Friday, December 31, 2010

McMahon Line is only an interim line

The crux of the issue regarding the McMahon line is that it was not demarcated on the crests of the Himalayas on the watershed separating the Arunachal Himalaya from the Tibetan Plateau.    
     Before  the Chinese endeavour to annex the Assam Himalaya which is not even geographically a part of the Tibetan Plateau, the Chinese occupiers of Tibet  should integrate North West Tibet comprising the area in northwestern Tibet  between the Altyn Tagh Range and the Kuen Lun Range as well as North East Tibet comprising the Amdo area in northeastern Tibet as well as the area in East Tibet comprising the Kham region in eastern Tibet extending till Mount Minyak Gangkar (Minya Konka) in eastern Tibet  on the international border of  Tibet and China!
     The crux of the issue is that the so-called McMahon Line was demarcated deliberately along the foothills of the Assam Himalaya rather than on the watershed of the Assam Himalaya just because of the deceit of the Colonial English and their  collusion with the Chinese. The whole McMahon Line except to the north east of  Pachakshiri is ab initio illegal and the international border of India with the  Sovereign States of Tibet and Burma is much further to the north on the border Passes and Peak comprising  inter alia Sharkha Leb La, Yarto Tra la, Druk La, Namcha Barwa Peak ,  Su La , Atakang La, Yuko, Juk  and Lagya on the Indo-Tibetan International Border and Zhasha Pass on the International border of India with Burma  and the Namcha Barwa Peak is actually on the International border of the two Sovereign states of India and Tibet.

      China does not come in the picture at all. China is situate in distant  far-away East Asia and does not share a common border neither with India nor the Sub-continent of India and inevitably, the Government of India will tell the Chinese in no uncertain terms that China does not share a border neither with the Sub-continent of India nor with India and there is nothing there to talk to the Chinese regarding the international border and India will at the appropriate time and place talk to the de jure governments of the Sovereign nations of Tibet and East Turkistan! So there!

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Criminal Destruction of Evidence

I have to refute some of the views of Mr. Noorani. Apropos the statement, “India unilaterally revised its official map”, Mr. Noorani should not misrepresent and distort facts. The said so-called unilateral revision was to the determent of India and not in her favour or to her advantage. It cartographically illegally ceded vast integral areas of India which were shown in a colour wash in the Pre 1947 maps pertaining to the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India which ipso facto proved that the area included in the “colour wash” is an integral part of India and was followed up with the criminal destruction of massive precious evidence pertaining to the territorial extent of India by the dastardly burning of the said precious antique maps provided the Chinese with a veritable carte blanche to claim further areas inside India including the rest of Aksai Chin, i.e. to the south of the Hindutash and Sanju Passes in Ladakh, Kashmir.
In an act which can only be described as dastardly criminal destruction of incriminating evidence pertaining to the territorial extent of India, at the instance of Nehru a veritable treasury of antique pre 1947 maps pertaining to the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India which would jeopardize his bogus illegal map issued in 1954 in accordance with his whims and fancies and expose him, were summarily burnt!

Maps published by the Survey of India pertaining to the crucial period of the commencement of the Constitution of India were ordered by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru to be burnt and the order was carried out meticulously as purportedly confessed by Ram Sathe, India’s last Consul General in East Turkistan, and all incriminating evidence pertaining to the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India and the territorial extent of Kashmir, thus destroyed!

Just what does Mr. Noorani mean when he says, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru "shut the door to negotiations on the (India-China) boundary on July 1, 1954", ….And this — Nehru's refusal to negotiate, and the 1960 rebuff to Chou En-lai when he was visiting and appeared ready to settle the issue — may well have sowed the seeds of the 1962 India-China war". Did he want Mr. Nehru to succumb, capitulate to the intimidations, threats and demands of the Chinese and under duress subserviently agree to their demands and hand them integral and inalienable areas in India in a platter? Mr. Noorani is just making mischievous misrepresentations in his writings and ought to be exposed. Surely, he can't be so naive! Mr. Noorani's motives are suspect. There is a conspiracy being hatched out to undermine India by misrepresenting and distorting and indulging in Suppressio veri suggestio falsi and facilitate the illegal handing of India's beloved Aksai Chin to the Chinese. India should be weary of this person.

A map drawn towards the end of the sixth century A.D clearly shows the Kuen Lun range as the southern limits of East Turkistan. Another map drawn in 1607 by a Buddhist priest , Jen Chao depicts the Tsungling mountains just adjacent to Khotan as the southern limits of Turkistan. Another map from the work, Chin ting huang yu hsi yut’u chih which might be translated as “Annals and Maps of the Western Territories of the Empire” published in 1762 depict the southern boundary of Turkistan with India at Sanju Tagh in the Kuen Lun range. Another map from the Chin ting hsin chiang chih lueh, an account of Sinkiang published by a commission set up by scholars and officials of Peking in 1821 contains several maps of Sinkiang in book 3. The map on page 4(b)of book 3 depicts the southern limits of East Turkistan as the Tsungling by which is meant the Kuen Lun range and the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting through the Kuen Lun Mountains. Another map from the book Hsi yu shui tao chi which can be translated as “Remarks on the rivers of the western Countries”, written by Hsu Hsing-po published in 1824 shows a map in eight sheets and sheet number 7 depicts the southern limits of Khotan as the “southern Mountains” or Nanshan which is obviously one of the northern ranges of the Kuen Lun since for both the the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting through the mountains. A Nei fu yu t’u map of 1760 depicted the southern limits of Khotan as lying along a range of mountains immediately to the south of Khotan from which the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash were said to have their origin and the mountain range situate immediately to the south of Khotan is the Kuen Lun range. The 1820 edition of the Ta Ch’ing yi t’ung chih depicted the Nimangyi mountains immediately south of Khotan and the same work stated that these mountains were the same as the Ho lang kwei and the Ho shi mo tissue mountains. Ho lang kwei was the Kurangu range of the Kuen Lun range. A map from the Ta Ch’ing hui tien tu of 1818 also showed the Nimangyi mountains as the southern limits of East Turkistan. A map from the Chin ting hsin chiang chih lueh of 1821 depicts the southern limits of the country along one of the northern ranges of the Kuen Lun with both the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting through the mountains.

The very fact that the northern border of Kashmir was not depicted and only a legend “undefined frontier” was depicted in the area of northern Kashmir, and western Kashmir extending up to the tri-junction of Tibet , Uttarakhand and Nepal only proved that there was no clear border demarcation or delineation and the northern border of Kashmir was along the crests and water shed of the Kuen Lun range and beyond, and the western border of Kashmir was to the east of Rudokh which was historically part of Ladakh and Guge wherein is situate the Kailash and Manasarovar lakes is also historically part of Ladakh and Uttaranchal and thus ipso facto historically part of India .

In fact, the demarcation of the entire Indo Tibetan international border in the said Middle Sector extending from Pulu to the vicinity of the Mayum la and Marnyak La passes should commence from Pulu Pass, which is situate in the area where the tri-junction of Tibet , Kashmir and East Turkistan in the area where the Kuen Lun (Raskam) range in northern Kashmir and the Altyn Tagh range in northern Tibet converge, and continue along the Mavang Kangri and Aling Kangri Ridges which geographically and historically divide and separate the highlands of Kashmir from the Tibetan plateau , and culminate in the vicinity of the Mayum La and Marnyak La. If Mr. Noorani has the treacherous audacity to say, “each had its vital non-negotiable interest securely under its control. India had the McMahon Line while China had the Xinjiang-Tibet road across the Aksai Chin in Ladakh", It is perverted personal View.Mr. Noorani is colluding with the Chinese and espousing an alleged solution for the border issue whereby one inalienable part of India is given up for another inalienable part of India. He ought to have said,"It is as impossible for the Chinese to cede Khotan to the north of the Hindutash and Sanju Passes in Kashmir in the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir, as it is for India to cede Arunachal Pradesh to the Chinese occupying inter alia East Turkistan and Tibet". India does not intend to hand over India’s beloved inalienable Aksai Chin to the Chinese even if the same is important to the Chinese to continue with their military occupation of Tibet and East Turkistan. If Mr. Noorani wants to support the Chinese in their claims to territory in India for obvious extraneous reasons, the rule of law and freedom of expression prevalent in India permits him, but so do I have the right to expose him and others of his lot. And apropos his so-called “fair solution”, I shudder and get cold sweat when I think of this sort of “resolution” of the issue in the terms of the “fair solution” propounded by Mr. Noorani and people of his lot and am thankful that it never happened! It will never happen! It is an all together different fact that if it had happened, it will be ab initio vitiated by fraud , duress, undue influence, subservience and fraud.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Communication to Wikipedia

Hello,

I am a Lawyer and I reside in India. I created an Article in Wikipedia called titled Hindutash which is the name of a pass in Kashmir. Ever since I created the article Hindutash One Fowler&fowler has been for reasons best known to him, trying to hijack the article and give a totally contradictory picture. They have never had anything new to add to the article but deny what all I had stated! I had added new information with out breaching Wikipedia’s stress on verifiability and no Original Research . My reiteration that Hindutash is part of Kashmir is inter alia on Legal Grounds which I have summarized in my Talk Page
Fowler&fowler has been right from the beginning inconsistent in his reasons for stating that the pass is allegedly in “China” and has always come up with new reasons. First Fowler&fowler wanted references. When references were provided, he turned his stance. He is ignorant about the subject and I have time and again exposed his ignorance for which he has not had the integrity to apologise for his misrepresentation. Now the latest reason given by him is that allegedly, neither the Government of India or the Government of Kashmir allegedly claims that Hindutash is part of Kashmir. I have given reply which is legal in nature. I informed him/her and RegentsPark that as far as India is concerned, since Kashmir’s accession to India is allegedly disputed, Does India have even the locus standi to claim that Hindutash is part of Kashmir in the first instance and does it matter at all whether the government of India claims Hindutash or not? As far as Kashmir is concerned, the Present Government of Kashmir is not a pan Kashmir Government since no elections have been conducted in the Pakistani and Chinese occupied areas in Kashmir. And the last Pan Kashmir government was the one which was prevalent at the time of the accession of Kashmir to the new dominion of India on 26, October 1947 “in its entirety” . As far as the only Pan Kashmir Government is concerned I have given details in the My talk page as well as the discussion page of Hindutash that the then Pan Kashmir Government did assert that the Kuen Lun which includes Hindutash, Sanju Pass and the rest of Aksai Chin are part of Kashmir. Also peruse the report in The Times Newspaper inserted by me as well as the depiction of Hindutash as part of Kashmir by The Times Atlas in 1900. 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”. In the interregnum i.e. between 1900 and October 26, 1947, there have never been any border agreements whatsoever deciding the issue of the northern border of Kashmir, as confessed by Regent's Park (Rose Garden) , “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. But he does not have the integrity to even abide by his own statements when the same is not convenient for him. Also I had pointed out that as early as 1890, the Gazetteer of Kashmir includes the Item on Hindutash and the description of Hindutash is 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. As far as the territorial extent of Kashmir is concerned, only the Constitutions of India and Kashmir are 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”.

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"

In Wikipedia itself, there are two arbitrary articles on Kashmir. One on the so-called “greater Kashmir” purportedly dealing with the whole area of Kashmir including the Chinese occupied part of Kashmir and the Pakistani occupied part of Kashmir , all though, the whole area of Kashmir legally acceded to India “in its entirety” (see external link in my Talk Page) and the whole of Kashmir is legally part of India, and the other on the State of Jammu and Kashmir which arbitrarily excludes the Chinese occupied part of Kashmir and the Pakistani occupied part of Kashmir, though the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is incomplete with out the Chinese and Pakistani occupied parts of Kashmir.
When I told RegentsPark that, “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 by default allegedly become a part of “China”, he does not reply.


It can be seen from the information available in the discussion page of Hindutash as well as my talk page as well as the
edit summaries that all the endeavour for consensus came from my side and none at all from Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark and they actually spurned my attempt to arrive at a consensus! Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark rather always took an entrenched and rigid stance and continually reverted in toto to their preferred POV version and they are the ones who are guilty of edit warring. There was not an iota of attempt on the part of Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark to retain any of the acclaimed information that I had added in the article and desist from continually summarily reverting to their preferred POV version and thus avoid Edit warring. After spurning my endeavour for consensus, they are trying to turn the table on me and create and fabricate a case as though I was disruptive and against consensus, which is just false and misrepresents the true facts. Right from day one they have been conspiring to victimize me and were obsessed with the idea of banning me from Wikipedia. This is again some thing that is borne out by records since every thing is logged! First, they engaged one YellowMonkey to block me for one month on fabricated unexplained grounds with out even giving me an opportunity to defend myself and state my position. I was not even given an intimation that I could if I felt that I had been wrongly blocked, contest the block!

His initial reason for blocking me was the incomprehensible reason “spa; one guy reverting about five and over”, with out conferring with me and giving me an opportunity to defend myself, and so I sent him an email during the pendency of the said block, but he never replied.

When I, after the expiry of the block, left an indignant message in his talk page and asked him to tell me why he did not reply to my email during the pendency of the said block after arbitrarily blocking me, he does not reply and but instead in the “Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents” , he states, “he's made a long diatribe against me for blocking him and reblocking him for socking”. You can notice that he has cunningly not stated his original reason for blocking me which is the foundation and the base, but only stated about the subsequent alleged reason for reblocking “for socking”, which ipso facto shows that the earlier reason was just conjured up just to victimize me at the instance of RegentsPark! And there had been a conspiracy to build up and foist a case on me. He also has stated there that I allegedly am “completely against consensus but reverts all the time anyway” which also is a lie and is a misrepresentation and can be established from evidence that is borne out by records since all my activity and the activities of RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler in Wikipedia are logged.
Now look at the reasons given by YellowMonkey, AdjustShift, and RegentsPark. What locus standi or capability does RegentsPark have to adjudicate that my views “on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE” as though he is competent and was a scholar on the issue when he had himself confessed that, “I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies” .According to him in his reply to Ottava Rima, “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”. Statements like this are highly disruptive. He further states, "I'm not sure what your interest is in this matter", which is strange and intriguing since one does not need to have interest to question him if he protects an article supporting one side in a content dispute!
When Ottava Rima questioned RegentsPark, Fowler&fowler had no business to interfere but he intimidated Ottava Rima and caused once again disruption.

Since Ottava Rima had stated that “The sides are entrenched so it is best to get a larger community consensus”, I had replied way back on 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC) that, “I did try to arrive at a consensus . I informed her/him that, “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”. So Ottava Rima was obviously wrong in his inference that both the sides were entrenched. Fowler&fowler was all along taking a rigid and entrenched stance not me. This is a content dispute predominantly between myself and Fowler&fowler. The stance of Fowler&fowler is that Hindutash is allegedly in so-called Xinjiang which he alleges is in "China", while i reiterate that Hindutash is in Ladakh in Kashmir.


The information that , to quote
Fowler&fowler, “the Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”, was not initially provided to him. But even after he was made aware of the said information, he is continuing with his misrepresentation. Does he mean to say that the “renowned” Times Atlas depicted a boundary “which are way beyond WP:FRINGE”. This depiction in the year 1900 is so recent when viewed in the light of the fact that Kashmir acceded to the new Dominion of India “in its entirety” only on 26, October 1947. And, as confessed by RegentsPark, “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. If AdjustShift states that, “After analyzing Hindutashravi's edits, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption”, he has a moral duty to substantiate with evidence that is borne out by records as every thing is logged. And, YellowMonkey’s statement that I am allegedly “completely against consensus but reverts all the time anyway”,
is also a blatant lie. These unilateral statements were made with out giving me an opportunity to refute them before their unilateral and arbitrary decision to block me was taken. Had I also been online and participated in the said deliberations , I could have easily nipped their allegations in the bud!
When I was blocked thus, I contested the block but administrators who were evidently colleagues of inter alia RegentsPark, deliberately twisted and misrepresented my statements and made counter allegations which can easily be disproved with evidence which is borne out by records as informed by me in my messages to JohnHill and Abecedare. If at all Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler had an iota of intention to arrive at a consensus, given the acclaimed references and corroborative evidence provided by me in the articles on inter alia Hindutash, Sanju Pass and Aksai Chin, the issue could have been amicably sorted out long ago. But they i.e. Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler have been spurning my attempt all along because they just wanted to retain their POV version come what may, through hook or crook!

After the expiry of the block, I was in the process of attempting to arrive at a consensus as can be seen from my message to JohnHill but Abecedare has blatantly supporting RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler in a content dispute at the instance of RegentsPark again blocked me for alleged “long-term and continued disruption”. Though I had sought an explanation from him and asked him to substantiate it he has till date evaded. He wants me to, “Propose your changes at Talk:Hindutash and wait for general agreement before making any further changes to the article”. If you read my reply to his demand, you will see that it is just and fair. But he would have none of it! I fail to understand why I alone should be subjected to this unjust condition which is not at all applicable to the other editors and is discriminative and entails that I just succumb and capitulate to their preferred Point of View version, particularly when the only endeavour for consensus came from my side and they were spurning it and taking an inflexible rigid and entrenched stance and did not at all reciprocate my effort to arrive at a consensus. No one does it and is expected to do it. Every editor makes changes in an article and then discusses the changes in the discussion page and not the other way about! What is important and necessary is that after an editor has made changes to an article, he or she discusses the changes in the discussion page of the relevant article and there is a honest genuine, sincere attempt to arrive at a consensus if there are editors who disagree to the changes by discussion.

The conduct of JohnHill is a case in point. Unlike the conduct of RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler who have been reverting my edit of inter alia Hindutash , Sanju Pass, and Aksai Chin in to to, JohnHill in his edit of Sanju Pass, retained most of the information which I had added to Sanju Pass which had been earlier deleted by Rayshade which were acclaimed sources and not my Point of View or original research. However, he did not retain the information which I had added to the article on Hindutash which I had incidentally created and was proud of. I had sent a message to him stating that he should similarly retain the information which I had added to the Hindutash and thus assist in, to quote him, “trying to settle this silly dispute now”. He did not give a positive reply but on the contrary stated, “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…..Accuracy and balance could make these really excellent contributions to the Wikipedia”. Since I had already explained to him that I had always been endeavouring for consensus, and actually the only endeavour for consensus had come from my side, I was indignant and sought an explanation from him on this particular statement of his. I left a message dated 26 October 2009 to him in my discussion page since I was blocked and could not use his discussion page or the discussion page of Hindutash. Since he did not respond to my message, I sent him an email on 15 , December wherein I informed him that there was a message for him in my Talk Page and asked him to explain his statement.

He has in his reply dated 15, December 2009 totally evaded the issue that I had raised but instead, he has made changes to the article on the Sanju pass and discarded the acclaimed information that I had add to the Sanju Pass article which he had earlier retained. He has not sought for consensus before he made this major changes in the article but has simply given the alleged reasons in the discussion page of Sanju Pass for his act of discarding all the acclaimed information that I had added, that he had earlier retained. He has not sought for my consent before he made the changes for what ever extraneous reasons, though he very well knew that I was the aggrieved party.
My point is that JohnHill is well within his rights to do it. He knew very well when he discarded the acclaimed information that I had added , that I will be annoyed by his act. He also knew that since I am blocked, I cannot edit the article myself and undo his changes and make my own changes in the article. But the crucial point is he is well within his rights to do it, as I am well within my rights to undo his arbitrary and unilateral changes and make my own changes in the article on Sanju Pass. The important thing is what transpires subsequently and how both the sides behave subsequently i.e. will both the sides discuss the issue peacefully and in a cultured manner and arrive at a consensus. And that is the crucial point. In my case, I have always been endeavouring for consensus. This is something that can be verified and established with evidence which is borne out of records since all my activity in Wikipedia is logged.

Now John Hill is stating that, “For just one example, he claims that the 1890 Gazetteer of Kasmir and Ladakh states: "The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan". I have checked and the Gazetteer contains no such quote”, thus imputes that I am dishonest and lying. I refute his allegation. I am disadvantaged since I am blocked. I have the right to refute his insinuation that I am dishonest in the discussion page of Sanju Pass and not in my discussion Page which is ineffective. I cannot do that. What can I do? If any Wikipedia administrator can meet me in Chennai, I can show him the said Book , “Gazetteer of Kasmir and Ladakh” which states: "The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan" . He has removed one by one all details from the article which gave it a semblance of Neutrality including the W.H.Johnson Map. Is this is his idea when he states, “write these articles up in as accurate, fair and neutral a manner as possible” ?

So,

1. I would like you to look into the allegation that I am against consensus and am causing disruption and come to an opinion from evidence which is borne out by records as every thing is logged in Wikipedia. Please peruse my edit summaries also.

2. Who was taking a rigid entrenched stance and continually reverting
in toto their preferred version and thus guilty of edit warring?
3. Who has been in limine guilty of disruption?

4. Was there an iota of attempt on the part of
Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark to retain any of the acclaimed information that I had added in the article and desist from continually summarily reverting to their preferred POV version and thus avoid Edit warring ?

5. Also please look at the conduct of Abecedare who in spite of my
attempts in ways more than one to, after indefinitely blocking me has not substantiated his allegation that I am guilty of long-term and continued disruption.

6. Also , I will be glad to know your opinion about what you think about the various legal grounds for my assertion and reiteration that Hindutash is de jure part of Kashmir, which can be found in the discussion page of Hindutash as well as my discussion page. I have also
summarized the legal grounds in my message to User Abecedare in my discussion page.
If you come to a conclusion in my favour please un block me. In any case please respond to this email .

What is incredible and amazes me is the extent and amount of Impunity which these Administrators enjoy and the utter absence of accountability. They are not made accountable for their arbitrary and unilateral statements and their statements are being taken in their face value! And they are not subject to accountability. Take the statement of Toddst1, who has as an excuse for removing my right to appeal the block stated that, “"You said above, "I don’t intend to waste my time and energy in futile conversation if the other editors do not reciprocate my endeavour for consensus." That's all we need to hear. End of discussion. I am removing your privilege to edit this page as 4 unblock requests are enough. Toddst1 (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)". What alternative did I have when RegentsPark, had stated that, “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”? Statements like this are highly disruptive”. After this act of Toddst1 (talk), I had sent him an email which I have reproduced in my Discussion Page.
The issue is not whether a racket consisting of a coterie of dishonest unscrupulous administrators can shamelessly support an influential editor in a content dispute and actually block the other editor for unsubstantiated and arbitrary conjured up reasons, can be permitted to get away with it with impunity ; but whether , if Wikipedia desists and abstains from taking severe punitive action against these Administrators viz. inter alia YellowMonkey, RegentsPark , Toddst1, Hersfold , Abecedare, and lifebaka and editor Fowler&fowler and thus would be blatantly prejudiced to India, can be permitted to be available in India. These people should be made to apologise to me and their status as administrator should be rescinded . Amazingly, all of them willfully evaded the issue of who had been all along endeavouring for consensus and who spurned the endeavour, but took recourse to making unsubstantiated, arbitrary false counter allegations which can be easily disproved with evidence which is borne out by records as every thing in Wikipedia is logged!

Thanks,
Yours Sincerely,
Ravi

Monday, March 29, 2010

An antique map of East Turkistan showing the southernmost limits of the Country along the Kuen Lun range

Map of the Western Regions (held by the Chinese) appended to the Hsi-yu-tu-chih, compiled on the orders of Emperor Chien-lung in 1762. An English version of the map is also given. "The map makes clear that Sinkiang extended in the south only upto the Kuen Lun Range".The aforesaid map is reproduced in the Government of India Publication, viz. The Atlas of the Northern Frontier of India at Pg.20.

"An Orographical map of the Western Regions"