. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 All Ladakhi terms have been transcribed according to the system prescribed by
Wylie (1959), and the orthography is largely based on the work of Jäshcke (1987).
Some terms given here are not accounted for in dictionaries, and I have spelled
them in the manner in which people in Ladakh wrote them for me. Place-names
have sometimes been spelled in a manner closest to their pronunciation in English.
2 See also Bannerjee (2002) for a description of precolonial borders.
3 Maps were not just representations of state territory; rather, it was cartographic
knowledge that was instrumental for the materialization of the modern concept of
the state, argues Michael Biggs (1999). Barrow (1994) makes a similar argument for
the role of maps in conceptualizing territory in British India.
4 For testimonies and analytical essays about the Partition, see Menon and Bhasin
(1998), Butalia (1998), Jalal (1998), Rahman and van Schendel (2003), Chatterji
(1999), and Chakrabarty (2002).
5 See also van Schendel (2002), Rahman and van Schendel (2003) for ways in which
the Partition and state borders formed thereafter affect the identities and economic
conditions of citizens who live in Indian and Bangladeshi enclaves. Urvashi Butalia
(1998) also discusses the effects of the Partition in Punjab beyond religious divides.
6 There are numerous sources outlining the history of the Kashmir discord, includ-
ing Akbar (1991), Behera (2000), Bose (1997), Jha (1996), Lamb (1991), Mushtaqur
Rahman (1996), K. Singh (1989), Varshney (1991), and Wirsing (1994).
7 The terms and date of this Accession have generated much controversy. Lamb (1991)
implies that the accession was never signed, that if it was signed, it was after the
deployment of Indian troops, and that British maneuvering had already made the
accession of Kashmir to India a fait accompli when they revised the Radcliffe line to