Saturday, December 29, 2012

Jeff M. Smith, and The US position on Aksai Chin



According to Jeff M. Smith, an American scholar who has recently  published a brief account of how the Kennedy administration decided to "back" India against China on the McMahon Line, The US position on Aksai Chin, in  the “western sector” of the so-called "Sino-Indian border" dispute, is noncommittal by comparison. At the time, John Kenneth  Galbraith, America's Ambassador to India  “resolved to maintain silence on the west,” concluding: “The fact that the Indians had not discovered a Chinese road [in Aksai Chin] for two years seemed to suggest a tenuous claim.” Today, the US considers Aksai Chin a disputed area “administered by China but claimed by India.”

Mr. Galbraith should understand that the contention that  purportedly Indians had not discovered a Chinese constructed  road in Aksai Chin for two years was an all together extraneous issue which had nothing to do with the fact that the Aksai Chin has always been an integral part of India. If the Indians had not discovered a Chinese road in Aksai Chin for two years, it was because despite the fact that  the accession of the princely state of Kashmir to the new Dominion of India”  on October 26, 1947 "in its entirety” and the state had ipso facto become an integral part of the new Dominion of India, since India had been arbitrarily and artificially partitioned, and a huge chunk of the south western part of northwestern India had become overnight an alien country, India had been amputated of its organic part and  India’s military power had been overwhelmingly reduced. Furthermore, the aforesaid south western chunk of territory in what was north western India newly named Pakistan had occupied a substantial portion of the state of Kashmir extending from Dafdar in the Taghdumbash Pamir to inter alia Baltistan and India had the misfortune of having one Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru as the Prime Minister of India who was a known British loyalist and sympathiser and had ambitions to be famous as an International statesman rather than restricting his total unconditional and unflinching loyalty to his own motherland, the Republic of India. He rather than liberate the whole of the occupied part of the state from Pakistani occupation then and there,  agreed to the American suggestion to give a complaint to the so-called United Nations Organisation. And after luring and instigating India to give a complaint to the United Nations Organisation rather than first liberate the occupied part of Kashmir and then talk, the Americans took a neutral stance and did not support India, after India had preferred a complaint. And Kashmir became a “disputed territory” with the Pakistani occupied areas of the state continuing till date to remain under their illegal control. Thus, a militarily weak and vulnerable and amputated India had to deal with Pakistani occupation of a part of Kashmir and defend the ceasefire line running arbitrarily within Kashmir and could not enforce her sovereignty over the whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir especially the border areas in Kashmir adjoining the Kuen Lun Range in northern Kashmir. If  the areas in Kashmir  occupied by Pakistan had been liberated from Pakistani occupation then and there rather than giving a complaint to the so-called United Nations Organisation (of which incredibly India is not a permanent  member of the Security Council with full power to Veto), India could have  enforced  her sovereignty over the whole of Kashmir including the Kuen Lun areas of Kashmir viz. The Taghdumbash Pamir and  Raskam in Kanjut,  particularly Hindutash and Sanju La and the  rest of Aksai Chin in northeastern Kashmir. Moreover one  Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru in collusion with the Chinese had illegally arbitrarily and unilaterally abdicated and forfeited India’s precious political  rights and privileges in occupied East Turkistan and Tibet which independent India had inherited after the end of British rule and betrayed Tibet and conceded to the nonexistent and fraudulent fictitious Chinese claims of sovereignty over Tibet, while not at all endeavouring to integrate all the Himalayan princely states in India so as to re-establish the historic and natural continuous and uninterrupted  International border of India  with Tibet from Pulu to Lagya. Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru also unilaterally and arbitrarily, unconstitutionally and illegally   published in 1954, a spurious, bogus  and fraudulent new so-called map of India, which is ab initio illegal and null and void, which ceased  to depict areas of the state of Jammu and Kashmir which are an integral part of the territory of India as defined in the Constitution of India which is sacrosanct, which hitherto had been depicted as integral part of India in the maps published by  The Survey of India prior to 1954.  So, any suggestion that India had a "tenuous claim" is perverted and deceitful  and emanating from a morbid mind! So there!

No comments: