Talk:Aksai Chin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Indian name

Do we have the Hindu or whatever language they speak there name for Aksai Chin?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC

Hindu has nothing to do with Ladakh, yes they speak Ladakhi and they have a name for Askai Chin. Traditionally the eldest son of Ladhakhi family was sent to mine salt in Askai Chin.


The Ladakhi name is Soda as mentioned in the article. Aksai Chin is a recent construct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] not possible

"Tianshuihai, the only sizeable town in the region, with about 1600 inhabitants."
I drove the 219 by bicycle - Tianshuihai is far away from a town, there are just a few military houses in the middle of nowhere.

Uyghir is not spoken in Aksai chin as it doesnot have and never had any permanent settlements. The traditional boundary between Rajas of Shigar, Ladakh and the Uyghuir ran along Yarkand and Karakash rivers. China later on disputed this boundary. Also, attempts have been made by the Chinese in the past decades to populate the area with Uyghuir and Han Chinese to negate any claim from India or Jammu and Kashmir. The only population as of now is that of Chinese military. The area is extremely inhospitable.

[edit] POV

 -This article is biased towards china owning Aksai Chin. Some measure must be made to make it less POV.

[edit] Article

This article doesn't explain particularly well what basis there is to the Indian claim. Refer to the Arunachal Pradesh article for example for an article which IMHO far better explains the nature of the disputing claims Nil Einne 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


The following is the treaty on boundary between Tibet and India signed by British India and Tibet in 1904 when China wasn't even in the picture. China obviously refuses to recognize every single treaty ever signed by Tibet.

Treaties and Conventions Relating to Tibet

Convention Between Great Britain and Thibet (1904) [385]

CONVENTION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THIBET

Signed at Lhasa, 7 September, 1904

Whereas doubts and difficulties have arisen as to the meaning and validity of the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1890, and the Trade Regulations of 1893, and as to the liabilities of the Thibetan Government under these Agreements; and whereas recent occurrences have tended towards a disturbance of the relations of friendship and good understanding which have existed between the British Government and the Government of Thibet; and whereas it is desirable to restore peace and amicable relations, and to resolve and determine the doubts and difficulties as aforesaid, the said Governments have resolved to conclude a Convention with these objects, and the following Articles have been agreed upon by Colonel F.E. Young�husband, C.I.E., in virtue of full powers vested in him by His Britannic Majesty's Government and on behalf of that said Government, and Lo�Sang Gyal-Tsen, the Ga-den Ti-Rimpoche, and the Representatives of the Council of the three monasteries, Sera, Dre-pung, and Ga-den, and of the ecclesiastical and lay officials of the National Assembly on behalf of the Government of Thibet.

I. The Government of Thibet engages to respect the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1890 and to recognize the frontier between Sikkim and Thibet, as defined in Article I of the said Convention, and to erect boundary pillars accordingly.

II. The Thibetan Government undertakes to open forthwith trade marts to which all British and Thibetan subjects shall have free right of access at Gyangtse and Gartok, as well as at Yatung.

The Regulations applicable to the trade mart at Yatung, under the Anglo-�Chinese Agreement of 1893, shag, subject to such amendments as may hereafter be agreed upon by common consent between the British and Thibetan Governments, apply to the marts above mentioned.

In addition to establishing trade marts at the places mentioned, the Thibetan Government undertakes to place no restrictions on the trade by existing routes, and to consider the question of establishing fresh trade marts under similar conditions if development of trade requires it.

III. The question of the amendment of the Regulations of 1893 is reserved for separate consideration, and the Thibetan Government undertakes to appoint fully authorized Delegates to negotiate with the Representatives of the British Government as to the details of the amendments required.

IV. The Thibetan Government undertakes to levy no dues of any kind other than those provided for in the tariff to be mutually agreed upon.

V. The Thibetan Government undertakes to keep the roads to Gyangtse and Gartok from the frontier clear of all obstruction and in a state of repair suited to the needs of the trade, and to establish at Yatung, Gyangtse, and Gartok, and at each of the other trade marts that may hereafter be established, a Thibetan Agent, who shall receive from the British Agent appointed to watch over British trade at the marts in question any letter which the latter may desire to send to the Thibetan or to the Chinese authorities. The Thibetan Agent shall also be responsible for the due delivery of such communications and for the transmission of replies.

VI. As an indemnity to the British Government for the expense incurred in the dispatch of armed troops to Lhasa, to exact reparation for breaches of Treaty obligations and for the insults offered to and attacks upon the British Commissioner and his following and escort, the Thibetan Government engages to pay a sum of 500,0001.--equivalent to 75 lakhs of rupees--to the British Government.

The indemnity shall be payable at such places as the British Government may from time to time, after due notice, indicate, whether in Thibet or in the British districts of Darjeeling or Jalpaiguri, in seventy-five annual installments of 1Êlakh of rupees each, on the 1st January in each year, beginning from the 1st January, 1906.

VII. As security for the payment of the above-mentioned indemnity and for the fulfillment of the provisions relative to trade marts specified in ArticlesÊU, III, IV andÊV, the British Government shall continue to occupy the Chumbi Valley until the indemnity has been paid, and until the trade marts have been effectively opened for three years, whichever date may be the later.

VIII. The Thibetan Government agrees to raze all forts and fortifications and remove all armaments which might impede the course of free com�munication between the British frontier and the towns of Gyangtse and Lhassa.

IX. The Government of Thibet engages that, without the previous consent of the British Government.

a. No portion of Thibetan territory shall be ceded, sold, leased, mortgaged or otherwise given for occupation, to any foreign Power;

b. No such Power shall be permitted to intervene in Thibetan affairs;

c. No Representatives or Agents of any foreign Power shall be admitted to Thibet;

d. No concessions for railways, roads, telegraphs, mining or other rights, shall be granted to any foreign Power, or the subject of any foreign Power. In the event of consent to such concessions being granted, similar or equivalent concessions shall be granted to the British Government;

e. No Thibetan revenues, whether in kind or in cash, shall be pledged or assigned to any foreign Power, or to the subject of any foreign Power.

X. In witness whereof the negotiators have signed the same, and affixed thereunto the seals of their arms.

Done in quintuplicate at Lhassa, this 7th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1904, corresponding with the Thibetan date, the 27th of the 7th month of the Wood Dragon year.


(Seal of Dalai Lama, affixed by the Ga-den Ti-Rimpoche)

(Seal of Thibet Frontier Commission)

(Seal of British Commissioner)

(Seal of Council)

(Seal of the Dre-pung Monastery)

(Seal of Se-ra Monastery)

(Seal of Ga-den Monastery)

(Seal of National Assembly)

F.E. Younghusband, Colonel,

British Commissioner


In proceeding to the signature of the Convention, dated this day, the Representatives of Great Britain and Thibet declare that the English text shall be binding.

(Seal of Dalai Lama, affixed by the Ga-den Ti-Rimpoche)

(Seal of Thibet Frontier Commission)

(Seal of British Commissioner)

(Seal of Council)

(Seal of Dre-pung Monastery)

(Seal of Se-ra Monastery)

(Seal of Ga-den Monastery)

(Seal of National Assembly)

F.E. Younghusband, Colonel,

British Commissioner


Ampthill,

Viceroy and Governor-General of India


This Convention was ratified by the Viceroy and Governor-General of India in Council at Simla on the llth day of November, A.D. 1904.

S.M. Fraser

Secretary to the Government of India

(Foreign Department)

Declaration Signed by his Excellency the Viceroy

and Governor-General of India on the 11 November, 1904,

and Appended to the Ratified Convention

of 7 September, 1904


His Excellency the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, having ratified the Convention which was concluded at Lhassa on 7th September, 1904, by Colonel Younghusband, C.I.E., British Commissioner for Thibet Frontier Matters, on behalf of His Britannic Majesty's Government; and by Lo-Sang Gyal-Tsen, the Ga-den Ti-Rimpoche, and the Representatives of the Council, of the three Monasteries Sera, Dre,pung, and Ga-den, and of the ecclesiastical and lay officials of the National Assembly, on behalf of the Government of Thibet, is pleased to direct as an act of grace that the sum of money which the Thibetan Government have bound themselves under the terms of Article VI of the said Convention to pay to His Majesty's Government as an indemnity for the expenses incurred by the latter in connection with the dispatch of armed forces to Lhassa be reduced from 75,00,000 rupees to 25,00,000 rupees; and to declare that the British occupation of the Chumbi valley shall cease after the due payment of three annual installments of the said indemnity as fixed by the said Article: Provided, however, that the trade marts as stipulated in Article ][p.I of the Convention shall have been effectively opened for three years as provided in Article VI of the Convention; and that, in the meantime, the Thibetans shall have faithfully complied with the terms of the said Convention in all other respects.


Ampthill,

Viceroy and Governor-General of India


Notes

1. Source for 7 September document: B.F.S.P., 1904-1905, Vol.Ê98, pp. 148-151.

2. (Source for 11 November document: Crown-copyright document, FO 405/179, Confidential Memorandum Respecting Negotiations for Regulations for Trade between India and Thibet, 31 December 1907, Appendix I. Crown-copyright documents in the India Office Records and the Public Record Office reproduced and/or transcribed in this publication appear by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Reproduced from M. C. van Walt van Praag's Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law. With permission of the author. March 21, 2007

[edit] Minor edits

I've tried adding a little to the article given my understanding of the area (I was in Ladakh in 2005, also Xinjiang 2006), including a quick line on Pakistan's claim to the area - Beefy_SAFC. 12:40, 3rd July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan section needs rewrite

http://www.boundaries.com/India.htm

[edit] What is the basis for making this statement

"Any settlement seems likely to include a possible land swap involving parts of of the also disputed Arunachal Pradesh,known in China as South Tibet". User:Leotolstoy

You are right, this is based on pure speculation and I will remove it. -- ran (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Karan Singh The would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir

Hi Deepak please dont remove Karan Singh from Jammu & Kashmir, he is the would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir, please check history. His father was king he stepped down from throne and he acceded to India like so many Royals did from all the Princly States.

Thanks

08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Atulsnischal

Hi Deepak,

What politician are you talking about, he is the KING of all Jammu & Kashmir for gods sake. Please check the history of the state.

Atulsnischal 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dr Karan Singh The would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir

So you mean to say Karan Singh is the would be Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir?! Nevermind, the very purpose of the See also section is to provide links to readers to articles on other topics related to the concerned topic. I just don't understand why would a person who would like to gain some information regarding J&K will go to an article on Karan Singh? Besides, so what if he belongs to a royal family? --Incman|वार्ता 08:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha.. KING of Jammu and Kashmir.. the last thing I want to know is that India is a monarchy. LOL! --Incman|वार्ता 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak

Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state.

Thats all, I was just thinking the best for the people of J&K, I am not here to fight with you, please rethink and revert

Best wishes

Atulsnischal 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I know that Mr. Karan Singh has a great personality and is a good man but you have to understand the rules of Wikipedia. Adding a link to Karan Singh defeats the very purpose of the See also section and would result in a decline of Wikipedia's overall credibility. I hope you understand the problem and I would like to express my apologies for my earlier argumentative tone. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 09:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, at the same time you must realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore not the right mean for all this. --Incman|वार्ता 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Atulsnischal, if you continue with your stubborn attitude, I will have to take up the matter to a Wikipedia administrator or Arbcom. --Incman|वार्ता 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak

You seem to be obssed with the Jammu and Kashmir article on Wikipedia, anybody can make it out, you have got stuck and are going on and on about it, you dont respect other peoples viws too, as for me I think there should be a link to Dr Karan Singh's article here, which was just a stub, so I was trying to develop it, thats all, you are playing politics over the whole issue, please think with informational and historical point of view.....

I have also copyed this discussion with you in the Jammu and Kashmir as well as Dr Karan Singh's discussion page, just for the record that Dr Karan Singh article was discussed, as it is a legitimate discussion.

If you get time later please help in developing Dr Karan Singh's article on Wikipedia too.

Just for info only as you seem interested: Latest News on Kashmir topic today: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss

Thanks Cheers

Atulsnischal 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am obsessed with the article on J&K. As a matter of fact, a good chunk of that article is written by me (including the History section). And before calling me inconsiderate, look at yourself! Have you analyzed my arguments above in a logical way? You say: "Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state." Hello! This is an encyclopedia. Not a propaganda website. Anyways, I find this discussion a waste of time and unintellectual. So I won't take part in it anymore as I have better things to do. --Incman|वार्ता 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] December 2006: Latest comments of Pakistan over Kashmir “The Kashmir puzzle”

"The Kashmir puzzle"

THE HINDU

Online edition of India's National Newspaper

Thursday, Dec 14, 2006

Opinion - Letters to the Editor


This refers to the editorial "Clues to Kashmir peace puzzle" (Dec. 13). Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam's statement that her country has never claimed Kashmir as an integral part of its territory is a pleasant surprise. She has buttressed her assertion, saying Pakistan-held Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. It is clear that there is a paradigm shift in Pakistan's stand on Kashmir. If it indeed has no territorial design in Kashmir, it should leave the issue to the Kashmiris and stop fighting on their behalf. K.V. Seetharamaiah, Hassan


Ms. Aslam's remarks vindicate New Delhi's stand that Kashmir is an integral part of India. One feels that the latest statements by President Pervez Musharraf and his Government are effective catalysts for a change. K.S. Thampi, Chennai


By stating openly that it has never claimed Kashmir as its integral part, Pakistan has only reiterated the legal position. The Indian Independence Act 1947 gave the princely states the right to choose between India and Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir became an irrevocable part of India once Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession to India. It is an open secret that Pakistan's relations with India have been closely linked to its fixation on Kashmir. When all is said and done, Pakistan's latest statement is welcome, as it is likely to take the neighbours closer to solving the peace puzzle. A. Paramesham, New Delhi


A week ago, Gen. Musharraf said Pakistan was willing to give up its claim to Kashmir if India accepted his "four-point solution." Why should he offer to give up the claim over something his country never claimed in the first place, using a non-existent thing to negotiate? "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion) S.P. Sundaram, Chennai

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss


Now that Gen. Musharraf has clarified Pakistan's stand on Kashmir, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should seize the opportunity to settle the issue once and for all. The BJP should not be a stumbling block to the negotiations. M.N. Srinivasan, Vellore


Statements emanating from Pakistan are intended to pressure India in two ways. While they will invoke the wrath of those who favour self-rule for Kashmir, India will be forced to negotiate the Kashmir issue more seriously on bilateral and multilateral forums. The Government should respond with a strong message. Rajeev Ranjan Dwivedi, Dhenkanal, Orissa


Pakistan's latest statement is superficial and bears no significance. It should not be seen as a shift in its Kashmir policy. It is an attempt to mislead the world until the tide turns in Gen. Musharraf's favour. With India set to sign a nuclear deal with the U.S., Pakistan wants to gain some ground and win credibility in American circles. Had Gen. Musharraf really believed that the people of Kashmir should decide their fate, he would have ended cross-border terror by now. Shashikant Singh, Roorkee

Source: The Hindu Date:14/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/14/stories/2006121404131000.htm

Atulsnischal 12:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Events??

The entire current events section seems to be a joke. It refers to a region which is no where near Aksai Chin (check the maps.google link in the section). This section should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sssubhash (talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

It's a model of the area, so obviously it isn't in the Aksai Chin itself. –EdC 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)