Talk:Aksai Chin/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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.

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)

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)

Pakistan section needs rewrite

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

You misunderstand. The implication is that the scale model is being used for training for military action in Aksai Chin. --86.138.30.122 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Ah, I made that mistake as well. I suggest somebody re-word it, just a little, to clarify it.

   Sten Darker

---

three requests to clean up

1. map is flawed..siachen is under indian control..but map shows the region under pakistan
2. "line of actual control(LaC)" seperating aksai chin from jk not mentioned
3. top 3/4 th of the debate must be archived..three year old debate!!

Kashmircloud (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Request: The People of Aksai Chin?

The article has no mention of the people, customs, population, culture of Aksai Chin. Could someone add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.102.197 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Says in the article there is "no permanent settlements". --Voidvector (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hindutashravi's edits

Hindutashravi, your edits are obvious POV ridden with

1. POV terms
   • calling Chinese territory by separatist names such as East Turkistan
2. POV claims
   • claiming Aksai Chin is under Chinese occupation when in fact it is perceived as rightfully Chinese territory by some
   • claiming Chinese territory as restive and seditious when in fact 1) that has not been the case, 2) it is not related to this article.

I have reverted your edit to the original version. --Voidvector (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To User: Voidvector: Your reason No. 1. is that the term East Turkistan is allegedly a POV term. There is an article in Wikipedia called East Turkistan and several connected articles East Turkestan Islamic Movement , East Turkestan Liberation Organization, East Turkestan independence movement hence by no stretch of imagination is that a POV edit! Your second reason videlicet “Occupation” is also not a POV edit. It has already been admitted in previous versions that “Aksai Chin was historically part of the Himalayan Kingdom of Ladakh until Ladakh was annexed from the rule of the local Namgyal dynasty by the Dogras and the princely state of Kashmir in the 19th century. It was subsequently absorbed into British India” and the same is a consensus view. Besides, all the historical maps included in the article unanimously depict Aksai Chin as part of Ladakh in Kashmir Your last reason that there is a speculation of the “locals being non-Buddhist” astounds me! No where have I stated that the locals are non –Buddhists. What is actually stated is that “What little data exists suggests that the few true locals in Aksai Chin have Buddhist beliefs” which is not my contribution but has been present in many previous versions. Your stance … “Chinese territory as restive and seditious when in fact 1) that has not been the case, 2) it is not related to this article” is also not true. There is an independence struggle going on in East Turkestan and Tibet. Refer inter alia East Turkestan Liberation Organization and East Turkestan independence movement which is being crushed ruthlessly with no regard for basic Human Rights. It is related to this article since when East Turkistan and Tibet are not parts of China, where is the question of this north eastern part of Kashmir being allegedly part of “China”?Hindutashravi (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You obviously likes to cherry pick your facts, and introduce unrelated content to instill emotional support in readers so they would believe your unsupported/uncited claims. Turkistan is POV term because the internationally recognized and legal term for that territory is Xinjiang. The independent movements in Xinjiang are minority movements. There are independence movement everywhere, even in Europe and United States. If you wish to call people "occupiers" and "human rights violators", you obviously failed to recognize that Kashmir has its own independence movement, and Kashmir's current occupiers are obviously India and Pakistan. So it can be said that Kashmir was a historically independent country that was annexed by India during its colonial era, obviously the government at the time was the British not the locals. Regarding your maps, historical maps are drawn by Western cartographers and diplomats who obvious did not understand that Tibet was a protectorate state of China, did not have authority to enter into treaties on its own. None of the maps are in Tibetan/Chinese, as such they only provide an Indian/British perspective. --Voidvector (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To User: Voidvector: If you say that the term East Turkistan is a POV term and that Tibet is a “protectorate state of China”, It is you who is having a vested interest, not me. So many scholars and legal luminaries have already confirmed that both Tibet and East Turkistan are not ab initio part of China. Chinese human rights violations both with in China and also in the occupied countries inter alia Tibet and Turkistan is well known. China can inundate the occupied countries with her nationals and overnight make the indigenous nationality a minority in their own country. As for Kashmir, Kashmir is simply a dispute on the issue of the state’s accession to India by her Maharaja who had the legal authority to do so inspite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of his subjects were Muslims. Not that I am saying that he acceded to India with out the popular consent of his subjects and Sheikh Abdullah, the undisputed leader of Kashmiris during his time. It is as simple as that. There were countless princely states in India. Some of them acceded to India and some of them acceded to Pakistan and some of them remained independent. The issue is whether India is to remain a united country or revert to those countless princely states, and that issue will be decided by the people of India and not by you. The Issues of East Turkistan and Tibet are entirely different. The name Xinjiang itself means new dominion of China which means that the area is admittedly not ab initio part of China. If you think the term East Turkistan is "POV", then I suggest that you try editing all the numerous Wikilinks pertaining to East Turkistan that I mentioned earlier to suit your POV views! Rather than reverting to your POV edit in this article! What I have stated is that Aksai Chin is part of Ladakh in Kashmir which has already been admitted in previous versions that “Aksai Chin was historically part of the Himalayan Kingdom of Ladakh until Ladakh was annexed from the rule of the local Namgyal dynasty by the Dogras and the princely state of Kashmir in the 19th century, and the same is a consensus view. Don't talk of alleged so called India Occupation and misrepresent and distort. Hindutashravi (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you say that the term East Turkistan is a POV term and that Tibet is a “protectorate state of China”, It is you who is having a vested interest

Yea, so I am aware of the Chinese position on Chinese topics, but I am also aware of the neutral positions and international accepted positions of the issue. And I am trying to work towards that as an encyclopedia should have an NPOV. You are alleging that the original article was biased towards India when in fact it was neutral, if you wish you can point out the exact line and we can happily work it out. Instead you contribute an rewritten article that is entirely China-bashing.

So many scholars and legal luminaries have already confirmed that both Tibet and East Turkistan are not ab initio part of China.

Both Tibet and Xinjiang are part of China during the Qing Dynasty. Whether they were not part of China before then is irrelevant, territorial change occur all over history. Please provide citation if you wish to make claims about "many scholars" and "many legal luminaries" those are weasel words.

I suggest that you try editing all the numerous Wikilinks pertaining to East Turkistan

I suggest that you try edit all the pages on Xinjiang to use the word "East Turkistan" before trying to adopt it for this page.

Kashmir is simply a dispute on the issue of the state’s accession to India

Obviously that is a representation from the Indian point of the view. It can be interpreted that Kashmir simply splintered and becomes the territories of India, Pakistan, and China. India and Pakistan occupying the more populated areas, while China received the desolate region.

You still have not answered the question as to what Xinjiang and Tibet has to do with this article? What does the Chinese internal politics on the issue have to do with this article? --Voidvector (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortuntely, user:Hindutashravi, whose user name speaks to his singleminded concerns, has been trying to introduce a vaguely-irredentist POV into a number of pages on Wikipedia whose content relates obliquely to the greater Kashmir region. Since the Kashmir page itself is a busy page—one that is visited by editors looking out for the points of view of all three countries claiming it or claiming parts of it—user:Hindutashravi has chosen not to involve himself with the more active dispute, but has chosen rather to focus on a recondite topic, that of the historical sovereignty of the region lying between Aksai Chin and the Kunlun mountains. He feels that by demonstrating that this region belonged to the British Indian Empire in the mid-nineteenth century, he can somehow claim it for the Republic of India today. He attempts to go about this irredentist reclamation by suggesting that he has sources (i.e. maps) that support his POV; to date, however, he has never produced these in any legible or decipherable form on Wikipedia. Mind you, all three countries involved in user:Hindutashravi's "dispute," India, Pakistan, and People's Republic of China regard this region to be indubitably a part of the People's Republic of China. Hindutashravi (talk · contribs) has made this edits on pages: Hindutash, Sumgal, Aksai Chin and a few others I can't recall now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Other disputed areas in the region

I believe that the style and structure of the article should be similar to that of other disputed areas in the region. These are: Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh (administered by India but claimed by Pakistan and China respectively), Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas (administered by Pakistan and claimed by India). Since all these four pages have only the scripts of the administering country in their infoboxes or lead sentences, so should this page. In other words, there is no reason why the Hindi or Urdu scripts should appear in the Aksai Chin or Aksayqin page. I have removed these scripts and made the language more neutral. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I must admit to being puzzled about the need to eliminate the Urdu (or Hindi) script from the lead. If the area is disputed, then shouldn't the name of the area given by both sides of the dispute be included in the interests of not taking sides? I notice, for example, that Falkland Islands includes the Spanish name of the islands in the lead, as well it should. We should not, even inadvertently, imply that the 'facts on the ground' are the same as a rightful claim to a territory (except where reliable sources make the same implication or where the claim of one party is a fringe claim).--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right of course. I was taking the easy way out. :) I noticed that other disputed areas, such as Arunachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir had only the scripts of the country administering the region, not those of the one disputing it. So, instead of taking on the greater headache of adding something, likely controversial, to the more trafficked pages (if that's the expression), I simply reduced poor old lonely (but correct) Aksai Chin to the prevailing regional level of inaccuracy! Go figure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Bettia (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by Bettia

....

"local government of tibet"

I'd like to revert this edit of Chadsnook as it could easily lead to an edit war: local government implies that Tibet was administered from Beijing. I could just take off the "local" part of local government but that risks implying the opposite, and this is hardly the place for a discussion over that. Input? --Keithonearth (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keith, I was not 100% sure when I used the word "local", I am slightly more in favor of it. The treaty was in 1904, so it was still during the period of Qing China which ended in 1911. It is generally believed by both scholars in China and the West regarding the subordination of Tibet to Qing China. The Qing government considered China have sovereignty over Tibet, so Tibet government would be a subdivision of the Chinese government. British government considered China had suzerainty over Tibet. By the definition of suzerainty, that means British considered Tibet has some degree of autonomy of its domestic administration, China was in charge of the foreigner affairs of Tibet. I think at least the suzerainty relationship should be reflect in the article. The original input "It was subsequently absorbed into British India by the 1904 treaty between Tibet and British India which led to the McMahon Line demarcation," If this was true, based on this description, Tibet was even in charge of its foreign affairs. That's why I thought I would edit it a little bit. I am still not very sure about the calling it a local government. But at best, Tibet was not in charge of its foreign affairs by British's definition of the relationship of Tibet and China. If you have any other good suggestions in editing this, I would love to discuss with you. --Chadsnook (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds sensible, and you obviously put thought into it, and I think it can stay as "local government". But as an alternative I'd suggest signed a agreement with "Lhasa". --Keithonearth (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Keith, you are welcome to change it to the alternative name. Also, I was thinking may be Tibet Government at Lhasa doesn't sound so bad. --Chadsnook (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Aksai Chin disputed?

A recent edit by Hindutashravi has the summery "a recent claim does not make the territory disputed. Two official Chinese maps depicting Aksai Chin as part of Kashmir have been included in the article. Discuss issues in the Talk". I'm allways happy to discus differences on the talk page, and I have infact made contact on Hindutashravi's talk page in the past regarding similar. It sounds like Hindutashravi is suggesting that Aksai Chin is an inherent part of Kashmir, and there can be no discussion, or dispute tolerable on that fact. This despite that the area has been held by China since the 1962 Sino-Indian War, or slightly before that. So we have a war followed by actual control of the area by China 47 years now. Yet this seems not to qualify as a "dispute" in Hindutashravi's eyes. I have to disagree. Does anyone agree with Hindutashravi's tenuous claims? Can Hindutashravi explain what more is needed to make it disputed. If not I'd ask Hindutashravi to stop his/her numerous repeated edits to the effect that Aksai Chin is not disputed, and is part of Kashmir & India, and his other tedious and tenuous extream POV claims, as he/she has been asked a number of times in the past.--Keithonearth (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hindutashravi's edit is full of POVs. Also, replace the article completely with one's own essay is not going to work here. --Chadsnook (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hindutashravi seems to be using Wikipedia to advocate a particular irredentist position wrt the territorial boundaries of Kashmir. He/she is doing that in the article on Hindutash, a pass whose location is not even remotely disputed by anyone and I see that he/she is at work here as well. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 01:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements, Hindutashravi seems to be intent on working unilaterly for his/her own goals. I felt the need to state the obvious.--Keithonearth (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To --Keithonearth If you are “always happy to discus differences on the talk page”, then please do so atleast now. So far you have not done but you have simply reverted to the previous edit with out even as much as specifying what aspects of my edit were allegedly POV. The fact that Aksai Chin is an inherent part of Kashmir, and there can be no discussion regarding this issue is not my POV but is in consonance with the uncontroversial statement in the previous edit that “Aksai Chin was historically part of the Himalayan Kingdom of Ladakh”. Of course, the present regime in China claims the Aksai Chin area in Ladakh, and has been in military occupation for a long period of time. In that context, one may say that Aksai Chin is disputed. But even if the present regime in China now disputes Aksai Chin , that does not make Aksai Chin any less a part of Ladakh in Kashmir, is what I am stating. A country which is immensely more powerful militarily can invade and occupy a part of another country and retain it, but that occupation can never be legitimised in view of the passage of time, allthemore since the other country has never succumbed. Remember, the statement of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru asking the Indian Forces to “throw the Chinese out” of Aksai Chin in Ladakh, and the Resolution of the Parliament of India to liberate Aksai Chin. As the two official Government of China maps included in the article show, the Chinese Government had consistently In 1893 and 1917 recognised Aksai Chin as part of Kashmir when they were yet to consolidate their military occupation of their newly acquired territory of eastern Turkistan which they had renamed as “Sinkiang” meaning new dominion. These maps are not my concoctions but are reproduced in the book by Dorothy Woodman, a westerner titled “Himalayan Frontiers”. Otherwise, the rest of the predominant part of the article contains inter alia the finding of W.H. Johnson, Ney Elias who had been Joint Commissioner in Ladakh, and Younghusband and Dr. Emil Trinkler , and the necessary references have been provided. Then there are also other maps of Aksai Chin, which incidentally are not my contributions but the contributions of Fowler&fowler, and ironically Fowler&fowler is the sort of person who would like to see the pictures that he has contributed used for one article but prefers not to have them used in other articles!Hindutashravi (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd very much like to avoid laying blame, as it doesn't help move things forward. The importand thing is we are talking now. I'll let you know my honest opinion, and will do my best to discuss the various points you are making one by one. But first I would like to encourage you to stop resubmitting the same major rewrite of the article time and time again. For now let's discuss your statement (above) that from "Aksai Chin was historically part of the Himalayan Kingdom of Ladakh" it logically follows that "Aksai Chin is an inherent part of Kashmir, and there can be no discussion regarding this issue". While no one is claiming that Aksai Chin has not been a part of Ladakh, and that Ladakh is part of India, it doesn't follow that Aksai Chin is always and indisputably part of India. All I'm (and I think, we) are saying here is that both India, and China Dispute the ownership. If you want to put referenced statements on the legality of Indian/Kashmiri rule over Aksai Chin, and the illegality of Chinese rule, fine. If you want to say "Aksai Chin is an area located in north eastern Kashmir in the Ladakh area," (as you do in your edit), that's not ok with me, nor -- would it seem -- with others. The fact that it is disputed land is the main point, to say "Aksai Chin is one of the areas in India claimed by the Chinese..." (again from your edit) fails to provide enough information, you even go as far as to say "These maps [from 1893 & 1917] prove that... Aksai Chin is not a disputed territory." This is POV. One simply doesn't follow from the other. You can say ...show evidence that in 1893 & 1917 China recognized... etc, but two references doesn't constitute irrefutable, irrevocable proof. I can't see why you insist on resubmitting such edits, when you don't have any agreement from any other editors. Anyways, this part of your edit can not be included, what is your next that you would like to make? --Keithonearth (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see Hindutashravi has rewritten the entire article once again[1] removing statments that the land is disputed and moved the fact that the land is held by China from the intro, to deep within the body. This is not acceptable, as discused above, and it was done without discussion. I can only believe the lack of discussion is due to there not being a logical argument for his/her actions, only emotional patriotism. The Hindutash article has been protected because of Hindutashravi's irrational edits, I hope he/she desists from the same here, so it isn't necessary here.--Keithonearth (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

When it is admitted that Aksai Chin is historically part of Ladakh and when the Government of China had conceded that Aksai Chin is part of Ladakh in their official maps. Viz. the incriminating evidence like the historical extremely old Chinese Government publication maps like inter alia the File:Hung Ta-Chen's Map.jpg which was created by Hung Ta-Chen a senior Chinese Government official , to the British Indian Consul at Kashgar in 1893 or the File:Postal Map of China ,1917.jpg which was published by the Government of China in 1917 , then it is not just my personal view that Aksai Chin is part of Kashmir and Aksai Chin can only but be described as an area located in north eastern Kashmir in the Ladakh area. The aforesaid two references does constitute irrefutable, irrevocable 'proof since they are official Government of China publications, unless you can show that the maps are concocted and fabricated. If the present Chinese Government presently claims Aksai Chin, and disputes its status, Aksai Chin ipso facto does not cease to be part of India. At the most you can say that the present regime in China disputes that Aksai Chin is part of Kashmir. India can also claim areas outside the geography of India like Khotan, which has nothing whatsoever to do with China and was historically part of India and the Kingdom of Khotan was historically founded by an Indian prince and was peopled by an Indian race originating from Kashmir and Takshashila areas in India speaking an Indian language, writing an Indian script (Brahmi), and following Indian culture and Indian religions. It is amusing to see you writing that “there not being a logical argument for his/her actions, only emotional patriotism”. My version is full of quotations and corroborating and incriminating evidence. It is well known that during the period of Ney Elias and Younghusband as consistently maintained by them and W.H. Johnson,East Turkistan had never extended south of their outposts at Sanju and Kilian along the northern foothills of the Kuenlun range i.e. East Turkistan never even as much as touched the crests of the Kuen Lun range and the Chinese officials were least concerned of what lay beyond the Kunlun mountains which includes Aksai Chin and that the Chinese officials stated 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. In fact, You are not having any proof or references to corroborate your view that Aksai Chin ceases to be part of Kashmir just because the present Chinese regime which is militarily stronger than India disputes the status of Aksai Chin. I suspect that you are Chinese and trying to protect the illegal empire of the Chinese. Incredibly you do not have any aversion to the other previous edit which gives the name in Simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese, besides, giving illegal colonial Chinese names like “Tianshuihai” or “Dahongliutian” , though according to you the “Aksai Chin area is a disputed area”, instead of using Ladakhi names like Thaldat, Haji Langhar, Sumnal or Sumgal, which only shows your hypocrisy. The Hindutash article has been protected by --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) only because he was specifically brought by Fowler&fowler at his behest for that purpose and both of them were unable to refute the references and corroborations provided and had to cowardly find the easy way out by protecting Fowler&fowler’s POV version by abusing his position as an administrator and She/he had been all along making contradictory statements. And you, having no evidence to disprove or refute the corroborating and incriminating evidence are just making use of the act of --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) in abusing his position as an Administrator. Look at the act of User:Fowler&fowler in reverting to the previous version with out using the article’s discussion page while we were in the process of discussing the article. I wanted you to make changes in my edit where ever you felt my version was allegedly POV like a different choice of word etc rather than reverting to a previous version like Fowler&fowler did. So that we could possibly arrive at a consensus. It is so typical of her/him.Hindutashravi (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's Kashmir article states in its lead, "(Kashmir today) ... includes the Indian administerd state of Jammu and Kashmir consisting of the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh; the Pakistani-administered provinces of the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir, and the Chinese-administered region of Aksai Chin. ... Dogra Rule, under the paramountcy (or tutelage) of the British Crown, lasted until 1947, when the former princely state became a disputed territory, now administered by three countries: India, Pakistan, and the People's Republic of China." It is as simple as that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a useful, intelligent, concise way of explain the dispute over Kashmir as a whole, and Aksai Chin specifically to me.--Keithonearth (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

To --Keithonearth (talk) “I feel the need to point out that you have reverted multiple other wikipedian's work “, states --Keithonearth (talk). And who is responsible for that? You. My consistent request for only editing what ever statements in the article is allegedly NPOV/POV has just not been heeded. I said just change the word or sentence which is alleged Original research , a different choice of word etc. Now User:UnknownForEver has added to the mêlée by misrepresenting , “Do not use Orginial Research on such a controversial article” though, the only “Original research” which is can be possibly attributed to the entire article is the sentence, “Aksai Chin is an area located in north eastern Kashmir in the Ladakh area” since both of you viz. --Keithonearth (talk) and User:Fowler&fowler agree with the description of Aksai Chin in the Kashmir article , referred by Fowler&fowler above, I am substituting that particular line with the words used in the article on Kashmir which is not mine and hence, I am using the quotation mark and I do not agree that the choice of words used there is appropriate and correct. As a matter of fact the predominant part of the article on the Aksai Chin area in Kashmir is extracted from various references whether shown with quotation marks or not. Any other words or sentences which are "Original Research"? Hindutashravi (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My point on Hindutashravi's talk page was that he/she reverted the article to his/her rewrite 3 times in 24hr and 20min, avoiding the Three-revert rule. He/she has been blocked in the past for breaking the rule, so he/she must be familiar with it. On the topic of other people editing Hindutashravi's work, I fail to understand why he/she feels that it is appropriate for him/her to totally rewrite the entire article in the face of direct disagreement from numerous other editors, but that all other editors should only edit his/her work piecemeal. If Hindutashravi have any valid points, they are hidden in sea of POV. I don't see why numerous editors should go out of our way to accommodate him/her when he/she consistently just re-pastes in his/her edit that no one agrees with. May I also point out that you still have failed to give an explanation why Aksai Chin is not disputed, other than: It was part of Ladakh, so its part of Ladakh now; no dispute. Yet Hindutashravi continues to change the article to state definitively: Aksai Chin is part of Ladakh. I feel like this is a huge wast of time.--Keithonearth (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hindutashravi, you continue to complain in the edit summary about others not using the talk page. That is unfair. We have gone out of our way to discuss with you, but you simply fail to give adequate rational for your edits. As I have said, this is a waste of time. Don't expect me to go any more out of my way than I allready have, or to spend more time than it takes to undo your edits, unless you change your approach.--Keithonearth (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

MacMahon Line never included Aksai Chin

The article contains the following paragraph:

"It was subsequently absorbed into British India by the 1904 treaty between the local government of Tibet and the government of British India which led to the McMahon Line demarcation, under which parts of Arunachal Pradesh namely Tawang, would have been annexed by the British India, agreed to by the local government of Tibet and India."

This is completely wrong. The Aksai Chin was not absorbed into British India, and in fact, the Aksai Chin wasn't even part of the MacMahon Line! The MacMahon Line measures the eastern border, ie the section between Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh. It doesn't include the Sikkim/Tibet border or the Ladakh/Xinjiang-Tibet border. This map, from Sino-Indian War, shows the Indian government's claimed boundaries in 1950, and as you can see, their eastern border is the same as modern day (the MacMahon Line, but the western border was left undefined. It's also doubtful that the Aksai Chin was "part of Ladakh", considered it was an uninhabited wasteland, and that Ladakh falls on the southern-facing slopes of the Karakoram Mountains, but the Aksai Chin is on the northern-facing slopes. Alistair Young's book The MacMahon Line has quite detailed information on this, but from what I understand, the book is banned in India. Until sources are provided, I'm adding tags to these claims on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.101.174 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just from looking at the external links, even those make it clear the Aksai Chin isn't part of the MacMahon Line border. In Facing the Truth, the author says in the very first paragraph:

he Sino-Indian boundary problem developed into a boundary dispute early in 1959 over the western sector. China formally contested the McMahon Line but it was prepared to accept it realistically. It had built the Xinjiang-Tibet road through the Aksai Chin in Ladakh and spread westwards. That area represented its non-negotiable vital interest. "There exists a relatively bigger dispute on the western sector," Prime Minister Zhou Enlai said in New Delhi on April 30, 1960, at the end of his talks with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. In private parleys, Zhou accepted the McMahon Line. The dispute centred on the western sector.

Don't wanna interfere but just trying to get things correct here; User:67.101.101.174 states Alistair Young's book The MacMahon Line where I'm sure s/he must be refering to Alastair Lamb, right? Qwrk (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As the article later says, the Indian maps regarded it as undemarcated frontier territory until July 1, 1954, when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru ordered, "all our old maps dealing with the frontier - new maps should be printed showing our Northern and North-Eastern frontier"; that is, both the McMahon Line in the eastern sector as well as a new line for the frontier for the western sector in Kashmir. "These new maps should also not state that there is any undemarcated territory.". That's where India's modern claimed border comes from, with the Indian government's stroke of a pen that instantly moved undemarcated frontier territory into Indian borders. Indians call it cartographic aggression when other countries do it to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.101.174 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin division

Is the region officially incorporated as part of Hotan Prefecture or Kashgar Prefecture? The article originally said Kashgar, but every external source I've read on Aksai Chin refers to it as part of Hotan... My sources in the lead were removed, so does anyone have any official PRC sources we can use for the article? Night w (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Aksai Chin witness to "Strange light phenomena"

Strange light phenomena which some attribute to UFO sightings is reported from this area.

References:

• China and India both know about underground UFO base in the Himalayan border area deep into the tectonic plates; Staff Reporter; January 09, 2005; India Daily. 3 page article online
• A strange story or a perplexing report?; 2009-8-16; China Forum; China Daily Newspaper

Kindly see if better references can be found in time.

mrigthrishna (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aksai Chin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Some good info so far, but needs expansion beyond current events. --Danaman5 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)