1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (Civil ) No. 127 of 2011

In the Matter of

P.V.Ravi Chandran
Advocate,
5, Divya Krupa,
1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar,
Maduravayal,
Chennai 600095 …..
Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Union of India,

Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Department of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
Nav Dehli 110001.

2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir

Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Department of Home,
Secretariat,
Srinagar 190009,
Jammu and Kashmir

3. The Surveyor General of India,

Survey of India
Hathibarkala Estate
Dehra Dun 248001,
Uttara Khand ….
Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF A WRIT OF DECLARATION
 2

To

The Honourable Chief Justice of India and his

companion Brethren Justices of the Honourable
Supreme Court of India.

The Humble Petition of the Petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. The Petitioner is an advocate practicing in the

Honourable High Court of Madras and is having his chamber

at 294, New Addl. Law Chambers, High Court Bldgs., Netaji

Subhas Chandra Bose Road, Chennai 600104. He has been

evincing deep interest in the border issues since over the

past 20 years and has read many books and visited

numerous libraries, and has been upset and distressed and

had sleepless nights and cold sweat in view of the so called

border talks which are being blatantly conducted from a

position of subservience by the 1st respondent and the

outcome of the so-called border talks is hanging over India

like the sword of Damocles and the whole proceedings are

ab initio null and void and are vitiated by duress, undue

influence, subservience, coercion and fraud. The issue very

much pertains to the territorial integrity of India and hence

the issue is in public interest. Besides, the human rights of

the Citizens of India have been violated and therefore, the

petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble Court invoking Article

32 of the Constitution of India after his representation dated

17.11.2010 has not been heeded. The Petitioner had sent a

 3

telegram dated 17.07.2006 to the first respondent warning

that the so called border talks were an exercise in futility and

the whole proceeding was vitiated by duress, undue

influence and subservience and was ab initio illegal and null

and void and any outcome would only create a situation

whereby the proud people of India would have to denounce

the 1st respondent and repudiate the outcome of the said

so-called Border talks. Copy of the Telegram sent by the

petitioner dated 17.7.2006 to the first respondent is annexed

hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P.1. (_51-52)

2. The Petitioner herein states that, at the time

pertaining to period of the commencement of the

Constitution of India, the official Survey of India maps had

either deliberately abstained from and desisted from

depicting the northern border of Kashmir or simply used the

legend “Undefined Frontier” in the part of Kashmir just short

of the border on either the crest of the watershed of the

Kuen Lun and or beyond the Kuen Lun range. Some of the

maps of the Survey of India also did not depict the northern

border of Kashmir and did not extend the “colour wash” to

the entire state of Kashmir but nevertheless depicted the

caption or legend “Kashmir” or “Gilgit Agency” well

extending to the areas of Kashmir not included within the

“colour wash”, to the area in the vicinity of 76 degrees East

 4

Longitude and 37 degrees North latitude, i.e. beyond the

Aghail and Karakoram ranges and beyond the Raskam river

within the area of Kanjut, in the vicinity of the Kuen Lun

range and the Mariom and Taghdumbash Pamir, i.e. the area

which at present is illegally not depicted as part of Kashmir

by the Surveyor General of India, which unequivocally and

without an iota of doubt proves that even those areas of

Kashmir not shown in colour up to the Kuen Lun range and

beyond are integral and inalienable parts of Kashmir. The 1st

Respondent herein even explicitly admitted the said fact in

the publication, viz., `Atlas of the Northern Frontier of India',

wherein it is unequivocally stated in no uncertain terms by

1st Respondent herein in the map at page 20 that “the British

cartographers gave a dark shade for areas only where they

had their jurisdiction and in the rest of India, only a lighter

shade was used”. Copy of Extract from publication of the Ist

respondent herein., viz., ‘Atlas of the Northern Frontier of

India’ is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P.2.

(53) In the very same publication is a portrayal an

ancient old East Asian map titled “Map of the Western

Regions (held by the Manchurian rulers of adjacent China to

the south) appended to the Hsi-yu-tu-chih, compiled on the

orders of Emperor Chien-lung in 1762”, which depicts the

southern boundary of East Turkistan with India along the

northern foothills of the Kuen Lun Range, the 1st Respondent

 5

herein has once again unequivocally and in no uncertain

terms admitted that "The map makes clear that Sinkiang

extended in the south only up to the Kuen Lun Range". Some

Survey of India maps also actually unequivocally depicted

the northern border of Kashmir on the crest or watershed of

the Kuen Lun range. The respondent is esstopped from

changing the aforesaid stance. Copy of Extract from

publication of the Ist respondent herein., viz., ‘Atlas of the

Northern Frontier of India’ is annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE P.3. (_54_)

3. The territorial extent of the State of Kashmir is as

enumerated or stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule 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”.

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". The

maps, viz. the official maps attached to the 2 White Papers

published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the

Government of India's Ministry of States, headed,

incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority

of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney bind it in law and

 6

give them the legal status to determine the extent of the

territory of the State of Kashmir as stipulated in Entry 15 in

the First Schedule of the Constitution on India. The said

official maps presented with the White Papers show and

prove that the northern border of Kashmir with East

Turkistan at the time of the accession of the state to the

Union of India and the commencement of the Constitution of

India was on the Kuen Lun range and beyond, the natural

and historic border of Kashmir with the neighbouring Trans-

Kuen Lun State of East Turkistan. Pertinently, it is imperative

to note that vast areas shown in the colour wash, thus

explicitly depicting the said area as an integral part of

Kashmir in the aforesaid maps pertaining to the period of the

commencement of the Constitution of India, includes areas

which are illegally not depicted as part of Kashmir by the

present office of the Surveyor General of India presently

since 1954.

4. To quote Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru himself from his

telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British Prime

Minister, Clement Attlee, he reiterates and in no uncertain

terms says, "Kashmir's Northern frontiers, as you are aware,

run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan,

`the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' and `China' ". Also,

the Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir states in his

 7

correspondence with Lord Mountbatten of Burma dated

October 26, 1947, “Besides, my State has a common

boundary with ‘the Soviet Republic’ and ‘China’”. This is

only possible only since because inter alia Dafdar in the

Taghdumbash Pamir in Kanjut is part of Kashmir. The map of

Kashmir as depicted in the Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1909

also depicted the Taghdumbash Pamir as part of Kashmir.

Copies of Telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British

Prime Minister, Clement Attlee from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru

and correspondence of the Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir

with Lord Mountbatten of Burma dated October 26, 1947 are

annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P.4 & P.5. (55

& 56-59 )

5. The various surveys done prior to 1947 have resulted in

unanimous conclusions that the southern border of East

Turkistan never even extended to the south beyond the

northern foothills of the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir. “The

Chinese completed the reconquest of Eastern Turkistan in

1878. Before they lost it in 1863, their practical authority”,

“as Ney Elias and Francis Younghusband consistently

maintained, had never extended south of their outposts at

Sãnjú 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

 8

following their return”1. 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” 2i.e. the area

beyond the Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir wherein are

situate the Híñdutásh pass and Sãnjú La passes in Kashmir

and in particular, the area in the highlands of Kashmir

between the Karakoram and Kuen Lun ranges. Similarly, the

findings of the survey of W.H. Johnson , who was the Civil

Assistant of the Trigonometrical Survey of India, in July

1865, established certain important pertinent points”.

"Brinjga was in his view the boundary post" (near the

Karanghu Tagh Peak near Khushlashlangar, in the Kuen Lun

in Ladakh ), thus implying "that the boundary lay along the

Kuen Lun Range". 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

1
Aksai Chin and Sino-Indian Conflict by John Lall at pages 56-57, 59, 95, Allied Publishers Private
Ltd, Nav Dehli.
2
For. Sec. F. October 1889, 182/197.
 9

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 Ilchi”. Brinjga is a few miles southeast of Karanghutagh;

“thus the Khotan ruler accepted the Kunlun range as the

southern boundary of his dominion” . According to W.H.

Johnson:

“the last portion of the route to

Shadulla (Shahidulla in north-

eastern Kashmir) 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

 10

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 the survey of W.H. Johnson hold good to this

day and nothing at all has changed legally. The map

pertaining to the findings of the survey of W.H. Johnson who

was the Civil Assistant of the Trigonometrical Survey of India

and also later the Wazir of the Ladakh Wazarat, in July 1865

unequivocally depicts the northern border of Kashmir with

Khotan in the area of the historic Híñdutásh and Sãnjú La

passes in north eastern Kashmir, on the crests of the Kuen

Lun range not withstanding the fact that even the said map

does not reflect the true findings pertaining to the survey of

W.H. Johnson. Colonel Walker who was the Surveyor General

in 1867, whose motives are suspect, confessed and “insisted

that the map as published was far different from Johnson’s

Original”. The Gazetteer of Kashmír “and Ladák” compiled

under the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in

the Intelligence Branch and first Published in 1890 states at

page 493 apropos Khotan, “ A province of the Chinese

 11

Empire lying to the north of the Eastern Kuenlun range,

which here forms the boundary of Ladák”. The same

Gazetteer of Kashmír “and Ladák” gives a description of the

Yarkand or Raskam river in northern Kashmir at Page 860:

“The Yárkand river rises north of the

Karakoram pass. Its course is for the first

30 miles north east to Máliksháh.

Thence north west for 56 miles to Kirghiz

Jungle. From Kirghiz Jungle it flows 15

miles west to Kulanuldi camp. Up to this

point its course is followed by the Kugiar

(or winter) route from Ladák to Yárkand.

Beyond Kulanuldi it continues west for

some distance, and then takes a

sudden bend to the north into Yárkand

territory”.

Copy of the Extract from the Gazetteer of Kashmir “and

Ladak” compiled under the direction of the Quarter Master

General in India in the Intelligence Branch is annexed hereto

and marked as ANNEXURE P.6. ( 60 )

6. So, when the Government of Kashmir in 1885, at a time

when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the

alien trans-Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir ,

beyond their restive eastern Turkistan dominion “and had

 12

literally washed their hands of it”, prepared to reunify the

whole of Kashmir and the Wazir of Ladakh, Pandit Radha

Kishen initiated steps to restore the old historic Kashmiri

Kuen Lun out post of Shahidullah in north-eastern Kashmir

which commanded the Kuen Lun range border area

including Kilian and Kathai Tam in Kashmir, Ney Elias who

was British Joint Commissioner in Ladakh and spying on the

Government of Kashmir raised objections and the English

Government also threatened and intimidated the

Government of Kashmir and unfortunately the subservient

Government of Kashmir capitulated and succumbed. “This

very energetic officer’ , he wrote to the Resident, who duly

forwarded the letter to the Government of India, “wants the

Maharaja to reoccupy Shahidulla in the Karakash valley ….I

see indications of his preparing to carry it out, and, in my

opinion, he should be restrained, or an awkward boundary

question may be raised with the Chinese without any

compensating advantage.”3 The said Ney Elias was

notorious for his hatred of Kashmiris and described the

people of Kashmir as “Greedy”4. Thus, after successfully

obstructing and preventing the reunification of Kashmir,

when the Chinese crossed the Kuen Lun range and thus

encroached into Kashmir in 1892 after thus being given a

veritable carte blanche by the deceitful English, and illegally

3
Sec. F. November 1885,12/14(12)
4
For. Sec. F.Pros. November 1885, 12/14(12)
 13

placed an alleged boundary mark pillar deep in the interior

of the territory of Kashmir in the Karakoram pass area in

central Kashmir, the then government of India which was

entirely responsible for the situation, betrayed and

abandoned Kashmir, but Kashmir nevertheless did not forfeit

her territorial integrity vis-à-vis inter alia the border on the

crests of the Kuen Lun range and beyond, and the

Shahidulla out post and “The Wazir Wazart of Ladakh,

complained to the Vice- President of the Kashmir State

Council, of the Chinese Amban who had illegally constructed

the Pillar that as far as he had been able to ascertain, his

own frontier was considered upto Shahidulla (Shahidulla area

virtually on the southern flanks of the Kuen Lun range and

commanding Kuen Lun range, extended inter alia up to the

Kilian pass and Kathaitam in Kashmir) … where one of his

predecessors had built a fort which was still standing. This

proved, he added that “the state frontier extends to that

place.” 5
In 1927, the Indian Government, according to a

report in The Times, dated 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

5
Himalayan Frontiers by Dorothy Woodman. Pg. 54 , published inter alia by London Barrie and
Rockliff The Cresset Press 1969.
 14

border of Kashmir was on the northern watershed of the

Kuenlun ranges and beyond as recent as till 1923. The

Government of Kashmir maintained two caravan routes right

up to the traditional Kuen Lun boundary. One, from Pamzal,

known as the Eastern Changchenmo route, passed through

Nischu, Lingzi Thang, Lak Tsung, Thaldat, Khitai Pass, Haji

Langar along the Karakash valley”(obviously via Sumgal in

Ladakh ) “to Shahidulla. Police outposts were placed along

these routes to protect the traders from the Khirghiz

marauders who roamed the Aksai Chin after Yaqub Beg’s

rebellion against the Chinese(1864-1878)”6.

7. The Gazetteer of Kashmír “and Ladák” compiled under

the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in the

Intelligence Branch and first Published in 1890 gives a

description and details of places inside Kashmir and thus

ipso facto also includes a description of the Híñdutásh Pass

in north eastern Kashmir in the Aksai Chin area in Kashmir in

the vicinity of the Shahidulla out post. The aforesaid

Gazetteer states in pages 520 and 364 that “The eastern

(Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”,

“and is crossed by two passes, the Yangi or Elchi Diwan, ....

and the Hindutak (i.e. Híñdutásh ) Díwán”. The aforesaid

Gazetteer rightly includes Pal as a place in Ladakh in

6
Himalayan Frontiers by Dorothy Woodman. Pg.66, published inter alia by London Barrie and
Rockliff The Cresset Press 1969
 15

Kashmir. Besides, the map pertaining to the findings of the

survey of W.H. Johnson in July 18657, the map referred to in

Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain,

China and Tibet dated the 5th July 1914 also depicts the

southern border of Khotán and East Turkistan with Kashmir

on the Kuen Lun range in the area of Hindutash in Kashmir as

a red line. Inter alia, even the 1900 edition of the notorious

Times Atlas had also depicted the Hindutash pass as part of

Kashmir, though in the subsequent editions the publishers

had for obvious reasons best known to them and with out

consistency and with out any legal valid change of

circumstances, desisted from depicting Hindutash as part of

Kashmir. Copy of Extract from the Gazetteer of Kashmir “and

Ladak” compiled under the direction of the Quarter Master

General in India in the Intelligence Branch and first Published

in 1890 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURES P.7,

(61), P.8, (62-63) P.9.( 64).

8. Even antique maps and works pertaining to the southern

limits of Khotan show and state that the southern limits of

Khotan was only along the northern foothills of the Kuen Lun

range. A map drawn towards the end of the sixth century

A.D clearly shows the Kuen Lun range as the southern limits

of East Turkistan. Another map drawn in 1607 by a Buddhist

priest , Jen Chao depicts the Tsungling mountains just

7
Report of the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, 1866 P.6.
 16

immediately adjacent to Khotan as the southern limits of

Turkistan. Another map from the work, Chin ting huang yu

hsi yu t’u chih which might be translated as “Annals and

Maps of the Western Territories of the Empire” published in

1762 depict the southern boundary of Turkistan with India at

Sãnjú Tagh in the Kuen Lun range. Another map from the

Chin ting hsin chiang chih lueh, an account of Sinkiang

published by a commission set up by scholars and officials

of Peking in 1821 contains several maps of Sinkiang in book

3. The map on page 4(b) of book 3 depicts the southern

limits of East Turkistan as the Tsungling by which is meant

the Kuen Lun range and the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash

are depicted as cutting through the Kuen Lun Mountains.

Pertinently, the Yurung Kash has nothing whatsoever to do

with the Karakoram range and has its source from the Kuen

Lun range, which proves that by no stretch of imagination

could the Tsungling be identified as the Karakoram range in

central Kashmir. Even at that time 1821, even the source of

the Yurung Kash was not in Sinkiang. Another map from

the book Hsi yu shui tao chi which can be translated as

“Remarks on the rivers of the western Countries”, written by

Hsu Hsing-po published in 1824 shows a map in eight sheets

and sheet number 7 depicts the southern limits of Khotán

as the “southern Mountains” or Nanshan which is obviously

one of the northern ranges of the Kuen Lun since both the
 17

Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting

through the mountains. A Nei fu yu t’u map of 1760

depicted the southern limits of Khotan as lying along a range

of mountains immediately to the south of Khotan from which

the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash were said to have their

origin and the mountain range situate immediately to the

south of Khotán is the Kuen Lun range. The 1820 edition of

the Ta Ch’ing yi t’ung chih depicted the Nimangyi mountains

immediately south of Khotan and the same work stated that

these mountains were the same as the Ho lang kwei and the

Ho shi mo tissu mountains. Ho lang kwei was the Kurangu

range of the Kuen Lun range. A map from the Ta Ch’ing hui

tien tu of 1818 also showed the Nimangyi mountains as the

southern limits of East Turkistan. A map from the Chin ting

hsin chiang chih lueh of 1821 depicts the southern limits of

the country along one of the northern ranges of the Kuen Lun

with both the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted

as cutting through that range.

9. It is verily believed that in 1954, one Mr. Jawaharlal

Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India had, out of the blue

stealthily and surreptitiously published for the first time , a

new map of Kashmir after the Ist respondent secretly

colluded with the Chinese. In June 1954, Zhou Enlai, Prime

Minister of China was in India, and in the October of the

 18

same year, the aforesaid Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru went to

China. In between, Mr. Nehru issued a 17 Para Memorandum

dated 1, July 1954 which was subsequently proven to be a

lie, which stated inter alia that the “frontier should be

considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to

discussion with any one. A system of check posts should be

spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we should

have Check posts in such places as might be considered

disputed areas”. In 1954, thus a new “official” despicable

map of India was illegally published out of the blue,

stealthily by Nehru, which altogether dropped the legend

“undefined frontier” often previously used `and showed the

alleged northern border of Kashmir with a clear firm line

referred to hereinafter as the “Nehru Line”. Mr. Nehru, in

consonance with his bogus Memorandum, which stated

that the frontier should be a firm and definite one, which is

not open to discussion with any one, arbitrarily and illegally

depicted a border of Kashmir which ran well in the interior of

Kashmir depicting only those areas of Kashmir which

according to his whims and fancies was definitely part of

Kashmir and beyond dispute, thus depicting large areas of

Kashmir as not part of Kashmir, so as to make the border of

Kashmir indisputable , and thus definite and firm, and leave

no room for any future controversy. Pertinently, it is

imperative to note that even vast areas included within the

 19

“colour wash” and situate to the south of the legend

“Undefined Frontier”, in the aforesaid two official maps

pertaining to the period of the commencement of the

Constitution of India are illegally not depicted as part of

Kashmir by the present office of the Surveyor General of

India presently. “This raises a question of fundamental

importance which has not been discussed all these decades.

The Government of India’s shenanigans on the entire map

business only invite ridicule”.8 The Petitioner is given to

understand that Mr. Nehru subsequently in order to protect

his bogus maps clandestinely published out of the blue in

1954, gave orders that all the maps pertaining to the crucial

period of the Commencement of the Constitution of India be

burnt and thus by that nefarious reprehensible criminal act,

ipso facto all precious incriminating evidence pertaining to

the period of the Commencement of the Constitution of India

and the territorial extent of India was thus blatantly

destroyed. Incidentally, the 1st Respondent herein is now in

overt and covert collusion with the Chinese, clandestinely

and surreptitiously attempting to give away even territory

within the “firm and definite frontier... not open to discussion

with any one” under the pretext of the so-called border talks

with the Chinese on the basis of the illegal “Nehru Line”,

which are ab initio illegal and is null and Void and the whole
8
Freedom of Expression in Maps, A.G. Noorani Chapter 44, pg. 327, appeared in “Frontline”
Magazine, a Publication of The Hindu dated 8, May 1992. "Citizens' Rights, Judges and State
Accountability"
 20

endeavour is only a modus operandi solely and exclusively

to facilitate the purpose of giving India’s beloved inalienable

Aksai Chin area wherein is situate inter alia the Hindutash

pass and Sanju La to the Chinese militarily holding East

Turkistan. If China has the audacity to claim Arunachal

Pradesh which is situate beyond the edges of the Plateau of

Tibet, then India should also reiterate that Khotan which is

also geographically similarly placed and is beyond the edge

of the highlands of Kashmir at Hindutash in Kashmir which is

the southern border of Khotan is historically part of India. If

China is claiming vast inalienable and integral parts of

Kashmir like inter alia the Aksai Chin, Raskam, Shimshal and

Shaksgam valleys in Kashmir, it is tantamount to claiming

the Karakoram range which is the interior main watershed in

the highlands of Kashmir, and India should then claim the

Nyenchen Thanglha range which is similarly the interior main

watershed in the Plateau of Tibet as a part of the border of

India. Only then would the so called border talks be

meaningful and make some sense, and India not subservient.

The fact that the western border of Ladakh with Tibet was

also not precisely depicted was because the Rudokh was an

integral part of Ladakh. In fact, the demarcation of the entire

Indo Tibetan international border in the said Middle Sector

extending from the Pulu Pass to the vicinity of the Mayum la

and Marnyak La passes should commence from Pulu Pass,

 21

wherein the Altyn Tagh range in northwestern Tibet running

southwest to northeast, converges with the Kuen Lun range

in Kashmir which runs southeast to northwest, and continue

along the Ridges wherein are situate the Mavang Kangri and

Aling Kangri peaks which geographically and historically

divide and separate the highlands of Kashmir from the

Tibetan plateau , and culminate in the vicinity of the Mayum

La and Marnyak La. According to Rolf Alfred Stein author of

Tibetan Civilization, the area of Shang Shung was not

historically a part of Tibet and was a distinctly foreign

territory to the Tibetans. According to Rolf Alfred Stein9 :

“…Then further west, The

Tibetans encountered a

distinctly foreign nation. -

Shangshung, with its capital at

Khyunglung. Mt. Kailāśa (Tise )

and Lake Manasarovar formed

part of this country., whose

language has come down to us

through early documents.

Though still unidentified, it

seems to be Indo European. …

Geographically the country was

certainly open to India, both

9
Tibetan Civilization by R.A. Stein Faber and Faber
 22

through Nepal and by way of

Kashmir and Ladakh. Kailāśa is

a holy place for the Indians, who

make pilgrimages to it. No one

knows how long they have done

so, but the cult may well go

back to the times when

Shangshung was still

independent of Tibet.

How far Shangshung stretched

to the north , east and west is a

mystery…. We have already had

an occasion to remark that

Shangshung, embracing Kailāśa

sacred Mount of the Hindus,

may once have had a religion

largely borrowed from

Hinduism. The situation may

even have lasted for quite a

long time. In fact, about 950,

the Hindu King of Kabul had a

statue of Vişņu, of the Kashmiri

type (with three heads), which

he claimed had been given him

 23

by the king of the Bhota

(Tibetans) who, in turn had

obtained it from Kailāśa.”

Ladakh was historically an independent state comprising a

vast area. But later, towards the end of the tenth centuary

A.D., it was divested of most of her territory by a family

partition. Despite that, in the tenth century, the traditional

boundary of Ladakh with Tibet was well known and

recognised by tradition. There was manifold proof of this. A

chronicle of Ladakh compiled in the 17th century called the

La dvags rgyal rabs, meaning the Royal Chronicle of the

Kings of Ladakh recorded that this boundary was traditional

and well-known. The first part of the Chronicle was written in

the years 1610 -1640, and the second half towards the end

of the 17th century. The work has been translated into English

by A. H. Francke and published in 1926 in Calcutta titled the

“Antiquities of Indian Tibet” . In volume 2, the Ladakhi

Chronicle describes the partition by King Sykid-Ida-ngeema-

gon of his kingdom between his three sons, and then the

chronicle described the extent of territory secured by that

son. The following quotation is from page 94 of this book:

He gave to each of his sons a

separate kingdom, viz., to the

eldest Dpal-gyi-ngon, Maryul

 24

of Mnah-ris, the inhabitants

using black bows; ru-thogs of

the east and the Gold-mine of

Hgog; nearer this way Lde-

mchog-dkar-po; at the

frontier ra-ba-dmar-po; Wam-

le, to the top of the pass of

the Yi-mig rock…..”

From a perusal of the aforesaid work, It is obvious and

evident that Rudokh was an integral part of Ladakh and even

after the family partition, Rudokh continued to be part of

Ladakh. Maryul meaning lowlands was a name given to a

part of Ladakh. Even at that time, i.e. in the 10th century,

Rudokh was an integral part of Ladakh and Lde-mchog-dkar-

po, i.e. Demchok was also an integral part of Ladakh. Even

the 1684 Treaty of Temisgang signed between Tibet and

Ladakh recognised Minser in the area around the

Manasarovara lake as part of Ladakh. During subsequent

Dogra rule, British India rule and Independence, it remains

under India’s sovereignty. Copy of Freedom of Expression in

Maps, A.G. Noorani is annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE P.10.( 65-69 )

10. The November 14, 1962 unanimous resolution of the

Parliament of India vowing to recover every inch of land

 25

occupied by China “howsoever long or hard the struggle may

be” needs to be expeditiously and emergently fulfilled. The

proud people of India have a right to know from the

Respondent Number 1 herein the information and details

pertaining to the action taken so far by 1st Respondent herein

to liberate and recover the vast areas in India under Chinese

illegal occupation, pursuant to the aforesaid 1962 resolution

of the Parliament of India which the 1st Respondent herein is

bound to implement at the earliest with out any further delay

by peaceful ways if possible but with out ruling out

alternate means by use of force if necessary come what may

and “throw” the Chinese out to quote the aforesaid Mr.

Jawaharlal Nehru.

11. The act of the respondent Number 1 of illegally giving

away large areas of the state of Kashmir to the Chinese by

arbitrarily depicting large areas which had been previously

included in the colour wash in the maps of Kashmir

pertaining to the period of the commencement of the

Constitution of India and also altogether doing away with the

border of Kashmir with what was then the Soviet Union and

now survives as the territory of Gorno Badakhshan

administered by Tajikistan is illegal , and null and void since,

the power of the Union Parliament under Article 3 of the

Constitution of India to alter the name , area and boundaries

 26

of the state has been subjected to a limitation by virtue of a

proviso to the article:

Provided further that no bill providing

for increasing or diminishing the area

of the state of Jammu and Kashmir or

altering the name or boundary of

that state shall be introduced in the

parliament without the consent of the

legislature of that state10.

According to Justice Adarsh Sein Anand, former Chief Justice

of India and author of the “Constitution of Jammu and

Kashmir”:

“It is a part of our Constitution that

we cannot touch Kashmír without the

consent of Kashmir’s elected

Assembly, reaffirmed Mr. Nehru, the

prime Minister of India in 1961.11 This

being so, the power of the Union

Parliament to dispose of the territory

of the state in consequence of an

international agreement or treaty,

under Article 253 is also limited in

10
Constitution(Application to Jammu and Kashmir)Order , 1954;C.O.48,
section2(2)
11
Amrit bazaar Patrika, Calcutta 10.10.1961
 27

regard to Kashmir . No Bill effecting

the disposition of the State of Jammu

and Kashmir is valid unless passed

with the previous consent of the

State Government. And indeed in the

words of Professor Gledhill, ‘the

treaty making power cannot be used

to do what the Constitution otherwise

forbids’ ”.12

12. As Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru himself had quite

aptly stated regarding the spuriousness of the Chinese

claims on territory which is an integral part of India like

India’s beloved Aksai Chin:

“I must confess that this complete

subversion of facts and an attempt

to make falsehood appear as truth

and truth as falsehood had

amazed me, because nothing can

be more baseless than what the

Chinese have been saying”13.

“It is not inconceivable that China

and the Soviet Union may not

12
The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir by Justice Adarsh Sein Anand, 6th Edn. 2010 Published by Universal
Law Publishing Co. Pvt Ltd. C-FF-1A, Dilkhush Industrial Estate, Delhi 110033.
13
The Times of India, November 9, 1962
 28

continue to be as friendly as they

are now. Certainly it is conceivable

that our relations with China may

worsen…”of course, both the

Soviet Union and China are

expansive. They are expansive for

evils other than communism,

though communism may be made

a tool for the purpose”…we are

perhaps facing a new period of

such expansionism. Let us

consider that and fashion our

policy to prevent it coming in the

way of our interests or other

interests that we consider

important”14.

13. The occasion and chance came for the said Mr. Nehru to

redeem his pledge and fulfill and discharge his solemn

promise to the Nation of India in the Memorandum of July

1954, which inter alia stated that the “frontier should be

considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to

discussion with any one. A system of check posts should be

spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we should

have Check posts in such places as might be considered

14
Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru,Vol 26, p. 477.
 29

disputed areas”, pertinently, when the Director of the

Intelligence Bureau, B.N. Mullik had rightly recommended the

setting of new posts in Kashmir in 1959, at inter alia Sarigh

Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo, which was discussed in

January 1959 at a meeting in the external affairs Ministry in

the presence of Gen Thimayya, Chief of the Army staff and

the Foreign Secretary. Both the Army Chief and the Foreign

Secretary had opposed the proposal to open border posts at

inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo though

Sarigh Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo are situate deep

inside Kashmir even according to the illegal obnoxious

‘Nehru Line’ because according to them, the opening of the

said posts would ‘provoke’ the Chinese, and create tension.

The anti-national attitude of the External Affairs Ministry was

that “this part of the territory was useless to India. Even if

the Chinese did not encroach into it, India could not make

any use of it. The boundary had not been demarcated and

had been shifted more than once by the British”. Thus Nehru

and his fellow Anti-National coterie of bureaucrats did not

have neither the conviction nor care to have even an iota of

intention to protect even the territory which was admittedly

part of India even according to the albeit obnoxious , illegal,

arbitrary , ingenious and unilaterally stealthily drawn ‘Nehru

Line’ of 1954 which Mr. Nehru was duty bound to protect,

sitting as he was in the chair of the Prime Minister of India,

 30

which in the first place was purportedly drawn well in the

deep interior of Kashmir allegedly to only serve the purpose

of ‘a firm and definite’ frontier ‘not open to discussion with

any body’ as issued in Nehru’s memorandum of July 1954,

and in 1958 we have the External Affairs Ministry blatantly

colluding with the Chinese and illegally espousing the cause

of the Chinese to the detriment of India by disputing that

the area was intrinsically and inherently an inalienable part

of Kashmir by the statement “the boundary had not been

demarcated and had been shifted more than once by the

Britishers”. Also pertinently, Nehru by his blatant and wilful

refusal of permission to open posts at inter alia Sarigh

Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo violated, contravened and

defied his own solemn undertaking to the nation in his 1 July

1954 Memorandum wherein he had unequivocally stated that

“a system of check posts should be spread along this entire

frontier. More especially, we should have check posts in such

places as might be considered disputed areas”, which only

shows how unscrupulous and untrustworthy a person, he was

and how much unfit he was to hold the office of the Prime

Minister of India.

14. The same sordid state of affairs of apathy and lethargy

continues to prevail even to this day. Recently, during

November 2009 the 1st Respondent herein and the 2nd

 31

Respondent herein have meekly capitulated and succumbed

to the arrogant threats and intimidations of the Chinese army

and stopped work on an 8-km road project being

constructed because the local residents i.e. Citizens of India

had been demanding a link to improve road connectivity and

provide employment to local residents, under the National

Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in Demchok,

near Rudokh, in near-eastern historic Ladakh after the

Chinese army objected, though Demchok like Haji Langar is

very much situate within the ambit and purview of even the

albeit illegal Line published as the alleged border of

Kashmir in 1954 and the 1st Respondent herein and the 2nd

Respondent herein are bound in view of the solemn

undertaking made in the said July 1954 memorandum that

the “frontier should be considered a firm and definite one,

which is not open to discussion with any one, to refute and

repudiate the Chinese and complete the road project with

only increased vigour come what may and treat and react to

the Chinese intimidation with the disgust and contempt that

it deserves! Rather, It is ridiculous and absurd, the fact that

the 1st Respondent herein and the 2nd Respondent herein

have subserviently and with out an iota of shame

capitulated and succumbed to the arrogant Chinese

intimidations and threats. And the same has resulted inter

alia in the blatant violation of the fundamental rights and

 32

human rights of these citizens of India residing in far fledged

and remote difficult terrain including the right to life

enshrined in inter alia Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the

Constitution of India and this honourable Apex court has

unequivocally held that inaccessibility to road for citizens

residing in far fledged and remote difficult terrain is a

blatant violation of the fundamental right to life in State of

Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Umed Ram Sharma and

others (1986) 2 SCC 68 (74), wherein the honourable

Supreme Court has held that right to life “embraces not only

physical existence of life but the quality of life and for

residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life

itself...Denial of that right would be denial of the life as

understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the

Constitution”. Copy of News Report dt. 30.11.2009 in the

Indian Express is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE

P.11(70-71).

15. Again, during September –October 2010, the Chinese had

encroached into the Gombir area near Demchok in Kashmir and

intimidated and threatened the citizens residing in that part of this

country and the Civilian workers who were constructing a shed

which was approved at an estimated cost of Rs 2 lakh to be built

at village Gombir under the Border Area Development Project of

the Ministry of Home Affairs for the utility of the public, the plan

for which was cleared by the state Rural Development

 33

Department, and were successful in preventing the construction.

The state government had planned construction of seven link-

roads in Nyoma and Demchok areas to increase connectivity and

provide job opportunity to the people of the remote region. Copy

of News Report dt. 10.1.2011 in the Indian Express is annexed

hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P.12(72-74).

16. The respondent number 1 herein has been colluding

with the Chinese and trying hard to suppress the incursions

and supporting the Chinese actions by even going out of

their way to claim that in fact there had been no incursions

and there was a difference of perception as to where the line

of Control was! This, after the bogus Memorandum issued to

the nation on 1, July 1954 which emphasized that the

“frontier should be considered a firm and definite one, which

is not open to discussion with any one. A system of check

posts should be spread along this entire frontier. More

especially, we should have Check posts in such places as

might be considered disputed areas”, pursuant to which to

the illegal line drawn as the alleged border of Kashmir was

published in the first place. Earlier, the Chinese had

encroached into the Chicken Neck an area of Sikkim , which

fact was exposed by three journalists who did a very

commendable job in highlighting the Chinese incursions into

that part of India, and the respondent number 1 herein,

furious that the incursions had been leaked out to the proud
 34

people of India, lost no time in intimidating the journalists for

their audacity to expose the Chinese incursions and even

threatened to initiate legal action against them and register

a first information report against them. The Petitioner herein

issued a legal notice dated 7.10.2009 to inter alia the first

respondent calling upon the first respondent to desist from

taking the threatened foolish action, and after the

respondent number 1 received the same, The respondent

number 1 herein obviously became wiser. Pertinently,

apropos Demchok, it is ironic that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru

had unequivocally stated in no uncertain terms in the 17

Para Memorandum dated 1, July 1954 that,

“…check-posts are necessary not

only to control traffic, prevent

unauthorized infiltration but as

symbols of India’s frontier. As

Demchok is considered by the

Chinese as a disputed territory,

we should locate a check post

there. So also at Tsang

Chokla…”.

17. It is inevitable that the obnoxious “Nehru Line” which

Nehru unilaterally and arbitrarily published out of the blue for

the first time in 1954 in accordance with his own perverted

 35

whims and fancies and is blatantly ultra vires the

Constitution of India and has absolutely no legal sanctity, and

is ab initio illegal, will be repudiated by the proud people of

India. The only solace now for the proud people of India is

that the obnoxious “Nehru line” is so bereft of legal sanctity,

and is ab initio illegal, and null and void and the same is

awaiting formal repudiation and consequential denunciation

of this wicked and collusive act of the respondent number 1

herein. Now the Government of India is overtly and covertly

illegally colluding and conspiring with the Chinese to

compromise even this area within the so called frontier which

was meant to be considered a firm and definite one, not

open to discussion with any one by engaging in so-called

border talks using the aforesaid 1954 Nehru Line as the

basis, with the Chinese militarily occupying Tibet and East

Turkistan, solely and exclusively to facilitate the ulterior

purpose of handing over of India’s beloved inalienable Aksai

Chin to the Chinese.

18. When even the very alleged purported misconceived

reason given by Mr. Nehru at the outset for the publication in

1954 of the new maps illegally and at the cost of the

territorial integrity of Kashmir and with out following the

procedure established in law, viz. that the “frontier should

be considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to

 36

discussion with any one. A system of check posts should be

spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we should

have Check posts in such places as might be considered

disputed areas”, had been wilfully and blatantly time and

again been contravened by Mr. Nehru by his treacherous

and willful refusal to establish new posts in Kashmir in 1959,

at inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo in north

eastern Kashmir, the very purported initial misconceived

objective and purpose of the illegal 1954 “Nehru Line”,

which even otherwise was ab-initio illegal, null and void and

ultra vires Article 1(2)(3) and Entry 15 in the First Schedule

of the Constitution of India as well as Section (4) of the

Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, had been defeated and

the same has been rendered meaningless, and the entire

procedure adopted in 1954 was a colourable exercise of

power. Strangely, even The 2nd Respondent herein has

with out application of mind, blindly and mechanically

copied the manner in which the 3rd Respondent herein has

been since 1954 illegally depicting the external borders of

India, though the said illegal act of the 3rd Respondent

herein is not at all legally binding on the 2nd Respondent

herein in view of the distinct status of the state of Jammu

and Kashmir and the explicit enumeration of the territorial

extent of Kashmir in Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu

and Kashmir.
 37

19. The Petitioner herein caused a legal Notice dated

17.11.2010 to be issued to the respondents herein calling

upon all the respondents to apologise to the proud Nation

of India for colluding with the Chinese and willfully depicting

inter alia the northern border of Kashmir wrongly and thus

insulting the oblivious Indians, and further consequently

desist from depicting the northern border of Kashmir in the

pernicious manner the 2nd respondent has been illegally

depicting since 1954 when a new map depicting the northern

alleged border of Kashmir was illegally published out of the

blue under the false guise of a firm and definite frontier, not

open to discussion with any one, and revert the depiction of

the northern boundary of Kashmir to the true historic and

natural border of Kashmir to the north of Dafdar in the

Taghdumbash Pamir area of Kanjut where India shares a

border with Tajikistan administered Gorno Badakhshan, and

on the crests of the watershed of the Kuen Lun range and

beyond, wherein are inter alia the Kukalang (north of

Bazardara in Raskam in Kanjut), Yangi (north of Kulanaldi),

Kilian including Kathai Tam (north of Shahidulla), Sãnjú La

(north of Ali Nazar in Ladakh) and Hindutash (north of

Sumgal) passes in Kashmir, and beyond, within a period of

60 days from the date of receipt of this Notice, failing which,

the petitioner herein would be constrained to initiate the

necessary action against the respondents herein in

 38

accordance with law to their peril and with out further

notice, but the respondents have failed to take the necessary

positive action after receipt of the legal notice . Copy of legal

notice dated 17.11.2010is annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE P.13. (75)

20. The Petitioner is approaching this Honourable Court for

a declaration that the new map of Kashmir issued in the

year 1954 pursuant to the Memorandum dated 1, July 1954

issued by the respondent number 1 herein, as ab initio illegal

and null and void and ultra vires Article 1 (2) (3) and Entry

15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India as well as

Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and

hence as unconstitutional and non-est for inter alia the

following Grounds:

GROUNDS
i) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum
issued by the first respondent in 1954 has no legal
sanctity whatsoever and is perverse and has been
issued in a manner not known to law and the whole
proceedings are vitiated.

ii) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum

issued by the first respondent in 1954 arbitrarily and

illegally depict even the area which is included in the

colour wash in the official maps attached to the 2 White

Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the

 39

Government of India's Ministry of States, headed,

incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the

authority of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney which

bind it in law, which ipso facto prove that the area is an

integral part of Kashmir, as not part of Kashmir.

iii) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum

issued by the first respondent in 1954 illegally does not

depict the border of Kashmir with territory previously

administered by the Soviet Union in the “Gorno

Badakhshan” area when in spite of the fact that even

Mr. Nehru had in no uncertain terms reiterated in his

telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British Prime

Minister, Clement Attlee, that "Kashmir's Northern

frontiers, as you are aware, run in common with those

of three countries, Afghanistan, `the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics' and `China' ". Besides, also, the

Maharaja Hari Singh states in his correspondence with

Lord Mountbatten of Burma dated October 26, 1947,

“Besides, my State has a common boundary with ‘the

Soviet Republic’ and ‘China’”.

iv) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum

issued by the first respondent in 1954 is contradictory

to the assertion and stance of the 1st respondent in

the publication, viz., `Atlas of the Northern Frontier of

 40

India', wherein where in it is unequivocally stated by 1st

Respondent herein in the map at page 20 that “the

British cartographers gave a dark shade for areas only

where they had their jurisdiction and in the rest of

India, only a lighter shade was used”. In the very same

publication which also portrays an ancient old East

Asian map titled “Map of the Western Regions (held by

the Chinese) appended to the Hsi-yu-tu-chih, compiled

on the orders of Emperor Chien-lung in 1762”, which

depicts the southern boundary of East Turkistan with

India along the Kuen Lun Range, the 1st Respondent

herein has unequivocally admitted that "The map

makes clear that Sinkiang extended in the south only

up to the Kuen Lun Range". The respondent number 1

is thus esstopped from changing their stance.

v) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum

issued by the first respondent in 1954 ignores the

crucial corroborative contemporary evidence and

unanimous conclusions that the southern border of East

Turkistan never even extended to the south beyond the

northern foothills of the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir. The

Chinese completed the reconquest of Eastern Turkistan

in 1878. Before they lost it in 1863, their practical

authority, “as Ney Elias the British Joint Commissioner

 41

in Leh from the end of the 1870s to 1885, and Francis

Younghusband consistently maintained, had never

extended south of their outposts at Sãnjú 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 are situate the Hindutash pass and Sãnjú La

passes in Kashmir and the area in the highlands of

Kashmir between the Karakoram and Kuen Lun ranges.

According to Ramsay, One Musa , nephew of the head–

man (Turdi Kul) of the Kirghiz who marauded the area

around the Shahidulla Fort and the Raskam sought help

from the Chinese Amban at Yarkand. The Amban

replied that “the Chinese frontier extended only to the

Kilian and Sanju passes… he could do nothing for us so

long as we remained at Shahidulla and he could not

take notice of raids committed on us beyond the

 42

Chinese frontier”. Clearly, in 1889, the Kuen Lun was

regarded as marking the southern frontier of East

Turkistan. As Alder wrote, “the Chinese after return to

Sinkiang in 1878, claimed up to the Kilian, Kogyar, and

Sanju passes north of the Kuen Luen”15. The Amban

directed the Kirghiz to the authorities in Ladakh since

no Chinese official ever comes to Ladakh. Musa was

sent to Ladakh to ask for assistance, where he said,

“The fort at Shahidulla belongs to the Kashmir state,

but as it is at present in ruins, we desire to be given

the money to rebuild it”16 Though, Ramsay later stated

that Musa was not reliable and was altering his

statements, it was confirmed that the Amban did say

that the frontier was at the southern base of the Kilian

pass in the Kuen Lun range, and that the Turdi Kol was

“certainly told by the Chinese Amban that Shahidulla

was not in Chinese territory” 17

Younghusband arrived

in Shahidulah on 21 August 1889 and met the Turdi Kol,

the Kirghiz chief himself rather than Musa. Two Chinese

officials , the Kargilik and the Yarkand Amban had told

him that Shahidulla was British territory i.e. part of the

territory of Kashmir. He also examined the Shahidullah

Fort.

15
Alder, British India’s Northern Frontier, P.278
16
Statement of Musa Kirghiz of Shahidullah recorded by Ramsey on 25 May 1889, Foreign Secret
F., July 1889, No. 205
17
Foreign Secret F., July 1889, No. 203-30
 43

vi) The inference drawn by present day writers or scholars

on the northeastern border of Kashmir with Khotán

pertaining to the period of the commencement of the

Constitution of India is that the border of Kashmir with

Khotán was the Kuen Lun range. According to Dorothy

Woodman, author of Himalayan Frontiers published in

1969:

“Similarly, the findings of the survey

of W.H. Johnson , who was the Civil

Assistant of the Trigonometrical

Survey of India, in July 1865,

established certain important

pertinent points”. "Brinjga was in his

view the boundary post"18 (near the

Karanghu Tagh Peak north of

Khushlashlangar, in the Kuen Lun in

Ladakh ), thus implying "that the

boundary lay along the Kuen Lun

Range". Johnson’s findings

demonstrated that the whole of the

Kara Kash valley was part of the

territory of Kashmir and an integral

part of the territory of Kashmir. "He

18
Report of the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, 1866 P.6.
 44

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".

Again, to quote from “Himalayan Battleground” by

Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A.

Huttenback, page 116:19

“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 Ilchi”. Brinjga is a few miles

southeast of Karanghutagh; thus the

Khotan ruler accepted the Kunlun range

as the southern boundary of his

dominion. Johnson noted that the Qara

Qash valley was within the territory of

the Maharaja of Kashmir”.

According to W.H. Johnson,

19
Himalayan Battleground by Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, published by Fredreick A.
Praeger, 1963 New York
 45

“the last portion of the route to Shadulla

(Shahidulla in north-eastern Kashmir) 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 the survey of W.H. Johnson hold good to

this day and nothing at all has changed legally or

otherwise. The map pertaining to the findings of the

survey of W.H. Johnson who was the Civil Assistant of

the Trigonometrical Survey of India and also later the

Wazir of the Ladakh Wazarat, in July 1865

unequivocally depicts the northern border of Kashmir

with Khotan in the area of the historic Hindutash and

 46

Sanju passes in north eastern Kashmir, on the crests of

the Kuen Lun range not withstanding the fact that

even the said map does not reflect the true findings

pertaining to the survey of W.H. Johnson. Colonel

Walker who was the Surveyor General in 1867, whose

motives are suspect, confessed and “insisted that the

map as published was far different from Johnson’s

Original”. According to Dorothy Woodman, author of

Himalayan Frontiers, “the map indicates that even in

1865 that area was part of India and that the

customary boundary was well known”.

vi) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum

issued by the first respondent in 1954 is ultra vires the

Constitution of India and the Constitution of the state

of Jammu and Kashmir since the said map has been

issued with out the prerequisite amendment of the

Constitution of India and the Constitution of Jammu and

Kashmir which is a sine qua non, and the prerequisite

consent of the legislature of Jammu and Kashmir was

also not obtained since the map necessarily pertained

to the territorial extent of the state of Kashmir, and as

per the proviso to Article 3, any change in the territorial

extent of the State can be effected only after the

consent of the legislature is obtained. The power of the

 47

Union Parliament to dispose of the territory of the state

in consequence of an international agreement or treaty,

under Article 253 is also limited in regard to Kashmir .

No Bill effecting the disposition of the State of Jammu

and Kashmir is valid unless passed with the previous

consent of the State Government.

vii) The new map published in 1954 is contradictory to

manner depicted in the Map referred to in Article 9 of

the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China and

Tibet dated the 5th July 1914 which also depicts the

southern border of Khotán and East Turkistan with

Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range in the area of

Hindutash in Kashmir as a red line

viii) The new map published in 1954 and issued pursuant to

the memorandum issued by the first respondent in

1954 does not depict inter alia the Historic Kashmiri

Kuen Lun out post at Shahidulla in spite of the fact that

the respondent number 2 herein had time and again

reiterated that Shahidulla was an integral part of

Kashmir.

ix) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum

issued by the first respondent in 1954 had arbitrarily

and illegally not depicted large areas historically part of

 48

the principality of Kanjut in the Raskam area and

Taghdumbash Pamir area adjoining the Kuen lun range

as part of Kashmir, when even the Manchu empire had

recognised and ignores the corroborative evidence of

inter alia McMahon. “No one seems to be quiet sure

how the Kanjutis started to cultivating the Raskam

valley. The river is known by the glittering name of

Zafarshan, the gold scatterer. According to Kanjuti

traditions, as related by McMahon , the eighth ancestor

of the Mir, Shah Salim Khan pursued the nomadic

Kherghiz thieves upto Tash Khurghan and defeated

them. “to celebrate this victory, Shah Salim Khan

erected a stone cairn at Dafdar and sent a trophy of a

Khirghiz head to the Chinese with a message that

Hunza territory extended as far as Dafdar”. The

Kanjutis were already in effective possession of the

Raskam and no question had been raised about It. The

Mir’s claims went a good deal beyond a mere right of

cultivation. He “asserts that forts were built by the

Hunza people with out any objection or interference

from the Chinese at Dafdar, Qurghan, Ujadhbhai, Azar

on the Yarkand river and at three or four other places in

Raskam.” 20
McMahon was able to prima facie roughly

define the territorial limits of Kanjut. “The boundaries of

20
For. Sec.F. October1896, 533/541 (534)
 49

Taghdumbash, Khunjerab and Raskam, as claimed by

the Kanjuts, are the following: the northern watershed

of the Taghdumbash Pamir from the Wakhijrui pass

through the Baiyik peak to Dafdar, thence across the

river to the Zankan nullah; thence through Mazar and

over the range to Urok, a point on the Yarkand river

between Sibjaida and Itakturuk. Thence it runs along

the northern watershed of the Raskam valley to the

junction of the Bazar Dara river and the Yarkand river.

From thence southwards over the mountains to the

Mustagh river leaving the Aghil Dewan and Aghil pass

within Hunza limits.21 McMahon’s information was

substantially corroborated in 1898 by Captain

H.P.P.Deasy who threw up a commission to devote

himself to Trans Himalayan exploration. An item of

special interest was Deasy’s description of the limits of

Raskam. Starting from Aghil Dewan or pass, in the

Karakoram range, the dividing line ran north-east to

Bazar Dara, where it met the Yarkand river. From there

the line ran “along the northern watershed of the

Raskam valley to Dafdar in the Taghdumbash Pamir, to

the north of the mills at that place, and thence to the

Baiyik peak. Deasy also came upon clear evidence of

what could only have been Kanjuti occupation. South of

21
For. Sec. F.July 1898,306/347 (327)
 50

Azgar “many ruins of houses, old irrigation channels

and fields now no longer tilted , testify to Raskam

having formerly been inhabited and cultivated”. Anyone

familiar with the care with which the Kanjuts cultivate

every available strip of land in their own Hunza would

have no hesitation in regarding this as proof of long

standing Kanjuti occupation. The remains could not

have been attributed to the Kirghiz; they were

unfamiliar with the state of art.22 "Seven locations in

the Raskam were involved. Azgar and Ursur on the right

bank, and five others on the left, that is on the

Mustagh-Karakoram side-Kukbash, Kirajilga, Ophrang,

Uroklok, and Oitughrak, extending from Sarakamish,

north of Kunjerab pass to Bazar Dara, north of the

Arghil pass , comprising an area of about 3000 acres”.

x) The Gazetteer of Kashmír “and Ladák” compiled under

the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in

the Intelligence Branch and first Published in 1890

states at page 493 apropos Khotán, “ A province of the

Chinese Empire lying to the north of the Eastern

Kuenlun range, which here forms the boundary of

Ladák”. Apropos Yárkand, the very same The Gazetteer

of Kashmír “and Ladák” states at Page 860, “The

Yárkand river rises north of the Karakoram pass. Its

22
For. Sec. F. August 1899, 168/201 (175)
 51

course is for the first 30 miles north east to Máliksháh.

Thence north west for 56 miles to Kirghiz Jungle. From

Kirghiz Jungle it flows 15 miles west to Kulanuldi camp.

Up to this point its course is followed by the Kugiar (or

winter) route from Ladák to Yárkand.” (maintained by

the Government of Kashmir) “Beyond Kulanuldi it

continues west for some distance, and then takes a

sudden bend to the north into Yárkand territory”.

Averment:

21. That The petitioner herein has not filed any other

similar petition in any Honourable High Court or this

honourable Court on the subject matter of this petition.

PRAYER

Under these circumstances the petitioner humbly seeks

that this Honourable Court be pleased to:

a) to issue a writ of declaration, order or direction

declaring that the new map of Kashmir issued in

the year 1954 pursuant to the Memorandum

dated 1, July 1954 issued by the respondent

number 1 herein , as ab initio illegal and null and

void and ultra vires Article 1 (2) (3) and Entry 15

in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India as

well as Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu

 52

and Kashmir and hence as unconstitutional and

non-est.

b) And consequently pass such further or other

orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case award costs

and thus render justice.

FILED BY:
NEW DELHI
DRAWN ON: 7.3.2011
FILED ON: 7.3.2011

P.V.Ravi Chandran,
(Party-in-Person)
Advocate, Madras
E. No 407 of 1993
5, Divya Krupa,
1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar,
Maduravayal,
Chennai 600095
Ph. 04423783059
 53

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (Civil )No. 127 of 2011

(Petition Under Article 32 Of The Constitution Of India)

P.V.Ravi Chandran
Advocate,
5, Divya Krupa,
1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar,
Maduravayal,
Chennai 600095 …..
Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Union of India,

Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Department of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
Nav Dehli 110001.
And 2 others …. Respondents

PAPER BOOK

(For Index Please See Inside)

P.V.RAVI CHANDRAN
PETITIONER IN PERSON
Advocate, Madras
5, Divya Krupa, 1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar, Maduravayal,
Chennai 600095
Ph. 04423783059
 54

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (Civil )No. 127 of 2011
(Petition Under Article 32 Of The Constitution Of India)

P.V.Ravi Chandran
Advocate,
E. No 407 of 1993
5, Divya Krupa,
1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar,
Maduravayal,
Chennai 600095 …..
Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Secretary to the Union of India,

Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Department of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
Nav Dehli 110001.

2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir

Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Department of Home,
Secretariat,
Srinagar 190009,
Jammu and Kashmir

3. The Surveyor General of India,

Survey of India
Hathibarkala Estate
Dehra Dun 248001,
Uttaranchal …. Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER

I, P.V. Ravi Chandran, Advocate, son of

Mahadevapandal Soolapani Warrier, aged about 44 years

residing at No 5, Divya Krupa, 1st Street Extn., Sri Krishna

 55

Nagar, Maduravayal, Chennai 600095, now come down to

Dehli do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as

follows:

1. I am the Petitioner herein and I am fully acquainted with

the facts of the case. As such, I am competent to swear to

this affidavit.

2. I have drafted and Perused the Synopsis and List of

Dates (Pages B to ) and Writ Petition (Paras 1 to 21 and

Pages 1 to___] and have understood the contents therein. I

submit that the facts stated therein are true to the best of

my knowledge borne out by records and the information

received by me is believed to be true.

3. I further submit that the copies of the documents filed as

annexures along with this Writ Petition are true copies of

the originals.

4. I further state that what is stated in the aforesaid

paragraphs of my affidavit is true to my knowledge and

belief, and no part of it is false and nothing material has

been concealed or suppressed.

Verified at Nav Dehli on this the 7th day of March 2011

DEPONENT