hahahaha
well i realize you might bury us all in the gory details
& there may well be some confusion &or disagreement about when the
original acre mentioned by the professor was first envisioned &
spoken of as an acre or as 3 bighas by anyone
but we are still no closer to finding the original 3 bighas or the
original tin bigha
while we very well may have found the original 3 bridges or their
successors at 3 bridges nj
& meanwhile too
i have reached the national archives here in dc
where i was just lucky enough to also find message 16775
since they couldnt help me to the denj arc data without it
so thanx again lowell
& while i have the computer
let me also report that i learned yesterday that the susquehanna
estuary is presently blocked by the conewingo dam some 6 or 7 miles
below pennsylvania
but that tidewater must have risen a good distance farther up during
colonial times
which leaves unanswered my question of whether the calverts succeeded
in completely locking the penns out of chesapeake tidewater
& still needing to check old topos for this perhaps
or maybe mathews on the history of the dispute
& continuing to report miscellaneously to conserve time
while rescouring perry by flashlight last night
& all the other data gotten from the new castle courthouse
i learned there is little to no hope of finding any pre1893 ghost arc
markers
since there evidently were no earlier stones than 1850
but only 1701 tree blazes
but i also learned
among much else i will report later
that i might still learn the locations at least of 4 or 5 of these
anyway in hodgkins
so its off to the library of congress for him & mathews
but yikes i still havent ordered the special masters report here yet
so let me do that first & i will be right back
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Brendan Whyte <bwhyte@u...>
wrote:
> At 11:36 AM 5/04/2005 +0000, BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> >Message: 3
> > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: aletheia kallos <aletheiak@y...>
> >Subject: Re: Tin Bigha redux
> >
> >wait
> >i think you may have misunderstood too
> >
> >the acre was envisioned & mentioned
> >if not from 1952
> >then from the late 1950s at the latest
>
>
> You mean the earliest.
>
> but no, the acre was not even a glint in Nehru's eye then. The post
1947
> proposals were always for full exchange of enclaves. This led to
problems
> at Berubari. Local Indians there disrupted survey efforts and took
the
> matter to court. This delayed exchange, frustrating the Pakis who
felt
> India was silently encouraging this local dissent, and not working
hard
> enough to speed the matter through the courts.
> This in turn soured relations further, more real or perceived gop-
slows, etc.
> After the 1965 war things got worse
> then the 1970 war for East Paki independence as Bangladesh.
> Now India could deal with a new partner, and a new idea was put
forward.
> Bangladesh would let India keep Berubari, but in exchange wanted a
similar
> area/population. This was obviously found at Dahagram/Angarpota,
the
> largest Bangla enclave, 2 entire administrative villages, and so
close to
> the main boundary. Thus it was easy to come up with the idea of a
corridor
> over such a short uninhabited space to Bangla access to the
enclave. The
> proposal was formalised in the 1974 Indira-Mujib talks/pact.
>
> But until the early 70s, there was no official talk of corridors,
let alone
> one at Tin Bigha. It is conceivable someone may have thought of
corridors,
> but given there are 200 enclaves, the obvious solution was to
exchange
> them, not run corridors to each one. It was only the problems at
Berubari
> that delayed the exchange indefinitely, that triggered the
Bangladeshis to
> offer to let India keep that in exchange for another area in a quid
pro quo.
>
> EXCHANGE was discussed 1950 onwards, but corridors, and in
particular Tin
> Bigha were only tabled as ideas in the early 1970s with Bangladesh,
not
> with Pakistan.
>
> You can read all the gory details in my book... :-)
>
>
> Brendan