Talk:Trans-Karakoram Tract

The Article does not mention why Pakistan acceded that Land

While the mention has been made that Pakistan has acceeded some 5000 sq km to China in 1963, but it does not mention why government of Pakistan deemed it necessary

As no one gives up a portion of its self just for nothing . Can anyone (who knows the answer)please shed some light on it

Hussain 15:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I vaguely recall it might have been because China provided help in Pakistan's nuclear program, allowing them to build their own nuclear weapons. --Yuje 17:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong, after doing a bit more research on the details, the border came as the result of a compromise over a disputed area of sovereignty in the area. Pakistan got control over about 750 sq. mi of grazing lands and salt mines, access to all passes along the Karakoram range, two-thirds of the K-2 range, and three-quarters of the peak of K-2, including the summit. They probably agreed to split control of the area along the peak, the highest point, and the part that China got was the part north of the summit. Source is "Ramifications of the China-Pakistan Border Treaty", Pacific Affairs, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1964. The treaty is not final, but subject to final settlement once the whole Kashmir dispute is solved. Chinese help in the Pakistan nuclear program came much later. --Yuje 11:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

China did help Pakistan militarily soon after it ceded territory to China, that is why the Karakoram highway was originaly built. China at the time was still developing its nuclear capability so nuclear weopens were not on the radar at that time and Pkistan also had the US as its ally in the cold war besides India tested its first nuclear device in 1974 that is when Pakistan felt the need for developing nuclear weapons, and china obliged to help. Pakistan ceding the region of Shaksgam to China was part of a strategic alliance against India- a traditional rival of Pakistan- and a now a new enemy of China(after 1959 when it resented Chinese presence well within its borders in Aksai chin and after it gave sanctuary to Tibetan government, Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetans who had to India after China occupied Tibet)

China wanted Northern half of K2(the second highest mountain in the world) under its control it was too close(a few hundered kilometers) to the uyghuir oooops sinkiang(one more occupied land).....and pakistan was too needy to siphon off the land of Raja of shigar(a part of Jammu and Kashmir) to an alien nation(china) that didnot even have claim to Sinkiang and Tibet, the countries that were traditionally neighbors of Ladakh and Baltistan and were illegitimately occupied by China.

Bhutan has also been bullied by China to cede territory on its(undefined according to China, eventhough the border was there for centuries) border with Tibet. China did the same thing wih Aksai chin(part of Ladakh kingdom) as it needed that for building roads from newly occupied Tibet to Sinkiang, in this case India had the nerve to resist and suffered a humiliating defeat in a conflict that still lingers on. Nepal on the other hand was too small so china got the nothern face of Mt. Everest on a piece of paper from the poor Nepalese. Now the third highest mountain Kanchenjunga was in Sikkim(indian protectorate) near the Nepalese border again less than a 100 kms from the Tibetan border but this time it was beaten in its own game by India and the majority of Sikkimese that voted to fully join India rather than suffer the fate of Tibet, Uyghuir, Inner Mongolia etc. China didnot recognise Sikkim as part of India until 2004 only after getting a statement form the Indian gov that Tibet is part of China(never mind Dalai Lama and the Tibetan gov in exile living in India). A country that is in reality 2000 kms away(the real China without Tibet and Sinkinag) is asking for territories from countries that border the countries that it now occupies. Who said expansionism and colonialisn was dead. Pakistan relented and so did Nepal. Kazakhstan and Kyrghyzstan have also ceded land to China after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lets see how long Russia, Tajikistan, India and nations bordering the south china sea can hold off. China's hunger for land (where it can move Han chinese from the east and dominate for ever) seems insatiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.58.141 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Administered by Pakistan?

The infobox and categorization suggests that the tract was administered by Pakistan before 1963. There are sources that indicate that it was considered part of its territory by Hunza at various times before 1947, but are there sources for any actual occupation or administration by Pakistan between 1947 and 1963? --Mhockey (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The geographical and territorial extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract

The Cis-Kuen Lun Tract is the same as the Trans-Karakoram Tract which I have edited extensively! The Times Atlas link which shows the depiction of the northern border of Kashmir in 1954. The map displays an enclosed area in northern Kashmir with the caption "Undefined Frontier area". The area encompassing the caption "Undefined Frontier area" is the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract. It is the same thing as the Trans-Karakoram Tract. The only difference is that the while the Trans-Karakoram Tract extends from the Karakoram Range northwards to the Kuen Lun Range, the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract extends from the Kuen Lun Range southwards towards the Karakoram range in central Kashmir. View the Times Atlas map of 1954 which depicts the northern border of Kashmir on the watershed of the Kuen Lun Range on the Taghdumbash Pamir, Mariom Pamir, and the Raskam range or ridge and depicts the caption "Undefined Frontier area" below it extending towards the Karakoram range and the Chhogori Peak K2 but not actually touching K2 as even the Times Atlas did not consider the K2 peak to be disputed. Nor did the Times Atlas consider the Shaksgam Valley disputed for that matter as can be seen in the 1954 map published by the Times Atlas.I am adding this because there is a concerted effort to restrict the Trans-Karakoram Tract to the Shaksgam Valley which is clearly erroneous and not borne out by records! Even the official map published by the The Government of Pakistan depicting the alignment of the northern Border of Kashmir in 1962, depicted much of the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract as part of Kashmir and the alignment published by the Government of Pakistan predominantly was similar to and coincided with the portrayal of the northern Border of Kashmir in 1954 by the Times Atlas which had predominantly depicted the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract as a part of Kashmir under the caption "Undefined Frontier area" though at places, the official position of the Government of Pakistan

Map depicting the official alignment of the northern border of Kashmir in 1962 according to the Government of Pakistan

deviated from the position of the Times Atlas and the Government of Pakistan even depicted areas as part of Kashmir which were to the north of the border of Kashmir as published in 1954 by the Times Atlas! Also for an idea of the extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract, please view this map (C) from the Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicagowith the caption, "The boundary of Kashmir with China as portrayed and proposed by Britain prior to 1947". The geographical and territorial extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract is more or less the territory enclosed between the northern most line and the innermost lines! So there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.27.235 (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We are talking about a tract of land enclosed by the Kuen Lun range in the north and the Karakoram Range in the south in the Highlands of Kashmir. It is just about the description of a tract of land and the northern and southern extremities of the aforesaid tract viz. the Karakoram range and the Kuen Lun range. There is no such thing as a legally recognised terminology to describe this tract of land in Kashmir bound in the north by the crests of the Kuen Lun range and in the south by the Karakoram Range. I have quoted from the book "India's Borderland Disputes: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal" By Anna Orton, wherein the author precisely and unequivocally states, It comprises "the tract of territory between the Karakoram and Kuen Lun Mountains". Anna Orton was writing a book on boundary disputes and the author gives the information that the Secretary to State for India in Whitehall was of the opinion that if the aforesaid tract of land was in Chinese control, it would be advantageous to the British empire in India. That was because in Central Asia, there were two foreign Powers who had expanded their empires extensively. The Russians had traversed the Ural Mountains Range and occupied Siberia and West Turkistan and the Chinese under the alien Manchu rulers had expanded the empire and traversed the Great Wall of China in the frontier region of Shaanxi in the the extreme far north eastern Frontier of China and occupied Central Asia and East Turkistan and there was an eminent danger of East Turkistan itself being annexed by Russia. If that happened the Russian empire would border India at the Kuen Lun range and there was an eminent threat to the British Empire in British India itself. The Chinese were a friendly power to the English since the Chinese were least concerned about the alien tract of territory to the south of the Kuen Lun range since the Kuen Lun range was the southern frontier of East Turkistan and they were satisfied if they were able to maintain and sustain their precarious hold over their imperialistic colonial possession of East Turkistan and were not unceremoniously kicked out either by the East Turkistanis themselves or by the Russian Empire and they maintained their border outpost at Bringja to the north of the northern foothills of Kuen Lun Range and were least concerned with the alien tract of Kashmiri land which was to the south of the Kuen Lun range as the Kuen Lun range is the frontier of East Turkistan with India. We are talking about the extent of land which has been provisionally ceded by the Government of Pakistan to the Chinese and the map uploaded makes it obvious that even the Government of Pakistan which actually ceded the tract of territory regarded the northern border of Kashmir to be the Kuen Lun range. Besides the northern border of Kashmir as depicted by the Times Atlas in 1954 also portrays the northern border of Kashmir on the crests and watershed of the Kuen Lun Range ( Peruse the Link Provided to the Times Atlas map of Kashmir, 1954). The Times Atlas as recently as in 1954 did not even consider Shaksgam Valley a disputed territory and considered the Shaksgam Valley a part of Kashmir pure and simple. Thus the official position of the Government of Pakistan prior to 1963 was that the northern border of Pakistan was on the Kuen Lun range and the territory ceded by the Government of Pakistan was not just allegedly restricted to the Shaksgam Valley, which the [[Times Atlas]] in 1954 did not even consider a disputed territory and considered the Shaksgam Valley a part of Kashmir pure and simple, but extended to the Kuen Lun range. Also for an idea of the extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract, a view the map (C) from the Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicagowith the caption, "The boundary of Kashmir with China as portrayed and proposed by Britain prior to 1947" would show that the geographical and territorial extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract is more or less the territory enclosed between the northern most line and the innermost lines and was not just restricted to the Shaksgam Valley in central Kashmir which the Times Atlas in 1954 did not even consider a disputed territory and considered the Shaksgam Valley a part of Kashmir pure and simple!117.215.88.103 (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

References

A minor suggestion

May I suggest a change from the old "Kuen-lun" (variants: E.F.E.O. "Kouen-lun" and Wade-Giles "Kun-lun") transcription to the standard and up-to-date Pinyin form of "Kunlun" as in the Wikipedia article: Kunlun Mountains? Cheers, John Hill (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Indic Script

Hi Mar4d, I had given a detailed explanation to the earlier editor on this. Reiterating it here. Please do read WP:INDICSCRIPTS closely. I have used it remove INDICSCRIPTS from many articles and I am very aware of its usage. It clearly states that Indic scripts are to be only removed from articles that predominantly come under WP:INDIA. Articles that come under other multiple projects (not predominantly India) as is the case with Trans-Karakoram Tract are exempt from this. Some Examples of pages which have Indic scripts and come under multiple projects are: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Amar Sonar Bangla, Gagan Harkara, Mughal Empire. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The first only has the script in infobox, not WP:LEAD. The other two are Bangla articles, and I am not sure how WikiProjects Bangladesh and India reconcile over their use of scripts. The last one does not have Indic script from what I can gather. I am happy to be proven wrong if you can indeed point me towards the consensus where articles "under other multiple projects" were exempted. Otherwise, it appears as selective application which muddies the waters. Pinging RegentsPark since he may know more. Mar4d (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

First, WP:INDICSCRIPTS mentions about Indic scripts in both WP:LEAD and infobox (Please read it carefully because it seems you haven't). Second, there is no special arrangement between WP:BANGLA and WP:INDIA. This is the common interpretation of the decision. Third, the decision covers all non-english languages on that page. Finally, if you want to look at projects which are covered by WP:PAK and WP:INDIA than I have two Sikh Empire and Punjab Province (British India) and they contain Punjabi discounting your earlier assertions. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted Mar4d because he obviously didn't even read the policy he quoted in his edit summary. —MBL ^Talk 10:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Adamgerber80 is correct. Indic scripts should be removed only from articles that are predominantly part of WP:INDIA. The Trans-Karakoram tract, which isn't a part of India, is almost certainly not covered. Why devanagari should be included there is, of course, a good, though independent, question. --regentspark (comment) 13:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think we can go ahead and remove the Devanagari, as I don't see a good reason for any script in the lead. Mar4d (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Mar4d, He has said it is a question not his assertion. It makes sense here because there is an alternate name for it which comes from the river which also has an Hindi name. It seems to me that you want the name removed without any real purpose. First you tried to remove it (or claimed so) because of INDICSCRIPTS without having a full understanding of the policy. Now you being proved wrong and you are shifting the goal posts and making a different argument. Please have a clear discussion here rather than jumping from one argument to another. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk)

In that case, why not have a section for etymology. I just don't like the idea of too many scripts (unless there's one or two), it clutters up the lead IMO. And I suppose it does not make sense since this article is on Chinese territory. Mar4d (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

About the clutter there is only one script in the lead and I don't see any clutter. Also, yes this is currently Chinese territory but this is an area which is contested and thus it makes sense. It is the same reason the article comes under India, Pakistan and China WikiProjects. I am confused if this was the real reason than why were these not raised earlier. We could have saved time rather than discussing about INDICSCRIPTS. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hence the reason I inquired why non-India articles were exempt from INDICSCRIPT. It does seem strange to have such scripts on articles which are not India-focused as you admitted above. It lays a precedent I suppose, similar to Chinese script for Arunachal Pradesh. Mar4d (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you are confusing geographical regions from administrative units. Second you are confusing between predominantly India vs not. Arunachal Pradesh is an administrative unit and this is a geographical region. Secondly, Arunchal Pradesh comes predominantly under WIKI:INDIA and INDICSCRIPTS is applicable here on all non-english scripts. I would highly recommend spending some time in understanding the decision vs reaching random conclusion or having half baked ideas. It seems to me that you have made little effort in reading it or actually using INDICSCRIPTS. But still want to use it somehow. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Cis-Kuen Lun Tract

It seems to me that this is a duplicate article. Am I mistaken, and is the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract something else than the Trans-Karakoram Tract? Doanri (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Doanri (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Did Pakistan acced land to China?

Most of the Pakistani (post independent and pre 1963) maps put Shaksgam valley in Pakistan. But the British India's frontiers, which Pakistan inherited, broadly followed the main Karakoram crest dividing the watersheds of the Indus River and the Tarim River, as proposed by Claude MacDonald in 1899. MacDonald's note was on the condition of relinquishment of Chinese claim on the suzerainty of Hunza. According to the Pak-China agreement

1. On eastern side the border on the passes through the main Karakoram crest as proposed by MacDonald 2. On western side the border runs north of the Karakoram crest, which means a large chunk of area claimed by China was surrendered in favor of Pakistan. 3. China dropped claims of suzerainty over Hunza.

So if one goes by the British's understanding of the border, Pakistan gained a lot in the agreement. But if Pakistani post-independent maps are considered, territory was lost. However, Pakistani claims were never realistic as Pakistan never controlled the areas north of Karakoram. Please correct me if I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.140.156 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes disputes. It does not engage in them. (See WP:IMPARTIAL) And this talk page is not the forum to debate the merits of the agreement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Trans-Karakoram Tract

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Trans-Karakoram Tract's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "area":

• From Aksai Chin: "Aksai Chin". Britannica. 2013. Retrieved 11 June 2021. At the conclusion of the conflict, China retained control of about 14,700 square miles (38,000 square km) of territory in Aksai Chin.
• From French America: INSEE. "Actualités : 2008, An 1 de la collectivité de Saint-Barthélemy" (in French). Retrieved 2014-01-31.
• From Malay Archipelago: Moores, Eldridge M.; Fairbridge, Rhodes Whitmore (1997). Encyclopedia of European and Asian regional geology. Springer. p. 377. ISBN 0-412-74040-0. Retrieved 30 November 2009.
• From Xinjiang: 6-1 自然资源划 [6-1 Natural Resources] (in Chinese). Statistics Bureau of Xinjiang. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Help

Isn't adding the respective countries' translation languages in disputed area articles a violation of Wikipedia policy? For example, Aksai China, Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir., these articles have no translations of languages in them. Therefore, the translation languages in the introduction section of this article should be removed as well. Need your help here El_C. 27.97.236.117 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it's up to editorial discretion, there's no relevant requirement about that. It's just whatever editors decide through WP:CONSENSUS, also often involving WP:SILENTCONSENSUS. HTH. El_C 18:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There is the WP:INDICSCRIPTS clause, but since both languages seem represented, and it isn't also being displayed on the infobox, etc., I'm not sure it makes sense to invoke it. But I leave that, too, to editorial discretion here rather than dictate as an enforcement step. Sorry, I am presuming we're discussing scripts rather than translations (into English), but I may have misread the OP. Thanks. El_C 18:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The WP:INDICSCRIPTS policy applies to pages that are mainly part of the WikiProject India. This page is not one of those. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it? I'll take your word for it. I'm one of its three co-authors, so I really should know... But mwemory. El_C 19:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)