copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-05-03): The construction of this road is a matter of serious concern for India. If China extends the road to the Upper Shaksgam Valley, it would pose a dual threat to Indian positions on the Siachen Glacier from both Pakistan in the South and China in the North. It is logical to assume that the Indian Army will need to plan long-term defenses to address Chinese expansion in the Occupied Shaksgam Valley. [...] India has raised the issue of the Shaksgam Valley in the Special Representative Dialogue on Boundary Resolution. The last meeting was held in December 2019. Despite Indian Special Representative Ajit Doval's meeting with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi on the sidelines of BRICS in South Africa on July 24, 2023, the SR dialogue has been largely inactive since the Chinese PLA transgressed in East Ladakh in May 2020, disregarding all bilateral agreements. The clash between Indian troops, led by Colonel Santosh Babu, and the PLA at Galwan on June 15, 2020, further strained relations between the two countries. India has lodged at least two protests in the past two years against road construction in the Shaksgam Valley. These actions demonstrate India's commitment to protecting its territory and ensuring that road construction is halted in the illegally occupied region.
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-05-02): [Answer in Hindi: Approximate translation] Dubey ji, your question was about the activities happening near Siachen. Perhaps, we had discussed this matter last time as well. Maybe you weren't present here. This is regarding the Shaksgam valley. The Shaksgam valley, we consider it our own territory. [...] [Answer in Hindi: Approximate translation] As far as the Shaksgam valley is concerned, we consider it as our own territory, our own area. We have never accepted the so-called China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963, through which Pakistan unlawfully attempted to cede the area to China; and we have consistently conveyed our rejection of the same. We have registered a protest with the Chinese government, the Chinese side against attempts to alter the ground reality. We further reserve the right to take necessary measures to safeguard our interests. [...] Srinjoy, on your question regarding Shaksgam Valley, we have stated our position because this is a vexed issue. We have stated our position very clearly as to how we see developments in that part. Shaksgam Valley, it is our territory and we have been protesting as and when required. And we have always taken a very strong stand on it.
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-05-02): India has lodged a strong protest with China for carrying out construction activities in the Shaksgam valley, in an "illegal" attempt to alter the situation on the ground. Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Thursday that the Shaksgam valley is a part of India and New Delhi never accepted the so-called China-Pakistan boundary pact of 1963 through which Islamabad "unlawfully" attempted to cede the area to Beijing. [...] The Shaksgam valley is a strategically key region that is part of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-05-03): NEW DELHI: India has registered a protest with Beijing for constructing a road in the Shaksgam Valley, which was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1963, asserting it is a part of Indian territory. [...] India maintains that under the 1963 agreement, Pakistan illegally ceded 5,180 sq km of Indian territory in Shaksgam Valley from areas illegally occupied by Pakistan in Union Territory of Ladakh to China. It has also maintained China continues to be in illegal occupation of approximately 38,000 sq kms of Indian territory in Ladakh for the past six decades.
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-07-10): In 1963, Pakistan illegally gifted the Shaksgam valley to China under the China-Pakistan Agreement 1963 ("China-Pakistan Agreement") whereby Gen. Ayub Khan of Pakistan handed over parts of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to China. The agreement purportedly establishes the formal boundary line between China's Xinjiang region and PoK by delineating the boundary alignment along mountain ridges and rivers. The said concession of territory to China was illegal from the start as the Shaksgam valley was rightfully an Indian territory that was under the illegal occupation of Pakistan. As such, as per the legal maxim nemo dat quod non habet (No one gives what he does), Pakistan could not have gifted what was not rightfully its territory in the first place.
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-06-10): New Chinese Road in Shaksgam Valley: A Brief Historical Background [...] The road, located in the Shaksgam Valley, branches out from an extension of Highway G219 (also known as the Aksai Chin road) and "disappears into mountains at a place approximately 50 km north of India’s northernmost point, Indira Col in Siachen Glacier," according to India Today. [...] The spokesperson of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) immediately asserted: "Shaksgam Valley is a part of the territory of India. We have never accepted the so-called China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963, through which Pakistan unlawfully attempted to cede the area to China. We have registered our protest with the Chinese side against illegal attempts to alter facts on the ground. We further reserve the right to take necessary measures to safeguard our interests."
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-05-03): (TibetanReview.net, May03’24) —India has lodged a strong protest to China last week over the latter’s building of a road in Shaksgam Valley which belongs to it, and which also has the potential to threaten Indian defences in Siachen Glacier. This 5180 square-kilometre Indian territory was illegally ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963, noted the hindustantimes.com and other reports May 3. [...] India maintains that under the 1963 agreement, Pakistan illegally ceded to China 5,180 sq km of Indian territory in Shaksgam Valley from areas illegally occupied by it in the Union Territory of Ladakh. It has also maintained that China continues to be in illegal occupation of approximately 38,000 sq kms of Indian territory in Ladakh for the past six decades, the report said. [...] India is stated to have been raising the issue of Shaksgam Valley in the Special Representative Dialogue on Boundary Resolution, the last of which was held in Dec 2019. This dialogue has, however, virtually been put on the backburner after Chinese PLA threw all the bilateral agreements out of the window and transgressed in East Ladakh in May 2020. India has no intention to allow Beijing to unilaterally impose the 1959 line on East Ladakh.
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-05-02): NEW DELHI: Amidst reports of China making roads and developing infrastructure in the Shaksgam Valley, India has reaffirmed that the area is part of its territory. India has also raised a protest with China over the construction. "The Shaksgam Valley is a part of the Indian territory. We have never accepted the so-called China Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963 through which Pakistan has unlawfully attempted to cede the area to China. We have registered our protest with the Chinese side against illegal attempts to alter facts on the ground," said Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal. [...] The Shaksgam tract (which includes the Shaksgam Valley) is an area of 5,200 sq km north of the Karakoram watershed that has been illegally occupied by China since 1963. It was earlier occupied by Pakistan since 1947.
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-02-04): QUESTION NO.648 SHAKSGAM VALLEY [...] SHAKSGAM VALLEY 648. SHRI SHYAM SINGH YADAV: [...] (a) to (c) China continues to be in illegal occupation of approximately 38,000 sq. kms. of Indian territory in the Union Territory of Ladakh for the last six decades. Further, under the so-called China-Pakistan ‘Boundary Agreement’ signed in 1963, Pakistan illegally ceded 5,180 sq. kms. of Indian territory in Shaksgam Valley from areas illegally occupied by Pakistan in Union Territory of Ladakh to China.
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2012-12-27): Mandip Singh replies: The Shaksgam Valley or the Trans Karakoram Tract is part of Hunza-Gilgit region of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK), and is a disputed territory claimed by India but controlled by Pakistan. It borders Xinjiang Province of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to the north, the Northern Areas of POK to the south and west, and the Siachen Glacier region to the east. The Shaksgam Valley was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1963 when both countries signed a boundary agreement to settle their border differences. However, Article 6 clearly stated that "the two Parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China, on the boundary as described in Article Two of the present Agreement, so as to sign a formal Boundary Treaty to replace the present agreement."
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-05-02): In Short - India lodged protest with China for construction in Shaksgam Valley - MEA spokesperson says Shaksgam Valley is part of Indian territory - Reports of Chinese construction activities amid India-China border row [...] Spokesperson in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Randhir Jaiswal said the Shaksgam Valley is a part of India and New Delhi never accepted the so-called China-Pakistan boundary pact of 1963 through which Islamabad "unlawfully" attempted to cede the area to Beijing. [...] "The Shaksgam Valley is a part of the territory of India. We have never accepted the so-called China-Pakistan boundary agreement of 1963 through which Pakistan unlawfully attempted to cede the area to China," Jaiswal said.
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-05-02): New Delhi: China is building a road in Shaksgam Valley, a part of Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) ceded to Beijing in 1963, that can connect Muzaffarabad through the Mustagh Pass to Yarkahnd in Xinjiang. [...] "Shaksgam Valley is a part of the territory of India. We have never accepted the so-called China Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963 through which Pakistan unlawfully attempted to cede the area to China, and have consistently conveyed our rejection of the same," Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told the media. [...] In a significant development, 🇨🇳 road has breached the border at Aghil Pass (4805 m) and entered the lower Shaksgam valley of Kashmir, 🇮🇳 with the road-head now less than 30 miles from 🇮🇳 Siachen
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-05-02): New Delhi: The Shaksgam Valley is a part of the territory of India, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said today amid reports of China building infrastructure in the valley, a strategically located region that is now part of the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said that India "never accepted the so-called China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963 through which Pakistan unlawfully attempted to cede the area to China".
Claim: Shaksgam Valley is a territory of India (Shaksgam Valley, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-05-02): The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated that China has been investing in military infrastructure in the Shaksgam Valley, which India considers as part of its territory as per a report by The Hindu. [...] Jaiswal stated, "Shaksgam Valley is a part of the territory of India. We have never accepted the so-called China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963 through which Pakistan unlawfully attempted to cede the area to China, and have consistently conveyed our rejection of the same." [...] The Shaksgam Valley, part of the PoK, was handed over to China through an illegal border agreement between Pakistan and China on 2 March, 1963.
Claim: Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River is a territory of Russia (Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2023-09-11): Sixty-Four Villages East of the River 50°06′N 127°41′E / 50.100°N 127.683°E The Sixty-Four Villages East of the River were a group of Manchu, Daur and Han-inhabited villages located on the left (north) bank of the Amur River (Heilong Jiang) opposite of Heihe, and on the east bank of Zeya River opposite of Blagoveshchensk.[1] The area totaled 3,600 square kilometers (1,400 sq mi).[2] [...] Further reading [edit]- Yang, Chuang; Gao, Fei; Feng (September 2006), "海兰泡和江东六十四屯惨案 (The Tragic Case of Blagoveshchensk/Hailanpao and the Sixty-Four Villages East of the River)", 百年中俄关系 (A Century of China-Russia Relations), Beijing: World Affairs Press, ISBN 7-5012-2876-0 External links [edit]- A map of Aihun Ting from a 1911 Heilongjiang atlas. This is the district centered on Aihun on the Chinese side of the river, but also including (according to the cartographer) the "Sixty-Four Villages" on the Russian side. (in Chinese)
Claim: Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River is a territory of Russia (Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-12-30): The Sixty-Four Villages East of the River were a group of Manchu, Daur and Han-inhabited villages located on the left (north) bank of the Amur River (Heilong Jiang) opposite of Heihe, and on the east bank of Zeya River opposite of Blagoveshchensk.[1] The area totaled 3,600 square kilometers (1,400 sq mi).[2] [...] Further reading - Yang, Chuang; Gao, Fei; Feng (September 2006), "海兰泡和江东六十四屯惨案 (The Tragic Case of Blagoveshchensk/Hailanpao and the Sixty-Four Villages East of the River)", 百年中俄关系 (A Century of China-Russia Relations), Beijing: World Affairs Press, ISBN 7-5012-2876-0 External links - A map of Aihun Ting from a 1911 Heilongjiang atlas. This is the district centered on Aihun on the Chinese side of the river, but also including (according to the cartographer) the "Sixty-Four Villages" on the Russian side. (in Chinese)
Claim: Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River is a territory of Russia (Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-01-01): The Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River (zh-tsp|t=江東六十四屯|s=江东六十四屯|p=Jiāngdōng Liùshísì Tún) (literally "64 villages east of river") are located on the left bank (north bank) of the [...] Republic of China (ROC), the successor of the Qing Empire, has never recognized the Russian occupation as legitimate. In the1991 Sino-Russian Border Agreement , thePeople's Republic of China (PRC) renounced sovereignty of the 64 Villages. However, the Republic of China now based in Taiwan never renounced sovereignty of the area nor does it recognize any border agreements signed by the People's Republic of China with any other countries due to the restrictions imposed by Article 4 of theConstitution of the Republic of China and Section 5 of Article 4 of the . Therefore, the area still appears as Chinese territory in many maps of China published in Taiwan even though it is now administered as a part ofAmur Oblast , Russia.ee also * [...] The Epoch Times criticism of the treaty mentioning the Sixty-four villages east of the Heilongjiang River
Claim: Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River is a territory of Russia (Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-01-01): 50.1°N 168°WThe Sixty-Four Villages East of the River were a group of Manchu, Daur and Han-inhabited villages located on the left (north) bank of the Amur River (Heilong Jiang) opposite of Heihe, and on the east bank of Zeya River opposite of Blagoveshchensk. The area totaled 3600km2. [...] The Republic of China (ROC), has never recognized the Russian occupation as legitimate. In the 1991 Sino-Soviet Border Agreement, the People's Republic of China (PRC) renounced sovereignty of the 64 Villages. However, the Republic of China now based in Taiwan never renounced sovereignty of the area nor does it recognize any border agreements signed by the People's Republic of China with any other countries due to the restrictions imposed by Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of China and Section 5 of Article 4 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China. Therefore, the area still appears as Chinese territory in many maps of China published in Taiwan even though it is now administered as a part of Amur Oblast, Russia.[7]
Claim: Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River is a territory of Russia (Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2016-01-01): Germany and WWF USA the ecoregion-based planning was finished in 2002 and the Conservation Action Plan for Russian part was developed in cooperation with leading NGOs. The elaboration of the publication "Amur Heilong River Basin Reader" provided the scientific background for uniting projects into a large transboundary program under a 10 year strategic plan. As of 2006 three regional implementing WWF offices have worked under this plan: WWF Russia Amur Branch in Vladivostok, WWF China – Northeast China Office in Changchun, and WWF Mongolia field office in Dadal. [...] - European world maps use the name "Amur", whereas China uses the name "Heilongjiang", or "Black Dragon River", for the same river.
Claim: Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River is a territory of Russia (Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2018-01-13): The Treaty of Aigun (also known as the Sino-Russian Treaty of Aihui) was an unequal treaty imposed by tsarist Russia on the Qing government during the Second Opium War. In May 1858, when the Anglo-French Allied Forces seized Tianjin, tsarist Russia took the opportunity to send its troops into Aigun (Aihui) as a threat of force to the Qing government, forcing Yishan, the general stationed in the town, to sign this treaty. The treaty ceded to tsarist Russia more than 600,000 square kilometers of Chinese land north of Heilongjiang and south of the Stanovoi Mountains, with only sixty-four villages east of the Heilongjiang River kept under China’s control. It also brought a 400,000-square-kilometer Chinese territory east of the Wusuli River under "joint administration" by the two countries, and granted Russia the right of navigation on the Heilongjiang, the Songhuajiang, and the Wusuli River. The conclusion of this treaty deeply wounded China in terms of territorial sovereignty.
Claim: Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River is a territory of Russia (Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2012-03-18): The Sixty-Four Villages East of the River were a group of Manchu-inhabited villages located on the left (north) bank of the Amur River opposite to Heihe, and on the east bank of Zeya River opposite to Blagoveshchensk.[1] Their area totalled 3,600 square kilometres (1,400 sq mi).[2] [...] The Republic of China (ROC), the successor of the Qing Empire, has never recognized the Russian occupation as legitimate.[2] In the 1991 Sino-Russian Border Agreement, the People's Republic of China (PRC) renounced sovereignty of the 64 Villages.[11] However, the Republic of China now based in Taiwan never renounced sovereignty of the area nor does it recognize any border agreements signed by the People's Republic of China with any other countries due to the restrictions imposed by Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of China and Section 5 of Article 4 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China.[2] Therefore, the area still appears as Chinese territory in many maps of China published in Taiwan even though it is now administered as a part of Amur Oblast, Russia.[11][13] [...] - A map of Aihun Ting from a 1911 Heilongjiang atlas. This is the district centered on Aihun on the Chinese side of the river, but also including (according to the cartographer) the "Sixty-Four Villages" on the Russian side. (Chinese)
Claim: Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River is a territory of Russia (Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2023-11-22): Liu Jialei, 2014. A Study on the Evolution of the Sino-Russian Border and its Boundary Markers in the Eastern Sector of the Northeast. Heilongjiang: Heilongjiang Education Publishing House. (in Chinese) [...] Wang Wan Li Xing, 2018. The Heilongjiang River in the context of Sino-Russian relations: from the boundary of disputes to cooperation. Russian, East European & Central Asian Studies, (1): 69–94, 157. (in Chinese) [...] Heilongjiang River (Amur River in Russia) watershed
Claim: Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River is a territory of Russia (Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2016-09-05): The Amur River or Heilong Jiang is the world’s tenth longest river, forming the border between the Russian Far East and Northeastern China (Inner Manchuria). The largest fish species in the Amur is the kaluga, attaining a length as great as 5.6 metres. [...] In many historical references these two geopolitical entities are known as Outer Manchuria (Russian Manchuria) and Inner Manchuria, respectively. The Chinese province of Heilongjiang on the south bank of the river is named after it, as is the Russian Amur Oblast on the north bank. The name Black River (sahaliyan ula) was used by the Manchu and the Ta-tsing Empire who regarded this river as sacred. [...] The Amur region remained a relative backwater of the Ta-tsing Empire for the next century and a half, with Aigun being practically the only major town on the river. Russians re-appeared on the river in the mid-19th century, forcing the Manchus to yield all lands north of the river to the Russian Empire by the Treaty of Aigun (1858). Lands east of the Ussury and the lower Amur were acquired by Russia as well, by the Convention of Peking (1860).
Claim: Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River is a territory of Russia (Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-01): Located on the left bank of Heilongjiang, Jiangdong Sixty-four Tun is a collective name for a group of villages. It was originally under the jurisdiction of the Heilongjiang General. At that time, the Outer Xing'an Mountains were under the jurisdiction of China, and Heilongjiang was an inland river in China. At the end of the Qing Dynasty, especially after Xianfeng, with the signing of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Aigun, the Treaty of Tianjin, the Treaty of Beijing, etc., China's funerals covered a large area. The Heilongjiang and Ussuri Rivers became the Sino-Russian boundary rivers. However, Hailanpao on the left bank of Heilongjiang and Liusitun in Jiangdong are still Chinese territory. The specific area is from the mouth of Jingqili River in the north, to Huoer Molejintun in the south, to the left bank of Heilongjiang River in the west, and bounded by the Jingqili River to the Bolegerqin River in the east, with a width of more than 90 miles and a stretch of 180 miles. ten miles. A total of sixty-four villages.