Talk:Hindutash Pass

message: user:Hindutashravi: I don't know what irredentist fantasy you are operating under, but the so-called Hindutash Davan was never a part of Kashmir or Ladakh.  It was shown to be a part of Chinese Turkestan in the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer Map of India.  In 1857, when the Schlagintweit brothers explored the area, it was even farther from the boundaries of Kashmir than it was in 1909.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hindutashravi: You don't have any references.  You claim your citation is "Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladakh," but who published it and where?  Please provide precise references before you revert; otherwise, I will be forced to bring it up on the Wikipedia notice board.  OK?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page

message: Hindutashravi: There are many problems with your edits:
*You have seem to have simply copied and pasted from old accounts.  Until I added the references, there were no references on this page; well, none except: Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak (sic)" (with no dates, publisher, title of article, page numbers etc.).
*Now that I have compiled some citations and read them, I can tell at a glance that at least some of your sentences are a direct copy and paste form H. Trotter's account (given in the reference I added to the article).  Here are Trotter's words, "On the Karakash River, above Fotash, is a camping-ground called Sumgal, from which Robert Schlagintweit crossed the Kuen Luen Range by the Hindu-tagh Pass, estimated by him at 17,379 feet high. At the top of this pass is a glacier much crevassed and extremely steep. It is a long and difficult march from its foot to the village of Bushia, where are numerous tents and caves occupied by Kirghiz, and supplies can be obtained in large quantities. It is eight marches thence to Khotan, and the road is described as bad. The road by the Hindu-tigh Pass can only be used by foot-passengers.
:And here is your version: "Robert Schlagintweit crossed this pass from a camping ground called Sumgal, on the Karakash River. He estimated its height to be 17,879 feet. At the top there is a much-crevassed and extremely steep glacier. The road by this pass can only be used by foot-passengers."  Per WP:MOS, you should  either quote exactly or to paraphrase adequately; in either case, you have to provide the exact reference, not (johnson:trotter) as you do.
*You seem to be using archaic terminology.  You say, "The road to it leaves the Karakoram route ... and lies for two marches up the Karakash river."  No one uses expressions like "two marches" any more, especially in an encyclopedia.  Those expressions were used in the 19th century, especially in account of long treks, but in Wikipedia one needs distance, unless none is available.
*Finally, the biggest problems with your edits is that they claim that the Kunlun mountains  were (and still are) the farthest northern boundaries of India.  In fact, they never were.   The Maharaja of Kashmir briefly encouraged that notion in the 1860s, but the British never took that notion seriously.  In all the maps I have added to the page (except for that of W. H. Johnson, who later joined the service of the Maharaja of Kashmir), 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.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by [[user:Hindutashravi]]

message: They should be removed to Commons as per WP:NOT. --Ghirla-трёп- 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is still a stub.  I am working on adding text.  So, please don't move anything anywhere.  OK?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too little text, too many maps 

message: To user:Hindutashravi: Per the Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir pages in Wikipedia, the historic Hindutash pass is not in Kashmir.  It is in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China.   As you can see in the US Government map in the Kashmir page, :File:Kashmir region-map 2004.jpg (top right in map), the Karakash River (which flows west-northwest in that region) downstream of Dahongliutan is in Xinjiang proper, not even in the disputed territory.  That means that Kangxiwar and Xaidulla are also both in Xinjiang, and, consequently, the pass is as well.  Please don't keep adding factually incorrect information to the article.  If you feel that the pass is in the Kashmir region, please take up the issue on the Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir pages and have their maps corrected.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please upload a map here published since 1947 by the Union of India, Republic of India, Pakistan, People's Republic of China, United Kingdom, United States, USSR or by the United Nations that shows the region of the Hindutash pass to be a part of the Republic of India.  Alternatively, please produce any official statement by the Government of India claiming this region to be a part of India.  If you can't you are barking up the wrong tree.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Hindutashravi, you may also wish to find out more about article ownership, referencing your edits, and compromising with your fellow editors based on best referencing/editing practices. Otherwise, I'm quite afraid that reporting people may be a (further) waste of time. Saravask (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Factually incorrect information in edits

message: I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies but I do understand the policies of wikipedia and see that two policies are being violated here. User:Hindutashravi, in a long response to User:Fowler&fowler, interprets the constitution of India, draws deductions from various colonial reports, some of which are completely peripheral to official views of the location of the pass, and also gives his/her interpretation of why colonial maps were vague about the Sino-Indian boundary. All this would make a nice paper if peer reviewed in an appropriate academic journal, but we don't do that on wikipedia. For good reasons, original research is not acceptable here and you need to find reliable sources that definitively and categorically back up your view that the pass is in India.  Failing that, I don't see how the material is includable. I'm going to restore Fowler&fowler's version and I suggest that you make a case, properly backed up with definitive references, for your view. If the pass was considered to be a part of Kashmir, or if its location is or was disputed, I don't see why less obscure colonial era or even modern documents substantiating that claim cannot be found. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (NOTE: I'm here at the request of Fowler&fowler. But, rest assured that, if reliable, credible and accessible sources are provided, I will heed them.--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 21:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I will check your references (I have access to the first three). Do note, however, that your statement #4 does not seem to be correct. The way I see the W H Johnson Map, the Pass appears to be at the border or just outside the border of Kashmir. The Simla convention you refer to above does not seem to resolve anything. The convention is not accepted by the Chinese and boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions. Also, with almost no effort, I located a reference that places the boundary of tibet as being on the northern banks of the Karakash River () which would place the pass as securely in China. Also, nothing in the text of Article 9 appears to say anything about 'southern border of Khotan and East Turkistan with Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range in the area of Hindutash'. Also, the Indian government apparently argues that the 1914 map delineates the border between India and China, which makes it rather odd that the maps of the government of India don't show the pass as being disputed. Finally, the text that you quote from the W. H. Johnson survey says nothing about the pass. Conclusions about where the border lies seem to be your conclusions. If these conclusions are generally accepted, then surely you can provide references to scholars who draw the same conclusions (#2 claims to do so and I'll take a look at it). As of now, based on the references you provide, it is not possible to categorically state that the location is in Kashmir. I am going to revert your reversion and I suggest you (1) wait until I check the first three references - your second reference seems the most promising (2) provide any additional support in the talk page without reverting the article (3) look for more reliable sources, preferably modern sources that back up your claim. Note that I cannot prevent you from reverting the article without further discussion and note also that, though I can do so, I will not protect the article myself because, I suppose, I now have an involvement in it (though the actual location of the pass does not matter to me!).  But, for various reasons to do with the nature of your edits across the encyclopedia, you are flirting with some kind of action, and, if I were you, I would be more circumspect. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I won't revert your edit. I suggest you do a good faith reversion on your own. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 20:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Now that I've thought about this a little, it seems to me that the issue is a lot clearer than we're making it out to be. 
#The pass is currently an undeniable part of China and the lead should therefore place it in China. 
#If the pass were part of a 'disputed territory', then the lead should mention that. However, in this case, it appears that India does not dispute the fact that it is in China. So there is no reason to grant it disputed status. 
#If, at some point in history, the pass was in Kashmir, then that should be mentioned in the article though not necessarily in the lead. However, your references are fuzzy on this and, at best, you can say that various British sources placed the pass in Kashmir but that this was never acknowledged or accepted by China. 
--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 13:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you can place the pass anywhere other than in China if no one else claims the area or disputes China's claim. (It's not as if we go around placing, say, Lorraine in Germany.) At best, I can see a case for saying that the pass may have belonged to Kashmir once but even that case is weak since it relies on interpretations of general statements about the location of borders and is largely drawn from a few primary English sources which say nothing about the historical location of the pass but simply place the general area around where the pass is located in Kashmir or India. Your claim about the constitution of India is completely derivative because it relies on two levels of interpretation (what the constitution says about borders in India, and what other sources say is the border of Kashmir) and I can't see why that is even relevant. In wikipedia, we don't interpret, we refer to reliable sources and leave the research aspect to others. Nothing here is original research and unfortunately that's what it seems to me you're doing. About the content dispute: I have no position on the content of this article and you're imputing views about the status of Kashmir and Tibet to me that I definitely do not hold. However, it is important to understand that the encyclopedia is not a forum for pushing our own views but is a repository of knowledge that is generally accepted by the (mostly academic community) and articles are built from reliable sources rather than from your or mine viewpoints. Finally, I've only protected the article against IP editors, not registered users such as yourself, and, since you can edit the article, I'm not sure why you're yelling 'administrator abuse'. However, before you start reverting, I suggest you read WP:OR - particularly WP:SYN and WP:SECONDARY = and perhaps also WP:TE and WP:SPA.--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with everything RP has said.  In addition, I would like to request user:Hindutashravi to remove the images that he has uploaded.  Even if their copyright has expired (which is not entirely clear since at least one map is a traced version in a 1969 book of of the 1913 original), the maps are unreadable.  At the very least, the resolution needs to be much higher (that is if they are deemed to be relevant to any Wikipedia article).  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Hindutash Pass 

message: To Rose Garden My reference to the Constitution of India  or the statement of Nehru is only a part of the communication to Fowler&fowler and Saravask. Here is the list of citations and references included in the article  which is not my Original Research.  
1.	The Gazetteer of Kashmir includes the entry of Hindutash. The Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak at Pages 520 and  364, has an item on Hindutash, besides other places in Kashmir, and the very fact that the entry on Hindutash is included in the said Gazetteer of Kashmir ipso facto is only because Hindutash is part of Kashmir. Go to the wikilink on Gazetteer  to know the significance and meaning of Gazetteer. A Gazetteer  of a State would only include a place that is situate in the state and not include places situate outside the state.  If Hindutash is not part of Kashmir, the place name would  not be included in the Gazetteer  of Kashmir. The quotation “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”, is directly extracted from the said Gazetteer of Kashmir without any editing. 
2.	 The quotation, “thus implying "that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range" and  Johnson’s findings demonstrated that the whole of the Kara Kash valley was “within the territory of the Maharaja of Kashmir” and an integral part of the territory of Kashmir”, is the view  and conclusion of Dorothy Woodman in the  book  Himalayan Frontiers  at Pg.67-68  reproduced as a quotation in the article. Hindutash pass is in the Kuen Lun Range.
3.	The quotation “thus the Khotan ruler accepted the Kunlun range as the southern boundary of his dominion” is the view and conclusion of Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback  at Pg.116 in the book “Himalayan Battleground”. Hindutash pass is situate in the Kuen Lun range to the south of Khotan.
4.	The W. H. Johnson map unequivocally  depicts Hindutash as part of Kashmir. The map is part of the article.
5.	The Map referred to in Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China and Tibet dated the 5th July 1914, depicting the southern border of Khotan and East Turkistan with Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range in the area of Hindutash in Kashmir as a red line is  also included in the article.
6.	 “The findings  of W.H. Johnson’s survey  is included in the reference.  W.H. Johnson’s survey  established certain important points”. "Brinjga was in his view the boundary post" ( near the Karanghu Tagh Peak in the Kuen Lun in Ladakh ), thus implying "that the boundary lay along the Kuen Lun Range" where the Hindutash pass is situate. Johnson’s findings demonstrated that the whole of the Kara Kash valley was “within the territory of the Maharaja of Kashmir” and an integral part of the territory of Kashmir. "He noted where the Chinese boundary post was accepted.  At Yangi Langar, three marches from Khotan, he noticed that there were a few fruit trees at this place which originally was a post or guard house of the Chinese". To quote from “Himalayan Battleground” by Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, page 116 “The Khan wrote Johnson ‘that he had dispatched his Wazier, Saifulla Khoja to meet me at Bringja, the first encampment beyond the Ladakh boundary for the purpose of escorting me thence to Ilichi’… thus the Khotan ruler accepted the Kunlun range as the southern boundary of his dominion.” According to Johnson, “the last portion of the route to Shadulla (Shahidulla) is particularly pleasant, being the whole of the Karakash valley which is wide and even, and shut in either side by rugged mountains. On this route I noticed numerous extensive plateaux near the river, covered with wood and long grass. These being within the territory of the Maharaja of Kashmir, could easily be brought under cultivation by Ladakhees and others, if they could be induced and encouraged to do so by the Kashmeer 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.” The findings of W.H. Johnson hold good to this day and nothing at all has changed legally. W.H. Johnson’s findings pertain to the north eastern border of Kashmir adjacent of Khotan.
I am assuming that you sought for the clarifications in  good faith and I have again given the details of the 6 references in the article. The aforesaid are not my original research Hope you will not revert to the version of  User:Fowler&fowlerHindutashravi (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will check your references (I have access to the first three). Do note, however, that your statement #4 does not seem to be correct. The way I see the W H Johnson Map, the Pass appears to be at the border or just outside the border of Kashmir. The Simla convention you refer to above does not seem to resolve anything. The convention is not accepted by the Chinese and boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions. Also, with almost no effort, I located a reference that places the boundary of tibet as being on the northern banks of the Karakash River () which would place the pass as securely in China. Also, nothing in the text of Article 9 appears to say anything about 'southern border of Khotan and East Turkistan with Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range in the area of Hindutash'. Also, the Indian government apparently argues that the 1914 map delineates the border between India and China, which makes it rather odd that the maps of the government of India don't show the pass as being disputed. Finally, the text that you quote from the W. H. Johnson survey says nothing about the pass. Conclusions about where the border lies seem to be your conclusions. If these conclusions are generally accepted, then surely you can provide references to scholars who draw the same conclusions (#2 claims to do so and I'll take a look at it). As of now, based on the references you provide, it is not possible to categorically state that the location is in Kashmir. I am going to revert your reversion and I suggest you (1) wait until I check the first three references - your second reference seems the most promising (2) provide any additional support in the talk page without reverting the article (3) look for more reliable sources, preferably modern sources that back up your claim. Note that I cannot prevent you from reverting the article without further discussion and note also that, though I can do so, I will not protect the article myself because, I suppose, I now have an involvement in it (though the actual location of the pass does not matter to me!).  But, for various reasons to do with the nature of your edits across the encyclopedia, you are flirting with some kind of action, and, if I were you, I would be more circumspect. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I won't revert your edit. I suggest you do a good faith reversion on your own. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 20:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Now that I've thought about this a little, it seems to me that the issue is a lot clearer than we're making it out to be. 
#The pass is currently an undeniable part of China and the lead should therefore place it in China. 
#If the pass were part of a 'disputed territory', then the lead should mention that. However, in this case, it appears that India does not dispute the fact that it is in China. So there is no reason to grant it disputed status. 
#If, at some point in history, the pass was in Kashmir, then that should be mentioned in the article though not necessarily in the lead. However, your references are fuzzy on this and, at best, you can say that various British sources placed the pass in Kashmir but that this was never acknowledged or accepted by China. 
--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 13:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you can place the pass anywhere other than in China if no one else claims the area or disputes China's claim. (It's not as if we go around placing, say, Lorraine in Germany.) At best, I can see a case for saying that the pass may have belonged to Kashmir once but even that case is weak since it relies on interpretations of general statements about the location of borders and is largely drawn from a few primary English sources which say nothing about the historical location of the pass but simply place the general area around where the pass is located in Kashmir or India. Your claim about the constitution of India is completely derivative because it relies on two levels of interpretation (what the constitution says about borders in India, and what other sources say is the border of Kashmir) and I can't see why that is even relevant. In wikipedia, we don't interpret, we refer to reliable sources and leave the research aspect to others. Nothing here is original research and unfortunately that's what it seems to me you're doing. About the content dispute: I have no position on the content of this article and you're imputing views about the status of Kashmir and Tibet to me that I definitely do not hold. However, it is important to understand that the encyclopedia is not a forum for pushing our own views but is a repository of knowledge that is generally accepted by the (mostly academic community) and articles are built from reliable sources rather than from your or mine viewpoints. Finally, I've only protected the article against IP editors, not registered users such as yourself, and, since you can edit the article, I'm not sure why you're yelling 'administrator abuse'. However, before you start reverting, I suggest you read WP:OR - particularly WP:SYN and WP:SECONDARY = and perhaps also WP:TE and WP:SPA.--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with everything RP has said.  In addition, I would like to request user:Hindutashravi to remove the images that he has uploaded.  Even if their copyright has expired (which is not entirely clear since at least one map is a traced version in a 1969 book of of the 1913 original), the maps are unreadable.  At the very least, the resolution needs to be much higher (that is if they are deemed to be relevant to any Wikipedia article).  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List of citations that categorically and definitively locate Hindutash in India

message: User:RegentsPark is warned not to again misuse his privileges as an Administrator and abuse his position as an Administrator. He should rather himself respond positively to my endeavour for consensus and should be encouraging others to respond to my endeavour for consensus. As already stated by me, I have no faith in him and I will be requesting Wikipedia to arbitrate on the issue that my reversion is allegedly POV, and what aspects of the article on Hindutash are allegedly  POV. I will do that myself and User:RegentsPark  need not interfere in that and poke his nose. If User:RegentsPark again resorts to his dirty tricks and foul play, it will  be at his peril! Hindutashravi (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning to [[User:RegentsPark]]  

message: Whew! This pass (and others near it) seem to be the battleground of a modern edit war (I have just been doing some work on the nearby Sanju Pass - please see the references and information I have added there). Now, while India (Kashmir) may have had a rather tenuous claim (and one disputed by the Chinese) at some point in the 19th century when Chinese control was weak due to uprisings in Xinjiang or Chinese Turkestan, the Chinese have held it ever since the late 19th century both by claim, and in fact. They completed their reconquest of Xinjiang in 1878. Additionally, the region of these passes is well north of any claims that are made by either Pakistan or India and so must, by any fair standard, be considered part of China. Please, let us not go on any further making claims for territory which is not in dispute between India, Pakistan or China - there are plenty enough real disputes to settle without adding another one. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try to settle this silly dispute now

message: To User:John Hill  First of all, let me thank you for retaining the information that  I added in the article on Sanju Pass. Your action is refreshingly different from the  modus operandi  of Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler who have been reverting my edit in toto and spurning my endeavour for arriving at a consensus, or the conduct of  User:Rayshade  in making the sweeping statement, “rv vandalism, removed previously 25 June 2009”  as though  my edits amount to vandalism. The fact that he has not refuted  my message to him in the Sanju pass discussion Page Talk:Sanju Pass compounded  with the fact that  after you did not delete the information that I added to the article, he has also in his edit dated 25 July 2009 with the edit summary  (The present situation: Typo fix) not deleted  the information  that I added which he had earlier termed as “Vandalism” ,  ipso facto suffices to   prove that he has unscrupulously and  recklessly made sweeping unwarranted allegations against me and that he owes me an apology. Do you agree that he owes me an apology?  I have been prevented from corresponding with you  because of the unjust block that was imposed by me by User:RegentsPark and his coterie. 
Now coming to your edits  of the Sanju Pass article and Hindutash, I regret that you have  reverted  my whole edit of the Hindutash in toto with out retaining any of the  the information that I added;  which contradicts  the manner  you dealt with the article on  the Sanju Pass.  Certainly not a way to “try to settle this silly dispute now”. 
Now further Coming to you edit of the Sanju Pass , Your statements  that , “Since the reconquest of the whole region by China in 1878,  it has been considered part of Sinkiang (Xinjiang) Province  and has remained so ever since”, or “while India (Kashmir) may have had a rather tenuous claim (and one disputed by the Chinese) at some point in the 19th century when Chinese control was weak due to uprisings in Xinjiang or Chinese Turkestan” or “Additionally, the region of these passes is well north of any claims that are made by either Pakistan or India” , cannot be any thing but your point of view. While  the Chinese holding the restive  state of East Turkistan by sheer means of  brute  Military force has been in de facto control of East Turkistan and adjacent areas of Kashmir in the Kuen Lun area  including inter alia Sanju La and Hindutash parvat, the area continues to be de jure a  part of Kashmir. Chinese control of East Turkistan had been always been resisted by the East Turkistani nationals  simply because the Chinese had absolutely no valid claim over East Turkistan  and its authority over East Turkistan was simply that of an occupier. When Kashmir acceded to the new dominion of India  in its entirety , Kashmir admittedly had a territorial extent.  That territorial extent has been explicitly described in both the Constitution of India and the Constitution of Kashmir ( in that respect, luckily Kashmir has a Constitution) .  Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir states, “The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State" , and        what   constitutes the territory of Kashmir is stipulated in the Constitution of  India. The territorial extent of the State of Kashmir is as stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India, read with Article 1 of the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads “The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”.  The Legal position is that the territorial extent by no means can be legally altered with out amending the Constitution of India and the Constitution of Kashmir, and that is irrespective of the fact that the present  Government of  India  allegedly or purportedly does not claim Hindutash and Sanju.  More over, there has never been any border agreement, even one which is ab initio illegal and null and void, under duress and coercion, ceding an area of Kashmir to the Chinese and demarcating or delineating the northern border of Kashmir. As stated by Emma Nicholson,  in her letter  dated 22, May 2007 to the Ambassador, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the European Union  the  accession of the princely state of Kashmir   to the new Dominion of India” on October 26, 1947 was “in its entirety"  The report on Kashmir of Baroness Emma Nicholson,  as a matter of fact  inter alia relies on an official 1909 map of Kashmir which inter alia depicts the Taghdumbash Pamir in Kanjut as Part of Kashmir as well as the correspondence of the Maharaja of Kashmir dated October 26 , 1947 with Lord Mountbatten , Governor General of India which states that the state of Kashmir has a common boundary  with the “Soviet Republic”, to determine the fact that inter alia Gilgit and Kanjut (which includes the Raskam , Hunza valley and Taghdumbash) are integral parts of Kashmir, and does not rely on  the post 1954 maps published by the Survey of India at the behest of Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru had also made a similar statement that  "as you are aware, run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and 'China'". Apropos your statement  that, “while India (Kashmir) may have had a rather tenuous claim (and one disputed by the Chinese) at some point in the 19th century when Chinese control was weak due to uprisings in Xinjiang or Chinese Turkestan”, I would like to inform you that by no stretch of imagination was Kashmir’s “claim” over the  Kuen lun range  on the edge of the highlands of Kashmir, “tenuous”, simply because inter alia the area in question was part of the highlands of Kashmir, and there was simply no disputants  at  all  till a  disputant was artificially  inducted at the end of the 19th century by the English only to serve their perverted purpose. In the words of Dorothy Woodman author of  Himalayan Frontiers Pg.55 and 56, published inter alia by London Barrie and Rockliff The Cresset Press 1969,  “The simple fact  was the inaccessible  and practicably  uninhabited area between the Karakoram and  Kuenlun ranges was of interest to the (English colonial )Indian Government only in terms of the Russian threat.” And that the  alleged  so-called “no man’s land” under the control of the Chinese was useful,  in the words of  Lansdowne,  “to us as an obstacle to Russian advance along this line”.  So when Chinese control over East Turkistan seemed  to be on the verge of very eminent and  inevitable collapse, it suited the English geostrategists to talk of the so called  “Ardagh Line”  as though the so- called “Ardagh Line” was an artificial and invented concept, ignoring the fact that there was plethora of evidence  and no dearth in the availability of evidence that the Kuen lun area had always been part of the principalities in the highlands of Kashmir notably Kanjut and Ladakh.  Their (the Chinese ) 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 lets be very clear about that. I hope that you can understand the English language when you read! My statements are supported by verifiability and corroborative evidence, so if you insist on stating that “India (Kashmir) may have had a rather tenuous claim (and one disputed by the Chinese) at some point in the 19th century”, you will necessarily have to adduce verifiable evidence and corroborative evidence, or concede that you were wrong and I am right, which I hope you will have the dignity to gracefully do. Right?  
Apropos your statement,  “let us not go on any further making claims for territory which is not in dispute between India, Pakistan or China” just what do you mean by  “us”. This is an issue concerning the territorial integrity of India in particular Kashmir. Europeans or people residing further west have no locus standi  to decide where the frontiers of India will be! Just why should India give away her territory to the Chinese who do not even share an International  border  with India. They have crossed their true  and natural border along the Great Wall of China and occupied all the adjoining alien  and foreign territories including Tibet and East Turkistan  with out an iota of authority or  using just brute military force[].  Historically South Asia or the Sub-continent of India was India and China was in distant  East Asia and were never neighbours, but now India is not the whole of the Sub-continent  of India, and the Chinese have trespassed and encroached into Central Asia and Tibet with out an iota of right using brute military power. 
Apropos  your statement about the  so-called  “19th century Kashmiri claim” , the so called “19th century” “claim”  continued unabated  even after the nineteenth century, after the accession of  Kashmir in its entirety. After Hindutash was listed as a place in Kashmir in the Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladak as early as  in 1890, we have the confession of  user:Fowler&fowler  that   the “renowned”   “ Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”. This depiction by the Times Atlas in the year 1900 is significant in view of the fact that it is very recent in the light of the fact that the  accession of the princely state of Kashmir   to the new Dominion of India” was on October 26, 1947  “in its entirety” and more over subsequently,  there has never been any border agreement, even one which is ab initio illegal and null and void, under duress and coercion, ceding an area of Kashmir to the Chinese and demarcating or delineating the northern border of Kashmir.     A perusal  of Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicago, would confirm that the so called so-called “19th century Kashmiri”  “claim”  was recognised by  western cartographers even in the 20th Century  and they deliberately chose not to  give any  credence to the maps arbitrarily and illegally  published by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1954. so your statement  is simply just not true! I remind you of your reply, “However, I totally agree with your position that it is best in disputes like this to leave the matter open - an encyclopedia article is not a good place to try to settle nationalist arguments. I have wasted many, many hours trying to argue such matters over claimed historically-based Chinese rights to Tibet and Xinjiang”.
So I suggest that you do a  work in the Hindutash article  similar to the work done in the Sanju Pass article which I will be editing myself in due course,  with out reverting my edit in toto so that I am not also constrained to revert in toto  and we can arrive at a consensus. Please peruse my statements on the modalities  for a consensus  made here earlier, which  were spurned by Regent's Park (Rose Garden)  and User:Fowler&fowler, which still subsist.But, I will not succumb to their intimidations!    Hope you will respond positively.Hindutashravi (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply and suggestion to [[User:John Hill]]   

message: Hi! First of all, I don't want you to think I am trying to promote either China's or India's present perceived interests, or the right of either country to lay claim to these regions (or the right of other contenders - such as the Uighurs, Kazakhs, etc). They have always been borderlands ripe to be argued over, depending on the see-sawing fortunes of the powers and peoples in these regions. What ever the rights and wrongs, ins and outs, legal agreements, diplomatic agreements or disagreements, legalities, ownership of land and resources, etc., the Chinese have been active, off and on, and to a greater or lesser degree, in these mountains for over two thousand years. Since at least the late 1st century CE these mountain regions fell under Chinese control (after taking them over from the Xiongnu), but they didn't control them for long. Now, over the past 2,000 years India in the wider sense (including Kashmir) has only made a very brief, tenuous and contended claim over the region with only a minimal degree of control or military presence. I could go on and on arguing with you about the more recent history but I feel I could never convince you. Also, I am going to be too busy in the weeks ahead to spend much time on it as my first book on the early development of the "Silk Routes" in the 1st-2nd centuries CE (based on 30 years of research which I began in India in 1979) is due to be published within a couple of weeks (Advertisement: Its short title is Through the Jade Gate to Rome and should be available through Amazon.com and a range of other companies within 2 weeks. Retail price in the U.S. is, apparently, going to be US $39.99) - I am going to have to email hundreds if not thousands of people, libraries and bookstores. 
So, please may I ask you to please write these articles up in as accurate, fair and neutral a manner as possible? Heavily supporting one side at the expense of the other may only add to tensions that are already increasing very uncomfortable international situation between these two countries (think of the tense situation at the moment around Tawang). Accuracy and balance could make these really excellent contributions to the Wikipedia - and who knows the good that could come from this? (This note was written by myself on 22 October 2009 - I apologise for forgetting to sign it at that time. John Hill (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Based on my reading of references, this pass appears to be a footpath, as in difficult to traverse with full caravan. Quote "Trotter" cite from Kangxiwar:
Another cite also mentioned caravans would use Sanju without going into details (I didn't quote that cite to readily remember which one). --Voidvector (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  footpath only 

message: I was made aware of this only a few weeks ago via OSM, because someone drew the path already. The guys showed me this website. I believe the blue house in the middle is the south side tunnel entrance, the north side entrance is around the pond of water. --Voidvector (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  G580 Tunnel