Jump to content

Talk:Sanju Pass

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irredentist claims

[edit]

Please be wary of irredentist edits by user:Hindutashravi on this and related articles. These edits seek to claim the region of this pass for the Republic of India. Since the Government of India itself regards this region to be a part of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, there is no present-day dispute about the region's sovereignty. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:Fowler&fowler had no use of the article till I myself made the changes. Actually, I in accordance with the spirit of the previous versions of the article abstained from explicitly stating that the pass is in Kashmir. What nonsense is Fowler&fowler stating! Both the Constitution of Kashmir and the Constitution of India implicitly regard the Kuen Lun range and beyond as the northern border of India, and there has been no demarcation and delineation [1]of the northern border of Kashmir which is the stance of even the Chinese. Now Fowler indulging in foul play is doing it for the Chinese and making allegations against me. Next he will be attempting to get the help of his coterie to protect the NPOV version of his, which is his modus operandi! When the Talk page of the article was created actually by user:Tinucherian , it was obviously user:Tinucherian who included the article within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics , Not me! Hindutashravi (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hindutashravi is a known irredentist vandal who has been waging a lonely battle on Wikipedia on behalf of two historical passes that today lie in Xinjiang, People's Republic of China. The latter nation's sovereignty over that region is disputed by no country (including all the countries of the region). The passes, moreover, are closed; they are no longer referred to by those names. I talked to someone who rode his motorcycle along the Karakash river highway and he said that he saw no signs for any passes, indeed, he saw no settlements, except for a truck stop of two. The Sanju Pass, in any case, lies some 70 miles north of Xaidulla (formerly Shahidulla), (lat:36.3 N; long: 78.02 E). See for example the map: Map of W. H. Johnson that I uploaded on Wikipedia. Sanju is clearly outside by boundaries of Kashmir. Similarly none of the maps from Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicago, show the Sanju Pass in any of the various boundaries of the British Indian Empire. As you can see in section C, Xaidulla (lat:36.3 N; long: 78.02 E), which lies on the second sharp bend of the Karakash River is at best on the boundary of the most expansive of these historical maps. How can a pass, some 70 miles north of Xiadulla (Shahidula) lie anywhere but in Chinese Turkestan? The maps in section D are even more conservative, the entire stretch of the Karakash river between Sumgal and Xaidulla lies outside the boundaries of these maps. Only one of the dozen odd maps in C and D, the Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash pass to be in Kashmir; the later Times Atlas Map in section D doesn't. It is time for sane editors on Wikipedia to put an end to Hindutashravi's obsessive edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If “the latter nation's sovereignty over that region is disputed by no country (including all the countries of the region)”, why were the numerous cartographers depicting the border of Kashmir in a manner showing even those areas which were allegedly not part of Kashmir as per the Government of India’s maps published after 1947, when the state of Kashmir acceded to the Dominion of India “in its entirety[2]”? Let Fowler&fowler reply to this pertinent question. The answer is that the territorial extent of Kashmir is the territorial extent of Kashmir when she acceded to the rest of India in 1947, and the same has been enumerated both in the Constitution of Kashmir and the Constitution of India. (Kindly refer to my narrations in both the Hindutash and Kashmir Talk Page) It can be seen in the news report of the Times dated March 6, 1963 that the Government of Kashmir recognised the Kuen Lun range and beyond as the northern border of Kashmir.
In 1927, the Indian Government, according to a report in the Times, March 6, 1963 “decided that a claim of the Mir of Kashmir that his dominions were bound on the north by the northern watershed of the Kuenlun ranges was insupportable”. The issue which is evident from the aforesaid report in The Times is that even in 1927, the Government of Kashmir was reiterating that the northern border of Kashmir was on the northern watershed of the Kuenlun ranges and beyond. The “Indian Government” meaning the English had no locus standi to decide for the people of India and in particular the people of Kashmir where the northern border of their state was.
It is in consonance with this issue that the various cartographers were even after 1947 after Kashmir acceded to the rest of India, rightly did not give credence to the maps published by the Government of India after 1954 since there had never been an actual demarcation and delineation of the northern border of Kashmir in the Kuen Lun region of Kashmir. So on what basis does he say, “two historical passes that today lie in Xinjiang, People's Republic of China. The latter nation's sovereignty over that region is disputed by no country (including all the countries of the region)….”? It is his prejudiced Original Research . What if, “The Sanju Pass, in any case, lies some 70 miles north of…. Shahidulla”, it is situate on the Kuen Lun range which was recognised by the only Pan-Kashmir Government of Kashmir as the northern border of Kashmir. Refer to the Constitution of Kashmir and the reiteration of the Government of Kashmir before 1947. Now let me come to her/ his reference to the map of W. H. Johnson. Let him rely on the findings of W.H.Johnson which I have meticulously incorporated in the Article on Hindutash. W.H.Johnson rightly regarded the entire Kara Kash River to be an integral part of Kashmir and he regarded Bringja and Yangi Langar as the border of East Turkistan. How does he say as per the depiction in the W.H.Johnson map, allegedly “Sanju is clearly outside by boundaries of Kashmir”. A perusal of the map would show that from the Hindutash pass in Kashmir (even according to the W.H. Johnson map ), the border is depicted running north to what appears to be spelt “Walagot Pass”. Obviously this name is an alternate name of Sanju Pass! Besides, the head waters of the Sanju River is clearly depicted as originating near this “Walagot Pass”. So I have no doubt that the “Walagot Pass” or Wologot pass is Sanju Pass. This seems to be another faux pas of user:Fowler&fowler ! He has obviously seen the town of Sanju certainly depicted as not part of Kashmir and confused it with the Sanju mountain pass in the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir! user:Fowler&fowler is a person who clearly is writing about subject about which he is absolutely ignorant! But as I stated earlier, it is the findings of Johnson that are more relevant than the map itself, which does not even reflect the true findings pertaining to the survey of W.H.Johnson which were obviously compromised. Colonel Walker who was the Surveyor General in 1867 “insisted that the map as published was far different from Johnson’s Original”! user:Fowler&fowler has no use of the findings of W.H.Johnson and chooses to totally ignore it and now relies on the map. The Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicago, was actually first referred by me to refute one of his old POV statements that, “especially all the British maps from 1875 onwards, it the Karakorums that form the northern boundary and not the Kunlun mountains. So please stop asserting this outdated notion, especially when you don't seem to have any reliable references.” He did not apologise for his evident misrepresentation and confess for his nefarious act. As stated by me earlier, the cartographers were going berserk depicting borders only in accordance with their whims and fancies and with out consistency. I will explain the same by referring to the conduct of the the notorious Times Atlas which user:Fowler&fowler refers. Atleast now, I got it from the mouth or the pen of user:Fowler&fowler that the “Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”. The 1900 map of Kashmir published by the Times “shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”. But the rest of the border of Kashmir i.e. the northwestern border of Kashmir is not depicted on the Kuen Lun range for reasons best known to them but arbitrarily jumps from the Kuen Lun range to the Raskam river and the Khunjerab Pass! But in the Post 1947 map of Kashmir published in the year 1959, the depiction is a total reverse. Now, more or less in the north west section of the northern border of Kashmir, the border is depicted more or less on the crests of the Kuen lun range on the Kukalang Pass in Kashmir, mind you, deliberately not giving credence to the maps published by the Government of India after 1947, but when it comes to the northeastern part of Kashmir, the notorious Times Atlas has not depicted the Hindutash pass as part of Kashmir! How can one explain such conduct? On what basis, legal or otherwise? Did they get new information to depict the Kuen Lun range as part of Kashmir in the northwest part of the northern border of Kashmir in 1959 which information they did not have in the year 1900, and conversely did they get new information to abstain from depicting Hindutash pass as part of Kashmir which information they did not have on 1900 at their disposal ? The answer is that they were all along going amok berserk in a frenzy depicting the northern border of Kashmir arbitrarily in accordance with their perverted whims and fancies and with out consistency! May be the powers that be from the Times Atlas will explain the same to me!
Here is a list of some of the other faux pas of user:Fowler&fowler.
1. According to him, Aksai Chin is allegedly south of the Kuen lun and has nothing to do with the range. But even the most conservative prejudiced depiction depicts the Yangi Dawan pass in the Kuen Lun range as part of Aksai Chin.
2. According to him, Haji Langar is allegedly not part of Aksai Chin but even the most conservative prejudiced depiction depicts Haji Langar as part of Aksai Chin.
3. According to him “It is the southern and eastern part that has more Tibetan influence (see, for example, the place names in the sixth map in Trotter's paper that I added to the Hindutash article , or the W. J. Johnson's map that I also added to the Hindutash article); however, it is also the southern and eastern part that is uninhabited”, and there is hardly any influence of the Ladakhi and Tibetan language in northern Aksai Chin and almost all the place names are of Uighur origin. This is also false. For instance, Sumgal, Sumnal, Palong Karpo all in northern Aksai Chin and Thaldat,Nischu, Sumna, Sumdo in the length and breadth of Aksai Chin are all place names in Aksai Chin of Ladakhi or Tibetan origin to the best of my knowledge. According to him, “indeed, he saw no settlements, except for a truck stop of two”…. “but earlier accounts record the presence of Shi'a Muslim Uyghur-speaking nomads in the northern part of Aksai Chin”. These nomads were obviously the Kherghiz nomads referred by W.H. Johnson as the Khergiz robbers and the Khergiz have their own language which is obviously not Uyghur, But user:Fowler&fowler insists that Uyghur is a spoken language in Aksai Chin!
It is time for sane editors on Wikipedia to put an end to user:Fowler&fowler's prejudiced Original Research edits! Hindutashravi (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just come up on your treasure trove of edits, and I notice, you rely on extremely outdated information. You rely on physical taunts, and blocks of text. This "treasure trove" is worth no more than a pile of noses.Qwed117 (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanju Pass = Suget Pass?

[edit]

The John E. Hill's translation of The Western Regions according to the Hou Hanshu says:

"The main obstacle on the route was the high and dangerous Karakoram Pass (5,575 m. or 18,291 ft). Caravans would often rest and graze their animals in the fertile valley near Shahidulla until conditions were favourable to cross the less rigorous Sanju Pass also called the “Suget Pass’ (5,364 m. or 17,598 ft.) and then the notorious Karakoram. Shahidulla controlled the route north across the Sanju Pass from where one could head northwest to Pishan and Yarkand or northeast towards Khotan. Although the Suget is a difficult pass, it is possible to take laden yaks across it: ...."

The article does not say directly that Sanju Pass is the same as Suget Pass, though, bu should it? Cheers, --Rayshade (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation

[edit]

I had in my earlier statement said, “So I have no doubt that the “Walagot Pass” or Wologot pass is Sanju Pass”. My suspicion has been vindicated. I have confirmed that Walagot Pass is indeed an alternate name for Sanju Pass which is rightly depicted as part of Kashmir in the map pertaining to the Survey of W.H. Johnson. A perusal of the report of W.H. Johnson would show that the moment he entered the Sanju Pass which he refers to as the Walagot pass, he realized that he was in the territory of Kashmir. He immediately on entering the Sanju Pass proceeds to state that “the last portion of the route to Shadulla (Shahidulla) is particularly pleasant, being the whole way up the Karakash valley which is wide and even, and shut in either side by rugged mountains. On this route I noticed numerous extensive plateaus near the river, covered with wood and long grass. These being within the territory of the Maharajah of Kashmir, could easily be brought under cultivation by Ladakees and others, if they could be induced and encouraged to do so by the Kashmir Government. The establishment of villages and habitations on this river would be important in many points of view, but chiefly in keeping the route open from the attacks of the Khergiz robbers”.So much for the misrepresentation of User:Fowler&fowler! Hindutashravi (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

[edit]

To User:Rayshade: “Vandalism”? What Vandalism? Please don’t make blatant misrepresentations. What aspect of my edit is “vandalism”? My edit is totally supported with references. You are liable to apologise to me for making misrepresentation. Whether my edit is my personal View or Original research will have to be resolved by way of either Mediation or Arbitration. You should rather try to come to a consensus, if there are certain aspects of my revert which may need some modifying or redrafting, rather than simply reverting my edit and leaving me no other option but to also revert. Right? It is you who are pushing your personal view and Original research ignoring all the acclaimed references and actually demarcating the northern border of Kashmir, which only the Republic of India has a right to do, after talks with the legitimate de jure government of East Turkistan! Hindutashravi (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text on the supposed 19th century claim of the Sanju Pass by Hindutashravi

[edit]

I am having to check, adjust and remove long sections of text inserted by Hindutashravi who seems to be trying to establish some sort of claim by Kashmir (and thus, India) in the 19th century. Not only is much of his text supporting a personal Point of View (POV), many of his references are clearly wrong. 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. He also referred to the Kingdom of Khotan was actually and Indian kingdom - a claim with no historical basis.

I am in the middle of the laborious and time-consuming process of checking and assessing his claims. Since October 21st he has "been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term and continued disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash despite multiple blocks and warnings". It is time to undo some of the far-fetched and poorly supported claims he has made - but I will try to do this as carefully and fairly as possible. I would appreciate any help or suggestions from other readers in this rather difficult and thankless task. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hill exposed

[edit]
John Hill has stated that “ For just one example, he claims that the 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”. This is yet another instance of John Hill's blatant shameless lies. His statement has amounted to defamation and the imputation that I had deliberately furnished wrong information. He cannot be permitted to get away with such sweeping statements and should be punitively blocked. He also owes me an unconditional apology for unscrupulously making such sweeping statements. In fact his conduct is just a case in point and portrays the wider pattern of misconduct of the coterie which supports the Chinese like inter alia Regent's Park (Rose Garden) , User:Fowler&fowler], YellowMonkey or Toddst1. This lie has been perpetrated by this person, John Hill in spite of the fact that I had furnished all the references available at that time pertaining to the Gazetteer of Kasmir and Ladakh including the relevant page numbers (pages 520 and 364), year of publication, and the name of the publisher or author. This conduct is all the more reprehensible in the light of the fact that it emanates from a person who claims to be the author of a published work! His alleged reasons for removing the map of W.H.Johnson that , “line which is apparently meant to represent the political border between Khotanese and Kashmiri territory (Khotan had recently freed itself of Chinese control - although this situation was not to last for long)” and the map “is very difficult to read and had no official status” cannot be countenanced and clearly exposes his deceit and ulterior intentions and the overt diabolical conspiracy of the coterie he is part of, but he nevertheless shamelessly states that he is not trying to promote China's present perceived interests. I had furnished the information with references in the article even prior to 17 December 2009 that “The Chinese completed the reconquest of eastern Turkistan in 1878. Before they lost it in 1863, their practical authority, as Ney Elias British Joint Commissioner in Leh from the end of the 1870s to 1885, and Younghusband consistently maintained, "had never extended south of their outposts at Sanju and Kilian along the northern foothills of the Kuenlun range. Nor did they establish a known presence to the south of the line of outposts in the twelve years immediately following their return". Ney Elias who had been Joint Commissioner in Ladakh for several years noted on 21 September 1889 that he had met the Chinese in 1879 and 1880 when he visited Kashgar. “they told me that they considered their line of ‘chatze’, or posts, as their frontier – viz. , Kugiar, Kilian, Sanju, Kiria, etc.- and that they had no concern with what lay beyond the mountains” i.e. the Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir wherein the Hindutash pass is situate”. So much for his statement that “It is time to undo some of the far-fetched and poorly supported claims he has made - but I will try to do this as carefully and fairly as possible”! Hindutashravi (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.6.171 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's Map

[edit]

Hindutashravi inserted a map drawn by the British traveller W.H. Johnson of which he claims: "The Map unequivocally and with out an iota of doubt depicts both the Sanju La and the Hindutash passes as part of Kashmir."

However, it does nothing of the sort. There is a line which is apparently meant to represent the political border between Khotanese and Kashmiri territory (Khotan had recently freed itself of Chinese control - although this situation was not to last for long). The line goes right along the ridge of the mountains placing the top of the Sanju Pass directly on the line.

It must be remembered, though, that Johnson was not an official envoy of the British and the true nature of the political situation is clearly outlined in the following quotes from the article by H. C. Rawlinson, “On the Recent Journey of Mr. W. H. Johnson from Leh, in Ladakh, to Ilchi in Chinese Turkistan.” Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of London, Vol. 11, No. 1. (1866-1867), pp. 6-15.

"The territory up to the mountains which limit Turkistan on the south, belongs to the Maharajah of Kashmir; that is, to the Hindoo chief of Jummo, the son of the famous Gholab Sing, to whom, at the conclusion of the Punjab war, we granted Kashmir and its dependencies.” p. 7.
". . . . He [Mr. Johnson] arrived on the banks of the Karakash River of Turkistan, at a point 15,500 feet above sea-level. From this place to Ilchi occupied sixteen days’ march, at the commencement of which he crossed the Khatai diwan (17,501 feet) and Yangí diwan (19,092 feet) Passes of the Kuen-lun, and descended to Brinja. . . . Of course, he had no authority to enter into any political relations . . . ." p. 10.

I will, therefore, take the liberty of removing the map from the article which, in any case, is very difficult to read and had no official status. John Hill (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of Eastern Turkestan

[edit]

Claim of Eastern Turkestan independence during the 1860s in this article is not corroborated by Dungan Revolt (1862–77). It has no mentioning of independence. --Voidvector (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore my previous comment. While I cannot resolve (make clear) the actual political state at the time, facts on the ground shows there was degrees of autonomy/independence during the revolt. Though the article was since edited to remove that anyway. --Voidvector (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sanju_Pass&oldid=1210207895"