy Woodman. Pg.67-68. Please desist from misrepresenting that there are no references, and how can the edit of Fowler&fowler be one having consensus? It is atrocious and disgusting! Hindutashravi (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To User:Saravask: Not to forget the Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak compiled under the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in the Intelligence Branch. First Published in 1890 by the Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta. Compiled under the Direction of the Quartermaster -General in India in the Intelligence | Branch. 1890 Ed. Pg. 520, 364. Are these not references? It does not behove you. Hindutashravi (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To User:Saravask: The quotation, “thus implying "that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range" and 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”, is not just my view but the view and conclusion of Dorothy Woodman in the book Himalayan Frontiers at Pg.67-68 reproduced as a quotation in the article. Similarly the quotation “thus the Khotan ruler accepted the Kunlun range as the southern boundary of his dominion” is the view and conclusion of Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback at Pg.116 in the book “Himalayan Battleground”. The Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak compiled under the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in the Intelligence Branch. First Published in 1890 by the Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta. Compiled under the Direction of the Quartermaster -General in India in the Intelligence Branch. 1890 Ed., Pg. 520, 364, is another item included in the reference and has an item on Hindutash, besides other places in Kashmir, and the very fact that the entry on Hindutash is included in the said Gazetteer of Kashmir is only because Hindutash is part of Kashmir. The quotation “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”, is directly extracted from the said Gazetteer of Kashmir without any editing. Besides, the W. H. Johnson map which depicts Hindutash 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, depicting 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 are also included in the article. I did not concoct these conclusions and findings in the references. So desist and refrain from making such blatant misrepresentations that my edit is POV and with out references. You ought to be supporting me and informing Fowler&fowler to desist from vandalizing.Hindutashravi (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To User:Fowler&fowler: You have become more and more desperate. There is a talk page. I have replied to all your accusations. You have not, and Saravask also has not. Do not arbitrarily revert to your POV version. Didn’t I reply to your allegations in detail point by point ? Did you reply to either of my 2 messages refuting my stance? No, and I know that you cannot. Refute if you can and only then revert. I have already explained “internationally recognized boundary version” and its validity. The so called “internationally recognized boundary version” only arbitrarily shows the de facto situation and illegally depicts even Aksai Chin and the area illegally gifted by Pakistan to the Chinese extending from Shaksgam and Chogori (K2) to Kukalang and Dafdar as allegedly part of “China” Do not simply beat around the bush! I repeat refute my stance and then revert.Hindutashravi (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Location of Hindutash Pass[edit]

I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies but I do understand the policies of wikipedia and see that two policies are being violated here. User:Hindutashravi, in a long response to User:Fowler&fowler, interprets the constitution of India, draws deductions from various colonial reports, some of which are completely peripheral to official views of the location of the pass, and also gives his/her interpretation of why colonial maps were vague about the Sino-Indian boundary. All this would make a nice paper if peer reviewed in an appropriate academic journal, but we don't do that on wikipedia. For good reasons, original research is not acceptable here and you need to find reliable sources that definitively and categorically back up your view that the pass is in India. Failing that, I don't see how the material is includable. I'm going to restore Fowler&fowler's version and I suggest that you make a case, properly backed up with definitive references, for your view. If the pass was considered to be a part of Kashmir, or if its location is or was disputed, I don't see why less obscure colonial era or even modern documents substantiating that claim cannot be found. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(NOTE: I'm here at the request of Fowler&fowler. But, rest assured that, if reliable, credible and accessible sources are provided, I will heed them.--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 21:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Hindutashravi, I did read your responses to Fowler&fowler and Saravask and found your reasoning wanting in several ways. First, the thrust of your argument is that the Indian Constitution defines the border of India, that according to the Indian constitution Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India, and that there were references by Nehru to India sharing a border with the USSR, Afghanistan, and China, and that this is only possible if the Hindutash pass is located in India. This is definitely original research because you are drawing unstated inferences. Second, you dismiss official government of India maps as being printed by 'political parties' and as ab initio illegal, null and void and ultra vires the Constitution of India and has no legal sanction. If the government of India is violating the Indian constitution, then that is an appropriate matter to bring up in front of the Supreme Court of India. Wikipedia is not the right forum for that. In short, while you can (and probably should) write a research paper on the subject, you cannot assert something on wikipedia that is not categorically and definitively asserted elsewhere. I will revert your reversion and suggest that you provide categorical and definitive references in the section I've created below that back up your claim. If you persist in insisting that your version be incorporated into the article without adequate support, I will have to protect the page from any editing at all, and that is something that all of us need to work toward avoiding. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 15:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

List of citations that categorically and definitively locate Hindutash in India[edit]

To Rose Garden My reference to the Constitution of India or the statement of Nehru is only a part of the communication to Fowler&fowler and Saravask. Here is the list of citations and references included in the article which is not my Original Research.

1. The Gazetteer of Kashmir includes the entry of Hindutash. The Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak at Pages 520 and 364, has an item on Hindutash, besides other places in Kashmir, and the very fact that the entry on Hindutash is included in the said Gazetteer of Kashmir ipso facto is only because Hindutash is part of Kashmir. Go to the wikilink on Gazetteer to know the significance and meaning of Gazetteer. A Gazetteer of a State would only include a place that is situate in the state and not include places situate outside the state. If Hindutash is not part of Kashmir, the place name would not be included in the Gazetteer of Kashmir. The quotation “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”, is directly extracted from the said Gazetteer of Kashmir without any editing.

2. The quotation, “thus implying "that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range" and 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”, is the view and conclusion of Dorothy Woodman in the book Himalayan Frontiers at Pg.67-68 reproduced as a quotation in the article. Hindutash pass is in the Kuen Lun Range.

3. The quotation “thus the Khotan ruler accepted the Kunlun range as the southern boundary of his dominion” is the view and conclusion of Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback at Pg.116 in the book “Himalayan Battleground”. Hindutash pass is situate in the Kuen Lun range to the south of Khotan.

4. The W. H. Johnson map unequivocally depicts Hindutash as part of Kashmir. The map is part of the article.

5. The Map referred to in Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China and Tibet dated the 5th July 1914, depicting 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 is also included in the article.

6. “The findings of W.H. Johnson’s survey is included in the reference. 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" where the Hindutash pass is situate. 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.

I am assuming that you sought for the clarifications in good faith and I have again given the details of the 6 references in the article. The aforesaid are not my original research Hope you will not revert to the version of User:Fowler&fowlerHindutashravi (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I will check your references (I have access to the first three). Do note, however, that your statement #4 does not seem to be correct. The way I see the W H Johnson Map, the Pass appears to be at the border or just outside the border of Kashmir. The Simla convention you refer to above does not seem to resolve anything. The convention is not accepted by the Chinese and boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions. Also, with almost no effort, I located a reference that places the boundary of tibet as being on the northern banks of the Karakash River ([1]) which would place the pass as securely in China. Also, nothing in the text of Article 9 appears to say anything about 'southern border of Khotan and East Turkistan with Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range in the area of Hindutash'. Also, the Indian government apparently argues that the 1914 map delineates the border between India and China, which makes it rather odd that the maps of the government of India don't show the pass as being disputed. Finally, the text that you quote from the W. H. Johnson survey says nothing about the pass. Conclusions about where the border lies seem to be your conclusions. If these conclusions are generally accepted, then surely you can provide references to scholars who draw the same conclusions (#2 claims to do so and I'll take a look at it). As of now, based on the references you provide, it is not possible to categorically state that the location is in Kashmir. I am going to revert your reversion and I suggest you (1) wait until I check the first three references - your second reference seems the most promising (2) provide any additional support in the talk page without reverting the article (3) look for more reliable sources, preferably modern sources that back up your claim. Note that I cannot prevent you from reverting the article without further discussion and note also that, though I can do so, I will not protect the article myself because, I suppose, I now have an involvement in it (though the actual location of the pass does not matter to me!). But, for various reasons to do with the nature of your edits across the encyclopedia, you are flirting with some kind of action, and, if I were you, I would be more circumspect. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


On reflection, I won't revert your edit. I suggest you do a good faith reversion on your own. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 20:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) You are silent about the item number 1 in my list of References or citations viz. the Gazetteer of Kashmir which includes the Item on Hindutash and the description of Hindutash at page 364. The item and description of Hindutash spelt “Hindutak” therein is included in the Gazetteer of Kashmir inter alia at pages 364, 520 and 800 only because Hindutash is in Kashmir. For example, a Gazetteer of Texas would contain only places in Texas and will not include an item on Albuquerque in the neighbouring State of New Mexico simply because Albuquerque is not in Texas but is in New Mexico. Right? It is as simple as that. The fact is that despite the fact that the Gazetteer of Kashmir was published at a time (year 1890) when knowledge of the topography and geography of Kashmir was still vague and scanty , but the creators of the Gazetteer of Kashmir nevertheless insisted in including the item on Hindutash in the Gazetteer of Kashmir. The quotation “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”, and is crossed by two passes, the Yangi or Elchi Diwan, crossed in 1865 by Johnson, and the Hindutak ( Hindutash ) Diwan, crossed by Robert Schlagentweit in 1857” is extracted from Page No. 520 of the Gazetteer of Kashmir for your perusal!

Secondly, You are wrong about your prima facie conclusions on the W.H. Johnson map. Even User:Fowler&fowler purportedly agrees that the map depicts the Kuen Lun range and Hindutash as part of Kashmir. The reason as you admitted in your statement, “I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies”, is that you are not sure about the location of Hindutash. Actually the File:Johnson-journey-ilchi1865-mapa.jpg, does not reflect the true findings pertaining to the survey of W.H. Johnson. Colonel Walker who was the Surveyor General in 1867 “insisted that the map as published was far different from Johnson’s Original”.

Thirdly, as for File:Hindutash in Kashmir.jpg, which is an extract of the map referred to in Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China , and Tibet, dated the 5th July 1914, the map is intended to discredit, disprove and refute Fowler&fowler’s sweeping assertion that “ In all the maps (1878, 1909, and 1911) I have added to the page (except for that of W. H. Johnson, who later joined the service of the Maharaja of Kashmir), especially all the British maps from 1875 onwards, it the Karakorums that form the northern boundary and not the Kunlun mountains. So please stop asserting this outdated notion”. What the map referred to in Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China and Tibet dated the 5th July 1914, depicts is the southern border of Khotan with Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range in the area of Hindutash in Kashmir as a red line. Which proves that the border in the Kuen Lun range is not a figment of my imagination and the map repudiates Fowler’s sweeping statement.

Fourthly, apropos your statement that “with almost no effort, I located a reference that places the boundary of Tibet as being on the northern banks of the Karakash River”, the view is purportedly that of Alastair Lamb. Why don’t you rely on the conclusions of Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback at Pg.116 in the book “Himalayan Battleground” that “thus the Khotan ruler accepted the Kunlun range as the southern boundary of his dominion”. Or the conclusion, “thus implying "that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range" and 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”, of Dorothy Woodman in the book Himalayan Frontiers at Pg.67-68, or the original conclusions and findings of W.H. Johnson vis-à-vis “Bringja, the first encampment beyond the Ladakh boundary” or Yangi Langar enumerated by me in item number 6 in my list of References or citations.

Fifthly apropos your statement, “Finally, the text that you quote from the W. H. Johnson survey says nothing about the pass. Conclusions about where the border lies seem to be your conclusions”, Johnson’s findings is not an inventory of places in Kashmir. Nor are the conclusions, mine. 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”. You have to have an idea of where the Kuen Lun range is, or where the Karakorum range is, or where the location of Kara kash river is ,or where the location of Bringja vis-à-vis Hindutash is , or where the location of Yangi Langar is. Hindutash is a pass in the Kuen Lun range and the Kara Kash river which is admittedly part of Kashmir, leaves the highlands of Kashmir and enters the territory of Khotan near Sanju Pass through an opening in the Kuen Lun range.Hindutashravi (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've thought about this a little, it seems to me that the issue is a lot clearer than we're making it out to be.
  1. The pass is currently an undeniable part of China and the lead should therefore place it in China.
  2. If the pass were part of a 'disputed territory', then the lead should mention that. However, in this case, it appears that India does not dispute the fact that it is in China. So there is no reason to grant it disputed status.
  3. If, at some point in history, the pass was in Kashmir, then that should be mentioned in the article though not necessarily in the lead. However, your references are fuzzy on this and, at best, you can say that various British sources placed the pass in Kashmir but that this was never acknowledged or accepted by China.

--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 13:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely reject your Statement. It even contradicts your earlier message where you stated that you will not revert my edit. You stated that “I will check your references (I have access to the first three)”….. “and I suggest you (1) wait until I check the first three references - your second reference seems the most promising”… “(#2 claims to do so and I'll take a look at it)”. As stated by you, …“Note that I cannot prevent you from reverting the article without further discussion”., your views are not binding on me, and your reversion is mala fide . My initial suspicion is confirmed. You are prejudiced. As confessed by you, you are acting at the behest of Fowler&fowler. You still have not answered to my reply particularly the aspect of the Gazetteer of Kashmir . China does not even share a border with India. Both East Turkistan and Tibet were historically never part of China and are recently annexed territories under military occupation. View this File:Territories of Dynasties in China.gif . You will notice that whenever China controlled East Turkistan, which is rare and occasional given the long history of China, it was only as an alien Colonial power. In the case of the Manchu Empire, inter alia both China and East Turkistan were victims annexed by Manchuria, which was an alien country to the Chinese. One can compare the Manchu to the Mughal rule in India. I have already pointed out that in India, the Constitution of India is Supreme. Whether the Government of India disputes or not is irrelevant. The present Government of India has many problems and is subservient to the Chinese. According to you people (the so-called International Community) , even the accession of the whole of the state of Kashmir to the rest of India is illegal, null and void, or disputed, so does it even matter at all whether the Government of “India” reiterates that Hindutash is part of Kashmir or not, since according to you, “India” “is in illegal occupation of Kashmir” and has no locus standi at all in Kashmir so as to state where the northern border of Kashmir is. So your reasoning No. 2 is wrong and illogical. You cannot have the cake and eat it also! The Constitution has to be amended to make any changes in the border of Kashmir. According to the Chinese, the northern border of Kashmir with East Turkistan has not been demarcated or delineated. Even the official Survey of India maps pertaining to the time of the commencement of the Constitution of India did not depict a northern border with East Turkistan but simply used the caption undefined. From 1947, there has been no border agreement with the Chinese. In a scenario where I reiterate that the Hindutash pass is part of Kashmir and the only thing that Fowler&fowler does is to state that the pass is allegedly in so called Xinjiang, a newly coined name which is detested by the East Turkistanis, the only consensus that can be arrived is to altogether abstain from any reference to the political location of Hindutash and just state that the historic Pass is located in the Kuen Lun range on the edge of the Highlands of Kashmir. And that the northern border of Kashmir has not been demarcated or delineated. And leave it to the readers to make their own conclusions. That is the only consensus that can be arrived at, if you intention is to arrive at a consensus. I know that truth is a casualty in case of a consensus, but I cannot do any thing about that. The rest of my version remains, including the original findings of W.H. Johnson’s survey. And the quotations from the Gazetteer of Kashmir also remains. Those are not my opinion but extracts from the references and citations. Fowler&fowler cannot be permitted to rewrite the article to suit his whims and fancies.

I will have to remind you of the policy of wikipedia by reproducing an extract hereunder.

“Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute.”

Needless to say, You have violated Wikipedia Policy by protecting a version to further your own position in an alleged content dispute and you have indulged in "Administrator abuse" .

What is your view of my suggestion for the aforesaid consensus?Hindutashravi (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can place the pass anywhere other than in China if no one else claims the area or disputes China's claim. (It's not as if we go around placing, say, Lorraine in Germany.) At best, I can see a case for saying that the pass may have belonged to Kashmir once but even that case is weak since it relies on interpretations of general statements about the location of borders and is largely drawn from a few primary English sources which say nothing about the historical location of the pass but simply place the general area around where the pass is located in Kashmir or India. Your claim about the constitution of India is completely derivative because it relies on two levels of interpretation (what the constitution says about borders in India, and what other sources say is the border of Kashmir) and I can't see why that is even relevant. In wikipedia, we don't interpret, we refer to reliable sources and leave the research aspect to others. Nothing here is original research and unfortunately that's what it seems to me you're doing. About the content dispute: I have no position on the content of this article and you're imputing views about the status of Kashmir and Tibet to me that I definitely do not hold. However, it is important to understand that the encyclopedia is not a forum for pushing our own views but is a repository of knowledge that is generally accepted by the (mostly academic community) and articles are built from reliable sources rather than from your or mine viewpoints. Finally, I've only protected the article against IP editors, not registered users such as yourself, and, since you can edit the article, I'm not sure why you're yelling 'administrator abuse'. However, before you start reverting, I suggest you read WP:OR - particularly WP:SYN and WP:SECONDARY = and perhaps also WP:TE and WP:SPA.--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with everything RP has said. In addition, I would like to request user:Hindutashravi to remove the images that he has uploaded. Even if their copyright has expired (which is not entirely clear since at least one map is a traced version in a 1969 book of of the 1913 original), the maps are unreadable. At the very least, the resolution needs to be much higher (that is if they are deemed to be relevant to any Wikipedia article). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) I already informed you that the area of Kashmir has been divided into 3 pieces, not withstanding the fact that the whole state acceded to the rest of India, both Pakistan and the Chinese in occupied East Turkistan have seized large areas of Kashmir. Though the whole state of Kashmir from Dafdar in the north to the Jammu area acceded to the rest of India, India does not have de-facto Contact with Afghanistan including the Gorno Badakhshan area. Pakistan has ceded large areas of Kashmir extending from Shaksgam to Kukalang in Kanjut to the Chinese. Much of the International community does not recognise the accession of Kashmir to the rest of India. According to you people (the so-called International Community) , even the accession of the whole of the state of Kashmir to the rest of India is illegal, null and void, or disputed, so does it even matter at all whether the Government of “India” reiterates that Hindutash is part of Kashmir or not, since according to you, “India” “is in illegal occupation of Kashmir” and has no locus standi at all in Kashmir so as to state where the northern border of Kashmir is. So your reasoning is wrong and illogical. You cannot have the cake and eat it also!


Based on the stance of the so-called International Community, there is no one to claim the frontiers of Kashmir till the resolution of the Kashmir issue so does it even matter at all whether the Government of “India”, “claims” Hindutash as part of Kashmir? So you cannot say that since the present Government of India is not “claiming” Hindutash, by default, the pass would allegedly become part of “China”! Your statement, “the pass may have belonged to Kashmir once but even that case is weak since it relies on interpretations of general statements about the location of borders and is largely drawn from a few primary English sources which say nothing about the historical location of the pass but simply place the general area around where the pass is located in Kashmir or India” is factually incorrect and false . The W.H. Johnson map as well as File:Hindutash in Kashmir.jpg, depicts the border of Kashmir with Khotan in the Kuen Lun range in the area where the Hindu Tash in Kashmir is. You have willfully not for apparent obvious reasons evaded and not responded to my reference of the Gazetteer of Kashmir, despite my repetitions. I have been trying different tactics in various ways to get an answer out of you.

I will now ask you straight questions!

1. Did you check the Gazetteer of Kashmir?

2. Did you see an entry on Hindutash (spelt Hindutak therein) or not at page 364?

3. Did you find the statement “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”, and is crossed by two passes, the Yangi or Elchi Diwan, crossed in 1865 by Johnson, and the Hindutak ( Hindutash ) Diwan, crossed by Robert Schlagentweit in 1857” in the Gazetteer of Kashmir at page 520?'

You have to give a reply to questions 1,2,and 3 . If your answer to all these questions is yes, then you have nothing more to say. It was the same princely state of Kashmir whose territory is inter alia thus recorded in the Gazetteer of Kashmir which acceded to India and her territorial integrity is recorded in the Constitution of India and there has never been a boundary agreement so far ceding Hindutash to the Chinese, notwithstanding the fact any future border agreement handing over inter alia Hindutash under duress, subservience, coercion and undue influence will suffer vitiation as ab initio illegal and null and void with out an amendment of the Constitution of India. Apropos your statement “…but even that case is weak”, So according to you China’s case is strong. Besides, File:Territories of Dynasties in China.gif , You only have to view the File:Hua I Thu, Map of China and the adjoining Barbarian Countries.jpg and File:Yu Chi Thu.jpg to find out the territorial limits of China.

Yet another two images to delete? Right User:Fowler&fowler: and --Regent's Park (Rose Garden)? Hindutashravi (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you are completely missing the point. Irrespective of what the gazetteer says, the pass is in China. No one (outside of this page) seems to dispute that. Given that, I don't see how there can be any circumstances where the lead says that the pass is in Kashmir. The gazetteer and other references that you make reference to are references that you can use to say that there was uncertainty about the location of the pass in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. That properly goes in the body and should follow WP:UNDUE in how it is presented. I don't see how my heading to the library and reading this material is going to change the essential fact that the location of the pass is not even a matter of dispute? --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 19:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Now I am convinced of your mala fide intentions. You just will not give a reply to my queries. “Yes, I saw the entry on Hindutash in the in the Gazetteer of Kashmir” was the simple answer I expected to the first question. But, no you won’t and I know why.

You are selectively blind. First I had already provided my list of citations and references to Saravask, but every thing else caught your eye but the list of citations and references, so I had to almost cut and paste the same list of citations and references and you ultimately saw them, but never the less wished away and ignored the Gazetteer of Kashmir” by not replying to my queries on the Gazetteer of Kashmir”. As for Saravask, he blindly made the misrepresentation that I did not provide citations and references, but when I refuted him and gave him the list of references and citations, in the talk Page4, he quietly withered away!

I have already replied to your statement “No one (outside of this page) seems to dispute that. Given that, I don't see how there can be any circumstances where the lead says that the pass is in Kashmir” and I am not going to reply again to cut and past it again since you are selectively blind. Just read my reply to this statement of yours and then reply and refute it if you can!

As for , “that you can use to say that there was uncertainty about the location of the pass in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries”, there is no uncertainty, W.H. Johnson had no doubts about where the borders of East Turkistan were. The findings of his first hand survey on the limits of the Chinese Jurisdiction in Khotan territory is not disputed by any present day scholar and have been approved unanimously by all modern scholars writing on the subject like inter alia Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, in their book “Himalayan Battleground” at Pg. 116, “that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range” or 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". Thus there absolutely is no uncertainty.

If you try to make out that “there was uncertainty about the location of the pass in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries”, the view is your own POV and because of your morbid mindset and contradicts the total unanimous view of almost all present day scholars. There is no contradictory view to the aforesaid conclusions of Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, and Dorothy Woodman on where the borders of the Chinese empire was. That it extended only up to the foothills of the Kuen Lun range, and “that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range” or "that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range". I have provided present day conclusion of different scholars on the subject. Now the onus is on you, given the fact that you say “Uncertainty”, to provide citations of modern scholars or researchers who have concluded that the first hand findings of W.H. Johnson cannot be countenanced and that during time of the survey of W.H. Johnson, the boundary of the Chinese empire extended beyond the Kuen Lun range.

The name Hindutash itself means India Stone and the very name contradicts your stance, and the Gazetteer of Kashmir at page 520 states that “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”, and is crossed by the Hindutak ( Hindutash ) Diwan.

As for, “I don't see how my heading to the library and reading this material is going to change the essential fact that the location of the pass is not even a matter of dispute?” ,You have already seen this material and I have also replied to why “the location of the pass is not even a matter of dispute?”. Since you are selectively blind, I will not even cut and paste it again.

You have just shown your true colours after initially making statements like “I will check your references (I have access to the first three)”….. “and I suggest you (1) wait until I check the first three references - your second reference seems the most promising”… “(#2 claims to do so and I'll take a look at it)” and I suggest you (1) wait until I check the first three references - your second reference seems the most promising”. Hindutashravi (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) When the status of the whole territory of the State of Kashmir is allegedly disputed, and there is no resolution of the Kashmir issue till now, there is no one to properly espouse the cause of Kashmir. You cannot use the excuse that the Government of India is not allegedly “claiming Hindutash”. The Chinese did not seek the permission of India when they entered into an illegal treacherous border pact with Pakistan whereby Pakistan illegally ceded vast areas of Kashmir extending from Shaksgam and Chogori (K2) to Kukalang Pass in Kanjut to the Chinese, simply because India allegedly did not have the locus standi to oppose the said illegal border pact since the status of the entire state of Kashmir was allegedly disputed. You first undertake now to protect my edit in the event of my stating in all the Wikipedia articles concerning Kashmir that the whole of Kashmir legally acceded to India and the accession is irreversible and the whole of Kashmir is an inalienable part of India and that Pakistan and the Chinese are in illegal blatant occupation of inalienable parts of India, and then you claim that since the Government Of India is allegedly not disputing the status of Hindutash, the pass would be default allegedly become a part of “China”.

But what is vital is that the Government of Kashmir had during the time before the accession of the princely state to the rest of India asserted and reiterated that the northern border of Kashmir extended to the Kuen Lun range. The Govt. of Kashmir had built a fort at Shahidulla which was virtually on the southern flanks of the Kuen Lun range to command the Kuen Lun border area. The Map of Kashmir pertaining to the survey of W.H.Johnson , depicted the northern border of Kashmir upto Kathaitam in the Kilian valley. According to Ney Elias who was British Joint Commissioner in Leh from the end of the 1870s to 1885, “officials of the Kashmir Durbar occupied Shahidulla for 20 years after the capture of Ladakh in 1842”. He did not cite specific evidence, but there was positive information that in 1864, the Wazir of Ladakh, Mehta Mangal had a fort built there. A Ladakhi named Ahmad assisted by 34 others build the fort. There is substantial contemporary evidence that the Wazir of Ladakh stationed officials in the Shahidulla outpost after it was built in 1864. The writer retained by the Government of India at Leh kept the Kashmir resident regularly informed about the happenings in the border area. On 24, July 1866 he reported that there were ten soldiers of the Maharaja stationed at Shahidulla area (Shahidulla area virtually on the southern flanks of the Kuen Lun range extended inter alia upto the Kilian pass and Khathaitham in Kashmir) on the Border of Khotan and Ladakh. What is more, the Hajis and the merchants from Yarkand complain loudly against the exactions levied from them by the Maharaja’s men stationed at the posts of Shahidulla. The Chinese completed the reconquest of eastern Turkistan in 1878. Before they lost it in 1863, their practical authority, as Ney Elias and Younghusband consistently maintained, had never extended south of their outposts at Sanju and Kilian along the northern foothills of the Kuenlun range. Nor did they establish a known presence to the south of the line of outposts in the twelve years immediately following their return. Ney Elias who had been Joint Commissioner in Ladakh for several years noted on 21 September 1889 that he had met the Chinese in 1879 and 1880 when he visited Kashgar. “they told me that they considered their line of ‘chatze’, or posts, as their frontier – viz. , Kugiar, Kilian, Sanju, Kiria, etc.- and that they had no concern with what lay beyond the mountains” i.e. the Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir.

This refutes your sweeping statement that, “At best, I can see a case for saying that the pass may have belonged to Kashmir but even that case is weak”!

It conveniently suited the English to arbitrarily treat the area in the Highlands of Kashmir between the Kuen Lun range and the Karakoram range as “no-man’s land”. Since India, unlike The America or Australia (where the English went out of their way in protecting the interests of their possessions) could not be colonized by Anglo-Saxons after exterminating the nationals, the English were least concerned or motivated about securing Kashmir’s historic and natural frontiers on the Kuen Lun and beyond. So, as along as the Russians, who were out competing with the Chinese to grab as much of eastern part of Turkistan, an alien and foreign territory over which neither the Chinese nor Russians had an iota of claim, as possible, were not a threat to their rule in the rest of India, they did not care an iota if the Chinese encroached into the cis-Kuen Lun part of Kashmir. So when the Government of Kashmir in 1885, at a time when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, prepared to unify Kashmir and the Wazir of Ladakh , Pandit Radha Kishen initiated steps to restore the out post of Shahidulla, Ney Elias who was British Joint Commissioner in Ladakh raised objections. “ this very energetic officer’ , he wrote to the resident, who duely forwarded the letter to the Government of India, “wants the Maharaja to reoccupy Shahidulla in the Karakash valley ….I see indications of his preparing to carry it out, and, in my opinion, he should be restrained, or an awkward boundary question may be raised with the Chinese without any compensating advantage”. (italics mine to high light) In the circumstances, since Elias had represented to the Supreme Government, it was a relatively simple matter for him to ensure that the plans were dropped. He told the Wazir that he had reported against the scheme to the Resident, and pretty soon the subservient Wazir succumbed and assured him that he did not intend to implement it. Elias was also promptly meticulously backed up by the Government of India. A letter dated 1st September was sent to the officer on Special Duty (as the Resident was called before 1885) instructing him to take suitable opportunity of advising His Highness the Maharaja not to occupy Shahidulla”. Elias had already killed the proposal. Thus, the English after treacherously perniciously successfully preventing the reunification of Kashmir vis-à-vis the outpost in the Shahidulla area in Kashmir and the natural and historic border of Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range and beyond, by vehemently opposing it at a time when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their restive eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, rather than as much as supporting the endeavour much less aiding it, prevented the unification of Kashmir.

Thus, after successfully preventing the unification of Kashmir, when the Chinese encroached into Kashmir in 1892 and illegally placed an alleged boundary mark pillar deep in Kashmir along with a board which stated that “this board is under the sway of the Kakan, the Chinese Emperor, “the distance was taken from Shahidulla, which was the limit of Kashmir territory, Raja Sir Amar Singh in his letter of 2 November,” described this action as ‘a transgression of Khatais (Cathays ) over the Ladakh boundary. The Kashmir State has no intention of making any encroachment on foreign territory, but I hope you and the Government of India will enable (i.e. assist) it to maintain the territory already acquired and in its possession, and in that case, the unlawful aggression of the Khatais must be repelled , and the original boundary restoured”, which was a legitimate demand but the English did nothing of the sort and betrayed the Government of Kashmir. As a matter of fact, the English had surreptitiously illegally decided for the Kashmiris that “the Indus watershed should be considered as the boundary of the Kashmir territories to the north”, vide the instructions of the Government of India of 21 August 1890 stealthily sent to the Resident’s predecessor, Nisbet, and asked the Resident to convey this to the Durbar and the Joint Commissioners in Ladakh. But Nisbet had either deliberately or accidently done what deserved to be done with the instruction, either keep the instructions to himself or better still destroy it! The English were hand in glove with the Chinese in their occupation of the areas of Kashmir between the Kuen Lun range and the Karakoram.

The statement of John Lall author of “Aksaichin and Sino-Indian Conflict” at page 95 that , “Considering that the State’s officials abandoned Shahidulla as long ago as 1867, the raja’s assertion that it was in their possession was a flight of fancy”, is a misrepresentation and a lie that needs to be refuted. First, The State of Kashmir never abandoned the Shahidulla outpost commanding the Kilian and Kathaitham areas in northern Kashmir and the Kuenlun range in 1867. As late as in 1885, at a time when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the alien trans- Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir , beyond their eastern Turkistan dominion “and had literally washed their hands of it”, the Government of Kashmir prepared to unify Kashmir and the Wazir of Ladakh , Pandit Radha Kishen initiated steps to restore the out post of Shahidulla, but this legitimate act had been opposed slyly by the English who even if they did not support it, even if they did not aid it, could have at the least ignored the endeavour as none of their business to decide for the Kashmiris where the northern border of their state, was! And desisted from objecting to the endeavour.

The Chinese were given a carte blanche and an invitation to trespass into Kashmir by the act of the English in opposing the unification of Kashmir and conspiring with the Chinese, and once they got a foothold in Kashmir their imperialist designs were facilitated manifold giving result to all the present plethora of border troubles and facilitating the hostile anti-Indian cartographers like the notorious Times Atlas in their endeavour to go berserk in their experiments to draw various anti-Indian maps!

Unfortunately the Government of Kashmir succumbed to the English threats and intimidations in the year 1885 and did not implement the endeavour immediately but kept it pending and delayed it though the Government of Kashmir never ever forfeited the sovereignty of Kashmir over the Shahidulla out post area extending to Kilian and Kathaitham areas in Kashmir as was reiterated by Raja Sir Amar Singh in his aforesaid letter of 2 November.

So I reiterate that it is irrelevant and does it even matter at all whether the Government of “India” reiterates that Hindutash is part of Kashmir since there is no one to properly espouse the cause of Kashmir since the entire status of the state is allegedly disputed and there has not been a resolution of the issue of Kashmir yet, and insofar as the Government of Kashmir is concerned, the Government of Kashmir, as was reiterated by Raja Sir Amar Singh in his aforesaid letter of 2 November 1892 had made well known its stance that inter alia the Shahidulla out post area commanding the Kuen Lun range, wherein Hindutash is situate, was an inalienable part of Kashmir and nothing has changed till now and it was the same State of Kashmir whose territorial extant had been reiterated as late as 1892 which legally acceded to the rest of India and consequently the territorial extant of the state of Kashmir has been recorded in the Constitution of India and In India the Constitution of India is supreme and sacrosanct and not the corrupt and subservient Governments of India which come to power by hook or crook and the Constitution of India has to be amended to make any valid changes in the border of Kashmir.Hindutashravi (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)



Protection[edit]

I've semi-protected the page for the time being. It would be best if the disputants are known. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) One of the “disputants” is the Government of the Princely State of Kashmir prior to 1947 . This Government was the only Pan –Kashmir Government whose authority extended to the entire state, and the then Government of Kashmir reiterated time and again that the Kuen Lun range which includes Hindutash was in northern Kashmir. After 1947, as a result of the artificial and arbitrary partition of India, though the whole state acceded to the rest of India, northwestern Kashmir including Gilgit was occupied illegally by Pakistan and the northern parts of Kashmir including inter alia Hindutash ,Raskam, Kukalang and Dafdar, was occupied illegally by the Chinese holding eastern Turkistan.. When Kashmir acceded to the rest of India, the entire territory of the state of Kashmir including Hindutash became legally a part of India. However, since the status of the state of Kashmir is allegedly disputed, and the issue of Kashmir is yet to be resolved, there is no one to properly espouse the cause of Kashmir.

The other disputant is the Chinese illegally occupying Eastern Turkistan. The territorial extent of East Turkistan and how the then Pan-Kashmir Government reiterated that the Kuen Lun range was within the territory of Kashmir has been enumerated in the preceding messages, but alas!, you are selectively blind. Hindutashravi (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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”. The issue which is evident from the aforesaid report in The Times is that even in 1927, the Government of Kashmir was reiterating that the northern border of Kashmir was on the northern watershed of the Kuenlun ranges and beyond. The “Indian Government” meaning the English had no locus standi to decide for the people of India and in particular the people of Kashmir where the northern border of their state was. Hindutashravi (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


I'm not going to argue with you on this. It seems clear to me that the pass is properly in the territorial boundaries of China and that no one else seems to dispute this. Given that, to say that it is in Kashmir, even if your historical sources were not dubious, is just plain incorrect. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not the place to correct historical wrongs, perceived or real, or to 'espouse the cause' of this region or that. However, I did engage with you in the dispute (my mistake!) and so won't take any admin action on this. I'm going to request Fowler&fowler that he do whatever he thinks is correct. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the ice is breaking below your feet! Your “POV” statement “It seems clear to me that the pass is properly in the territorial boundaries of China” is not going to help you in any way. I have already explained and refuted your statement, “ ... and that no one else seems to dispute this.” The pre-1947 pan Kashmir Government time and again reiterated that the border of Kashmir was in the Kuenlun range and beyond, till the accession of the whole state to the rest of India . Which fact is unanimously corroborated by accounts of the political pandits of the relevant time like Ney Elias who was British Joint Commissioner in Ladakh, Younghusband and W.H. Johnson, and if according to you these sources are allegedly dubious, it is only because of your mindset and not because of any valid or logical reason. As a matter of fact, Ney Elias was notorious and rampantly anti Kashmir and called Kashmiris “greedy”. Even, he nevertheless insisted that the southern border of East Turkistan was along the northern foothills of the Kuen Lun range. It was Ney Elias who was responsible for the present border issue in the northern border of Kashmir in the Keun Lun range area in Kashmir. When Kashmir acceded to India, the territorial extent of Kashmir was recorded and enumerated in the Constitution of India, so as long as the Constitution of India is not amended, which will never happen, ipso facto, it can be inferred that the Government of India is reiterating that Hindutash is part of Kashmir. There is no need to “correct historical wrongs, perceived or real” since in the first place there has never been any border agreement with the Chinese holding East Turkistan so far, not even a subservient one at that under inter alia duress and coercion, and ultra vires the Constitution of India and ab initio null and void! It “seems” to you , but to me it does not seem and my version is corroborated with references provided. After you make your unilateral unsubstantiated statement, you continue with “Given that” as though every one is bound to automatically agree with your arbitrary and unsubstantiated and uncorroborated statements. Another thing, when you find it impossible to refute the evidence that I have provided, You have no business to go to a Talk Page of another article and make comments against me to serve the purpose of Fowler&fowler. It does not behove you. How unscrupulous can one be? It is my fate to painstakingly prepare detailed compilation of evidence to try to convince persons who already had a prejudiced mindset due to obvious reasons and were resolved to stick to their mindset come what may. Hindutashravi (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that this article be fully protected in the NPOV version that is currently there. I shall shortly be making the request on admin user:Saravask's talk page; however, if we don't hear from user:Saravask (he was on Wikileave earlier), I feel that admin RegentsPark is well within his rights to protect the page himself. I do not see any conflict of interest since he had no history in the creation of this page; he was only invited to weigh in. The protect can be long-term, since the page is quite stable. The Hindutagh pass itself is now a deserted area and there is little likelihood of much new history being created there. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've fully protected the page. The pass is in China. The location is not disputed anywhere other than on this page. Placing it in Kashmir makes no sense and is a mockery of the goals of wikipedia. Hindutashravi has been given ample opportunity to include his historical references in the main body of the article but has ignored all talk about doing that. Though I don't consider myself involved in the content itself, since I've weighed in on the article, I'm open to the page being unprotected by another admin. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 12:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You are just going out of you way to misuse your position as an administrator and abusing your Position as an Administrator. You have just been all along interfering at his behest, and obviously there is a well knit nexus, and a coterie that operates in Wikipedia to prevent the publication of a different version in certain articles. I will report you to the Wikipedia and ask for the removal of your name from the Wikipedia list of Administrators. I had already complained to User:Ragib against User:Fowler&fowler, and will again request protection of my NPOV edit of Hindutash. Misusing your position as an administrator to protect User:Fowler&fowler's POV version since both of you were unable to refute the references and corroborations provided, is just cowardly and despicable. What presently irked Fowler&fowler was the links that I provided connecting the quotations to the references, which he could not tolerate and digest! Hindutashravi (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the protection RegentsPark, while it's unfortunate that it is necessary,

I don't see any other sensible course of action. Hopefully in the future Hindutashravi will be open to ideas other than his/her own lonely ones.--Keithonearth (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Back to square one? Now that the article has been unprotected, and the NPOV version has been restoured, what I can suggest to User:Fowler&fowler: is that we can earnestly attempt to come to a consensus in a civilized and cultured manner.I have always been endeavouring to arrive at a consensus. As I stated long ago in my correspondence with --Regent's Park (Rose Garden), In a scenario where I reiterate that the Hindutash pass is part of Kashmir and the only thing that Fowler&fowler does is to state that the pass is allegedly in so called Xinjiang, a newly coined name which is detested by the East Turkistanis, the only consensus that can be arrived is to altogether abstain from any reference to the political location of Hindutash whatsoever,similar to the Article on Sanju Pass, and just state that the historic Pass is located in the Kuen Lun range on the edge of the Highlands of Kashmir, and that the entire northern border of Kashmir is disputed by the Chinese, but there has been no demarcation or delineation of the northern border of Kashmir[2] with eastern Turkistan, with out subverting the rest of the Article, and once User:Fowler&fowler does that , and it is something that he should do, not me, then we can coordinate and request for the protection of the article in a consensual manner.Hindutashravi (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The name "Hindutash" does not exist as a contemporary geographical term. It was an historical pass in Chinese Turkestan that was traversed sparingly in reality by some intrepid British, German, and Indian adventurers—and not-so-sparingly in the imagination by the reigning Maharajah of Kashmir—in the second half of the 19th century. Since 1949 it has not only been an integral part of the People's Republic of China, but also has not been disputed by any country, including India. If you want to wage an irredentist struggle in memory of the three or four Uyghur guides who lived in the environs of the pass in the late 19th century, and, in order to secure the full Bakshish from the bold adventurers, gave the impression that they were more upstanding citizens of the British Indian empire than of the Chinese, please consider inventing a Hindutash Call of duty video game and whiling away the hours in its solipsistic fear, flurry and frolic, perhaps even granting other kindred spirits the use of the same recreation at a reasonable purchase price. However, if you mess with reality, on Wikipedia, the page will likely be locked down again. Best regards and success in your virtual endeavors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You have not replied to my previous message just as you have not been replying to my previous messages in the entire Talk Page of Hindutash. How did you manage to make the Hindutash pass in Kashmir , "an integral part of the People's Republic of China since 1949"? Check the Constitution of Kashmir and the Constitution of India to know the territorial extent of Kashmir. Read the news report of the Times newspaper referred by me earlier, which I now reproduce.
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”. The issue which is evident from the aforesaid report in The Times is that even in 1927, the Government of Kashmir was reiterating that the northern border of Kashmir was on the northern watershed of the Kuenlun ranges and beyond. The “Indian Government” meaning the English had no locus standi to decide for the people of India and in particular the people of Kashmir where the northern border of their state was.
All my earlier messages give a fitting reply to your allegations. Your other statements are amusing and not worthy of my reply.
I remind you of your earlier unsubstantiated allegation, “…especially all the British maps from 1875 onwards, it the Karakorums that form the northern boundary and not the Kunlun mountains. So please stop asserting this outdated notion, especially when you don't seem to have any reliable references.”
Now go to this link and see for yourself how the notorious Times Atlas depicted the northern border of Kashmir on 1900[3] , and also post 1947. Don’t talk nonsense . For your kind information it was not “three or four Uyghur guides” who informed the English that the limits of East Turkistan was up to the northern Foothils of the Kuen Lun Rang but inter alia Chinese officials. You wanted “reliable references”, but when I provided them, you either disbelieve them or remain stay put in a denial mode for obvious reasons best known to you! You are not even going to reply to this message point by point. There is no point even corresponding with you! Hindutashravi (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, whatever, dude or dudette. Continue interfering with reality and see yourself banned from Wikipedia. That, in this global recession, would be nothing but an unwelcome bottom line to your Wikipedia investment . Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just look at his reply (if one can describe that a reply), I am vindicated! Hindutashravi (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanju Pass[edit]

Hindutashravi is attempting to wreak the same mischief on a new(ish) article Sanju Pass. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hindutashravi is a known irredentist vandal who has been waging a lonely battle on Wikipedia on behalf of two historical passes that today lie in Xinjiang, People's Republic of China. The latter nation's sovereignty over that region is disputed by no country (including all the countries of the region). The passes, moreover, are closed; they are no longer referred to by those names. I talked to someone who rode his motorcycle along the Karakash river highway and he said that he saw no signs for any passes, indeed, he saw no settlements, except for a truck stop of two. The Sanju Pass, in any case, lies some 70 miles north of Xaidulla (formerly Shahidulla), (lat:36.3 N; long: 78.02 E). See for examples the map: Map of W. H. Johnson that I uploaded on Wikipedia. Sanju is clearly outside by boundaries of Kashmir. Similarly none of the maps from Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicago, show the Sanju Pass in any of the various boundaries of the British Indian Empire. As you can see in section C, Xaidulla (lat:36.3 N; long: 78.02 E), which lies on the second sharp bend of the Karakash River is at best on the boundary of the most expansive of these historical maps. How can a pass, some 70 miles north of Xiadulla (Shahidula) lie anywhere but in Chinese Turkestan? The maps in section D are even more conservative, the entire stretch of the Karakash river between Sumpal and Xaidulla lies outside the boundaries of these maps. Only one of the dozen maps in C and D, the Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir; the later Times Atlas Map doesn't. It is time for sane editors on Wikipedia to put an end to Hindutashravi's obsessive edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
If “the latter nation's sovereignty over that region is disputed by no country (including all the countries of the region)”, why were the numerous cartographers depicting the border of Kashmir in a manner showing even those areas which were allegedly not part of Kashmir as per the Government of India’s maps published after 1947, when the state of Kashmir acceded to the Dominion of India “in its entirety[4]”? Let user:Fowler&fowler reply to this pertinent question. The answer is that the territorial extent of Kashmir is the territorial extent of Kashmir when she acceded to the rest of India in 1947, and the same has been enumerated both in the Constitution of Kashmir and the Constitution of India. (Kindly refer to my narrations in both the Hindutash and Kashmir Talk Page) It can be seen in the news report of the Times dated March 6, 1963 that the Government of Kashmir recognised the Kuen Lun range and beyond as the northern border of 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”. The issue which is evident from the aforesaid report in The Times is that even in 1927, the Government of Kashmir was reiterating that the northern border of Kashmir was on the northern watershed of the Kuenlun ranges and beyond. The “Indian Government” meaning the English had no locus standi to decide for the people of India and in particular the people of Kashmir where the northern border of their state was.
It is in consonance with this issue that the various cartographers were even after 1947 after Kashmir acceded to the rest of India, rightly did not give credence to the maps published by the Government of India after 1954 since there had never been an actual demarcation and delineation of the northern border of Kashmir in the Kuen Lun region of Kashmir. So on what basis does he say, “two historical passes that today lie in Xinjiang, People's Republic of China. The latter nation's sovereignty over that region is disputed by no country (including all the countries of the region)….”? It is his prejudiced Original Research . What if, “The Sanju Pass, in any case, lies some 70 miles north of…. Shahidulla”, it is situate on the Kuen Lun range which was recognised by the only Pan-Kashmir Government of Kashmir as the northern border of Kashmir. Refer to the Constitution of Kashmir and the reiteration of the Government of Kashmir before 1947. Now let me come to her/ his reference to the map of W. H. Johnson. Let him rely on the findings of W.H.Johnson which I have meticulously incorporated in the Article on Hindutash. W.H.Johnson rightly regarded the entire Kara Kash River to be an integral part of Kashmir and he regarded Bringja and Yangi Langar as the border of East Turkistan. How does he say as per the depiction in the W.H.Johnson map, allegedly “Sanju is clearly outside by boundaries of Kashmir”. A perusal of the map would show that from the Hindutash pass in Kashmir (even according to the W.H. Johnson map ), the border is depicted running north to what appears to be spelt “Walagot Pass”. Obviously this name is an alternate name of Sanju Pass! Besides, the head waters of the Sanju River is clearly depicted as originating near this “Walagot Pass”. So I have no doubt that the “Walagot Pass” or Wologot pass is Sanju Pass. This seems to be another faux pas of user:Fowler&fowler ! He has obviously seen the town of Sanju certainly depicted as not part of Kashmir and confused it with the Sanju mountain pass in the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir! user:Fowler&fowler is a person who clearly is writing about subject about which he is absolutely ignorant! But as I stated earlier, it is the findings of Johnson that are more relevant than the map itself, which does not even reflect the true findings pertaining to the survey of W.H.Johnson which were obviously compromised. Colonel Walker who was the Surveyor General in 1867 “insisted that the map as published was far different from Johnson’s Original”! user:Fowler&fowler has no use of the findings of W.H.Johnson and chooses to totally ignore it and now relies on the map. The Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicago, was actually first referred by me to refute one of his old POV statements that, “especially all the British maps from 1875 onwards, it the Karakorums that form the northern boundary and not the Kunlun mountains. So please stop asserting this outdated notion, especially when you don't seem to have any reliable references.” He did not apologise for his evident misrepresentation and confess for his nefarious act. As stated by me earlier, the cartographers were going berserk depicting borders only in accordance with their whims and fancies and with out consistency. I will explain the same by referring to the conduct of the the notorious Times Atlas which user:Fowler&fowler refers. Atleast now, I got it from the mouth or the pen of user:Fowler&fowler that the “Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”. The 1900 map of Kashmir published by the Times “shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”. But the rest of the border of Kashmir i.e. the northwestern border of Kashmir is not depicted on the Kuen Lun range for reasons best known to them but arbitrarily jumps from the Kuen Lun range to the Raskam river and the Khunjerab Pass! But in the Post 1947 map of Kashmir published in the year 1959, the depiction is a total reverse. Now, more or less in the north west section of the northern border of Kashmir, the border is depicted more or less on the crests of the Kuen lun range on the Kukalang Pass in Kashmir, mind you, deliberately not giving credence to the maps published by the Government of India after 1947, but when it comes to the northeastern part of Kashmir, the notorious Times Atlas has not depicted the Hindutash pass as part of Kashmir! How can one explain such conduct? On what basis, legal or otherwise? Did they get new information to depict the Kuen Lun range as part of Kashmir in the northwest part of the northern border of Kashmir in 1959 which information they did not have in the year 1900, and conversely did they get new information to abstain from depicting Hindutash pass as part of Kashmir which information they did not have on 1900 at their disposal ? The answer is that they were all along going amok berserk in a frenzy depicting the northern border of Kashmir arbitrarily in accordance with their perverted whims and fancies and with out consistency! May be the powers that be from the Times Atlas will explain the same to me!
Here is a list of some of the other faux pas of user:Fowler&fowler.
1. According to him, Aksai Chin is allegedly south of the Kuen lun and has nothing to do with the range. But even the most conservative prejudiced depiction depicts the Yangi Dawan pass in the Kuen Lun range as part of Aksai Chin.
2. According to him, Haji Langar is allegedly not part of Aksai Chin but even the most conservative prejudiced depiction depicts Haji Langar as part of Aksai Chin.
3. According to him “It is the southern and eastern part that has more Tibetan influence (see, for example, the place names in the sixth map in Trotter's paper that I added to the Hindutash article , or the W. J. Johnson's map that I also added to the Hindutash article); however, it is also the southern and eastern part that is uninhabited” there is hardly any influence of the Ladakhi and Tibetan language in northern Aksai Chin and almost all the place names are of Uighur origin. This is also false. For instance, Sumgal, Sumnal, Palong Karpo all in northern Aksai Chin and Thaldat,Nischu, Sumna, Sumdo in the length and breadth of Aksai Chin are all place names in Aksai Chin of Ladakhi or Tibetan origin to the best of my knowledge. According to him, “indeed, he saw no settlements, except for a truck stop of two”…. “but earlier accounts record the presence of Shi'a Muslim Uyghur-speaking nomads in the northern part of Aksai Chin”. These nomads were obviously the Kherghiz nomads referred by W.H. Johnson as the Khergiz robbers and the Khergiz have their own language which is obviously not Uyghur, But user:Fowler&fowler insists that Uyghur is a spoken language in Aksai Chin!
It is time for sane editors on Wikipedia to put an end to user:Fowler&fowler's prejudiced Original Research edits! Hindutashravi (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Synthesis occurs when you take a number of disparate pieces of information and construct a story of your choosing from that. Please note that in wikipedia we report stories that are constructed by respectable scholars and are reported in reliable sources. If it takes you 1500 words to make the case that the general area near the pass was once said by someone to be in Kashmir and therefore it is in Kashmir, you really should submit this to a peer reviewed journal. Wikipedia will gladly then include the material in the article, properly referencing your paper. In the meantime, you are in danger of being blocked from editing wikipedia, which I will do if a few more editors present evidence of tendentious editing on other articles. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That message was for user:Fowler&fowler . Don’t think that by answering to my message to him wherein he has been thoroughly exposed, you can protect him and absolve him from his liability to reply to my message point by point. If you want to reply, there are plenty of my messages to you in the Talk page still awaiting a reply even now! You can continue to do your accomplice a favour by reverting to his POV version, but if you again go so far as misusing your privileges as an administrator, it will be at your peril. Aren’t you people ashamed? Look, how I have meticulously replied to the allegations of user:Fowler&fowler point by point. You can compare it with the sort of “replies” you both have always given always evading from answering to my specific queries. After Hindutash was listed as a place in Kashmir in the Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak as early as in 1890, and the map pertaining to the survey of W.H. Johnson, We have the confession of user:Fowler&fowler that the “Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”. If you for obvious reasons best known to yourself consider them and the plethora of corroboratory evidence provided “a number of disparate pieces of information”, it is only your Original Research! From what you are saying, “The “Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir” only on the basis of “a number of disparate pieces of information”and the Times Atlas is not a reliable source! I once again repeat it is for user:Fowler&fowler to reply to my message to him.. Don’t attempt to protect him by burying my message to him! Hindutashravi (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning to User:RegentsPark[edit]

User:RegentsPark is warned not to again misuse his privileges as an Administrator and abuse his position as an Administrator. He should rather himself respond positively to my endeavour for consensus and should be encouraging others to respond to my endeavour for consensus. As already stated by me, I have no faith in him and I will be requesting Wikipedia to arbitrate on the issue that my reversion is allegedly POV, and what aspects of the article on Hindutash[5] are allegedly POV. I will do that myself and User:RegentsPark need not interfere in that and poke his nose. If User:RegentsPark again resorts to his dirty tricks and foul play, it will be at his peril! Hindutashravi (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to settle this silly dispute now[edit]

Whew! This pass (and others near it) seem to be the battleground of a modern edit war (I have just been doing some work on the nearby Sanju Pass - please see the references and information I have added there). Now, while India (Kashmir) may have had a rather tenuous claim (and one disputed by the Chinese) at some point in the 19th century when Chinese control was weak due to uprisings in Xinjiang or Chinese Turkestan, the Chinese have held it ever since the late 19th century both by claim, and in fact. They completed their reconquest of Xinjiang in 1878. Additionally, the region of these passes is well north of any claims that are made by either Pakistan or India and so must, by any fair standard, be considered part of China. Please, let us not go on any further making claims for territory which is not in dispute between India, Pakistan or China - there are plenty enough real disputes to settle without adding another one. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply and suggestion to User:John Hill[edit]

To User:John Hill First of all, let me thank you for retaining the information that I added in the article on Sanju Pass. Your action is refreshingly different from the modus operandi of Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler who have been reverting my edit in toto and spurning my endeavour for arriving at a consensus, or the conduct of User:Rayshade in making the sweeping statement, “rv vandalism, removed previously 25 June 2009” as though my edits amount to vandalism. The fact that he has not refuted my message to him in the Sanju pass discussion Page Talk:Sanju Pass compounded with the fact that after you did not delete the information that I added to the article, he has also in his edit dated 25 July 2009 with the edit summary (The present situation: Typo fix) not deleted the information that I added which he had earlier termed as “Vandalism” , ipso facto suffices to prove that he has unscrupulously and recklessly made sweeping unwarranted allegations against me and that he owes me an apology. Do you agree that he owes me an apology? I have been prevented from corresponding with you because of the unjust block that was imposed by me by User:RegentsPark and his coterie.

Now coming to your edits of the Sanju Pass article and Hindutash, I regret that you have reverted my whole edit of the Hindutash[6] in toto with out retaining any of the the information that I added; which contradicts the manner you dealt with the article on the Sanju Pass. Certainly not a way to “try to settle this silly dispute now”.

Now further Coming to you edit of the Sanju Pass , Your statements that , “Since the reconquest of the whole region by China in 1878, it has been considered part of Sinkiang (Xinjiang) Province and has remained so ever since”, or “while India (Kashmir) may have had a rather tenuous claim (and one disputed by the Chinese) at some point in the 19th century when Chinese control was weak due to uprisings in Xinjiang or Chinese Turkestan” or “Additionally, the region of these passes is well north of any claims that are made by either Pakistan or India” , cannot be any thing but your point of view. While the Chinese holding the restive state of East Turkistan by sheer means of brute Military force has been in de facto control of East Turkistan and adjacent areas of Kashmir in the Kuen Lun area including inter alia Sanju La and Hindutash parvat, the area continues to be de jure a part of Kashmir. Chinese control of East Turkistan had been always been resisted by the East Turkistani nationals simply because the Chinese had absolutely no valid claim over East Turkistan and its authority over East Turkistan was simply that of an occupier. When Kashmir acceded to the new dominion of India in its entirety , Kashmir admittedly had a territorial extent. That territorial extent has been explicitly described in both the Constitution of India and the Constitution of Kashmir ( in that respect, luckily Kashmir has a Constitution) . Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir states, “The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State" , and what constitutes the territory of Kashmir is stipulated in the Constitution of India. The territorial extent of the State of Kashmir is as stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India, read with Article 1 of the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads “The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”. The Legal position is that the territorial extent by no means can be legally altered with out amending the Constitution of India and the Constitution of Kashmir, and that is irrespective of the fact that the present Government of India allegedly or purportedly does not claim Hindutash and Sanju. More over, there has never been any border agreement, even one which is ab initio illegal and null and void, under duress and coercion, ceding an area of Kashmir to the Chinese and demarcating or delineating the northern border of Kashmir. As stated by Emma Nicholson, in her letter dated 22, May 2007 to the Ambassador, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the European Union the accession of the princely state of Kashmir to the new Dominion of India” on October 26, 1947 was “in its entirety[7]" The report on Kashmir of Baroness Emma Nicholson, as a matter of fact inter alia relies on an official 1909 map of Kashmir which inter alia depicts the Taghdumbash Pamir in Kanjut as Part of Kashmir as well as the correspondence of the Maharaja of Kashmir dated October 26 , 1947 with Lord Mountbatten , Governor General of India which states that the state of Kashmir has a common boundary with the “Soviet Republic”, to determine the fact that inter alia Gilgit and Kanjut (which includes the Raskam , Hunza valley and Taghdumbash) are integral parts of Kashmir, and does not rely on the post 1954 maps published by the Survey of India at the behest of Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru had also made a similar statement[8] that "as you are aware, run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and 'China'". Apropos your statement that, “while India (Kashmir) may have had a rather tenuous claim (and one disputed by the Chinese) at some point in the 19th century when Chinese control was weak due to uprisings in Xinjiang or Chinese Turkestan”, I would like to inform you that by no stretch of imagination was Kashmir’s “claim” over the Kuen lun range on the edge of the highlands of Kashmir, “tenuous”, simply because inter alia the area in question was part of the highlands of Kashmir, and there was simply no disputants at all till a disputant was artificially inducted at the end of the 19th century by the English only to serve their perverted purpose. In the words of Dorothy Woodman author of Himalayan Frontiers Pg.55 and 56, published inter alia by London Barrie and Rockliff The Cresset Press 1969, “The simple fact was the inaccessible and practicably uninhabited area between the Karakoram and Kuenlun ranges was of interest to the (English colonial )Indian Government only in terms of the Russian threat.” And that the alleged so-called “no man’s land” under the control of the Chinese was useful, in the words of Lansdowne, “to us as an obstacle to Russian advance along this line”. So when Chinese control over East Turkistan seemed to be on the verge of very eminent and inevitable collapse, it suited the English geostrategists to talk of the so called “Ardagh Line” as though the so- called “Ardagh Line” was an artificial and invented concept, ignoring the fact that there was plethora of evidence and no dearth in the availability of evidence that the Kuen lun area had always been part of the principalities in the highlands of Kashmir notably Kanjut and Ladakh. Their (the Chinese ) 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". 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 wherein the Hindutash pass is situate. So lets be very clear about that. I hope that you can understand the English language when you read! My statements are supported by verifiability and corroborative evidence, so if you insist on stating that “India (Kashmir) may have had a rather tenuous claim (and one disputed by the Chinese) at some point in the 19th century”, you will necessarily have to adduce verifiable evidence and corroborative evidence, or concede that you were wrong and I am right, which I hope you will have the dignity to gracefully do. Right?

Apropos your statement, “let us not go on any further making claims for territory which is not in dispute between India, Pakistan or China” just what do you mean by “us”. This is an issue concerning the territorial integrity of India in particular Kashmir. Europeans or people residing further west have no locus standi to decide where the frontiers of India will be! Just why should India give away her territory to the Chinese who do not even share an International border with India. They have crossed their true and natural border along the Great Wall of China and occupied all the adjoining alien and foreign territories including Tibet and East Turkistan with out an iota of authority or using just brute military force[[9]]. Historically South Asia or the Sub-continent of India was India and China was in distant East Asia and were never neighbours, but now India is not the whole of the Sub-continent of India, and the Chinese have trespassed and encroached into Central Asia and Tibet with out an iota of right using brute military power.

Apropos your statement about the so-called “19th century Kashmiri claim” , the so called “19th century” “claim” continued unabated even after the nineteenth century, after the accession of Kashmir in its entirety. After Hindutash was listed as a place in Kashmir in the Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak as early as in 1890, we have the confession of user:Fowler&fowler that the “renowned” “ Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”. This depiction by the Times Atlas in the year 1900 is significant in view of the fact that it is very recent in the light of the fact that the accession of the princely state of Kashmir to the new Dominion of India” was on October 26, 1947 “in its entirety” and more over subsequently, there has never been any border agreement, even one which is ab initio illegal and null and void, under duress and coercion, ceding an area of Kashmir to the Chinese and demarcating or delineating the northern border of Kashmir. A perusal of Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicago, would confirm that the so called so-called “19th century Kashmiri” “claim” was recognised by western cartographers even in the 20th Century and they deliberately chose not to give any credence to the maps arbitrarily and illegally published by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1954[10]. so your statement is simply just not true! I remind you of your reply, “However, I totally agree with your position that it is best in disputes like this to leave the matter open - an encyclopedia article is not a good place to try to settle nationalist arguments. I have wasted many, many hours trying to argue such matters over claimed historically-based Chinese rights to Tibet and Xinjiang”.

So I suggest that you do a work in the Hindutash article similar to the work done in the Sanju Pass article which I will be editing myself in due course, with out reverting my edit in toto so that I am not also constrained to revert in toto and we can arrive at a consensus. Please peruse my statements on the modalities for a consensus made here earlier, which were spurned by Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler, which still subsist.But, I will not succumb to their intimidations! Hope you will respond positively.Hindutashravi (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Hi! First of all, I don't want you to think I am trying to promote either China's or India's present perceived interests, or the right of either country to lay claim to these regions (or the right of other contenders - such as the Uighurs, Kazakhs, etc). They have always been borderlands ripe to be argued over, depending on the see-sawing fortunes of the powers and peoples in these regions. What ever the rights and wrongs, ins and outs, legal agreements, diplomatic agreements or disagreements, legalities, ownership of land and resources, etc., the Chinese have been active, off and on, and to a greater or lesser degree, in these mountains for over two thousand years. Since at least the late 1st century CE these mountain regions fell under Chinese control (after taking them over from the Xiongnu), but they didn't control them for long. Now, over the past 2,000 years India in the wider sense (including Kashmir) has only made a very brief, tenuous and contended claim over the region with only a minimal degree of control or military presence. I could go on and on arguing with you about the more recent history but I feel I could never convince you. Also, I am going to be too busy in the weeks ahead to spend much time on it as my first book on the early development of the "Silk Routes" in the 1st-2nd centuries CE (based on 30 years of research which I began in India in 1979) is due to be published within a couple of weeks (Advertisement: Its short title is Through the Jade Gate to Rome and should be available through Amazon.com and a range of other companies within 2 weeks. Retail price in the U.S. is, apparently, going to be US $39.99) - I am going to have to email hundreds if not thousands of people, libraries and bookstores.

So, please may I ask you to please write these articles up in as accurate, fair and neutral a manner as possible? Heavily supporting one side at the expense of the other may only add to tensions that are already increasing very uncomfortable international situation between these two countries (think of the tense situation at the moment around Tawang). Accuracy and balance could make these really excellent contributions to the Wikipedia - and who knows the good that could come from this? (This note was written by myself on 22 October 2009 - I apologise for forgetting to sign it at that time. John Hill (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC))