Garrison Agreement Procedures: Fill & Download for Free

Mr. Chen made a good presentation of historical documents, but he’s doing it too politely, just like how the former-ROC had desperately tried to express their “righteous stance” in front of imperialism powers.I shall be a bit rude and play the role of bad cop.I would just throw 17 Points Agreement on the table in some other forums, but since here is Quora, I am willing to do some explain.In international relations, there is an universal rule called “Odious Debt Principle.”Basically, it means:You lent debt to and signed treaty with my enemy in civil war, I am rightful to deny them all.In a revolutionary scene, it means:Since they were imposed by a collaboration of foreign coercion and oppressor regime, therefore violate the willingness and benefit of people, a revolutionary government has inalienable right to withdraw the foreign debt owed, as well as the international treaty signed, by the former regime. (As long as it could bear the consequence.)ROC did not have such guts. It inherited all the treaties of Qing Empire, so it has the right ( sovereignty or suzerainty, choose one making you feel better) over Tibet.The bad side was, for all those “internaional liability”, like foreign previleges and all those “war conpensations”, ROC had to inherit them as well. In 1938, the then Chinese government sent “reparations” obligaged by The 1901 Treaty to Japan, amid Japan’s full-scale invasion to China, and right after IJA had committed inhumane atrocity in the Nanking Massacre.So, ROC held Tibet in China, with a humiliating and compromising way, but after all it kept Tibet in, even though just in name.As for PRC, things were quite opposite.CCP started as a tiny political saloon. Victory did not simply dropped on their head like what happened in 1911 Revolution. They made it with unprecedented devotion and sacrifice. CCP had 3 million member when PRC was found, it also had a 3.7-million-long namelist for recorded party martyrs.62% mortality, in 28 long years, for every single soul passed through the signing-up procedure.As a result, when People’s Republic was found, it had a really badass army, an enormous capability of total mobilization, a core organization stronger than steel, and willing-to-die-for level of support from at least 80% of population.Thus, as a very rare instance, PRC really dare and can execute the “Odious Debt Principle” as a revolutionary government.Let’s make it short:PRC, at that time, had the power to back its choice on “odious debts”.PRC did choose from all international liabilities they inherited from ROC, picked what they wanted and ditched what they did not want.It’s not only about Tibet. It was just a part among all actions PRC executed “Odious Debts Principle”.They withdrew all foreign debts owed by Qing and ROC, thus relieved China from the financial abyss.Also, as the self-claimed representative of Chinese people’s benefit, PRC made changes on surronding situations for the favor of China. They did so in Korea, Vietnam, Northeast and Xinjiang (Dear elder brother Soviet, I need your aid, I’m under pressure of US, but your garrison must get out of my country within 5 years).For example, PRC managed to re-secure two strategical wings for China by different ways.You probably know, Chinese “volunteers” slain nearly 50 thousand Americans in Korea within 33 months. To help you understand how intense that was, I provide you with another number: US only lost 325k lives on battlefields of WW2.You may not know, China also sent a “consultant delegation” consisted hundreds of PLA officers led by Chen Geng (陈赓, granted Senior Admiral rank in 1955 conferring) to Vietnam in 1950. All in a sudden, Viet Minh guerillas became experts on artillery and masters on infantry tactics. In next 4 years, Chinese general Wei Guoqing (韦 国清, Admiral) was always in the commanding post of Vo Nguyen Giap during battles. They worked together and kicked France out of Asia after the glorious 7.5.54 in Dian Bien Phu.Tibet was another task among the series, the only difference was China always has a strong claim on it.PRC chose to change the status-quo of Central-Tibetan local, or China-Tibet, relationship. In executing “Odious Debt Principle”, it had the right to do so, just as foreign powers had the right to object it.What happened on history when Tibet became a part of PRC?After failed negotiations between Lhasa and Beijing (again, I don’t care you say it was between central-local or 2 nations), PLA marched into the Chamdo region (legitimate territory of Xikang Province of ROC) on October 6th 1950, engaged the Tibetan army stationing in that place, defeated it, maintained control of the Chamdo area but did not proceed the advance to Lhasa. The PRC government sent certain POWs to Lhasa to appeal for continued negotiations. The Tibetan Bkav-Shag (cabinet in theocratical form) then sent delegation to Beijing, whereupon the Seventeen Point Agreement was signed, which agreed to the incorporation of Tibet into the PRC.How did PRC keep Tibet in?PRC made the fully incorporation of Tibet with a bilateral agreement, written on formal diplomatic documents signed by both sides. You can say it was under coercion, but the battle happened in Xikang, former-ROC’s province, Chinese sovereign territory in any sense. PLA only moved cross the border of Xikang AFTER the 17 Point Agreement had been signed.So, what the “western governments” could do to Tibetan issue in 1950?Did “western governments” have willingness to declare that Tibet not belong to China, during ROC’s era?Nope. Why you mutilate a tamed lapdog for no reason?Did any “western governments” has any capability to stop PLA marching into Xikang, a piece of non-disputed territory of ROC, in a civil war for the title of the sole legal government of China?Nope, they had left China a year ago: US troops bailed out their last garrison in continental China, Qingdao base, when PLA began to attack the suburb of city. UK’s navy tried to distrupt PLA’s action before Campaign of Crossing River, then HMS Amethyst and HMS London were bombed out of the river by field artillery.Did any “western governments” has any capability to change the result of negotiation between the Bkav-Shag and the Central People’s Government in Beijing?Nope. They indeed tried, just failed miserablely.Before Battle of Chamdo, Tibetan army got thousands of Bren, Sten, and Lee-Enfield out of nowhere. Then they all became PLA’s spoil. Maybe some were later sent to Korea to shoot their old owners, who knows?After Battle of Chamdo, among 3000 POWs, PLA found 2 Indian and 2 British. One of the British, Robert Ford, confessed in interrogation that he managed the assassination to Gouda Living Buddha by poision. The Living Budda had decades-long personal friendship with Field Marshall Zhu De, commander in chief of PLA. He was on his journey to Lhasa attempting to persuade the Bkav-Shag to join The Common Charter, draft of PRC’s Constitution. After a trial in public, Ford was sentenced 10 year in jail for espionage and abeting homicide, and was expelled in 1955.So you see, “western governments” indeed took action trying to secede Tibet from China.They sabotaged the chance of peace by shameless murder on renowned religious figure.They tried to reinforce the separatist army.Just their attempt was crushed by the might of People’s Republic.Among all these series of incidents which resulted the fully incorporation of Tibet into PRC, could the “western governments” have any chance to change the final result?Nope.So, why on Earth you ask “western governments” to feel guilty, like they having an obligation to “justify”, for admitting the status-quo that wouldn’t change no matter what they had done?Look, world of politics is not the playground for 12-year kids. You can’t push someone into trouble by accusing “he’s a bad boy” to the tutor.PRC wanted to inherit the sovereignty of Tibet from of ROC, or, (if anyone still wanna insist “suzerainty” for some reason) fortify the loose and nominal control into solid and undisputed sovereignty.PRC did it afterall.“Western government” couldn’t do anything to object it anyway. They should not be condemned for acknowledging some reality which they could not affect even after effortful trying.

Let me explain two different methods of calculation for stamp duty & registration charges.METHOD - 1:The following is the step by step procedure(Kaveri Online is a government initiative for stamps & registration)Step 1: Open the website Kaveri Online ServicesStep 2: Click “Stamp Duty & Registration Fee Calculator”. Refer to the below image in the circle for your reference.Step 3: Select “Nature of the document” from the drop-down list. The nature of the document is different for building, flat, and land.In this answer, let me take an example that my flat in Sobha Garrison apartment which is located in Nagasandra, Comes under bbmp limit. Though it is a flat So I select “Sale of flat” in the nature of the document. Below image in circle for your reference.And click “Show details”Step 4: Select “Region Type” from the drop-down list.Region is the municipality where the property located. My property located in BBMP municipality hence I select BBMP from drop-down list. Below image in circle for your reference.Step 5: Mention “Indicative market value” or know as guidance value or circle value.If you don’t know the market value. use the market value calculator beside, refer the below image in circle for your reference.We wrote a detailed answer about how to calculate market value, Here is the link to the answer PGN Property Management's answer to How can I get the government's guidance for the value of land/home property in a location In India?The market value of my flat is Rs.42,300/- per square meter. Refer to the below image in circle for your reference.So, the market value of my 1500 sq.ft flat is Rs. 58,94,699Step 6: Indicate consideration amount or selling price of property.I want to sell my property at the price of Rs. 83,00,000/-so I write Rs.83 Lakh in consideration amount. Below image in the circle for your reference.Click the button “Calculate”Step 7: The stamp duty and registration charges will display. (Below image with yellow color strained for your reference)This completes method -1 of calculation.METHOD - 2This method of calculation is very simple and straight forward.Below is the formula for calculation.Stamp duty : 5% of consideration amountSurcharge : 0.1% of consideration amountCess Value : 0.5% of consideration amountTotal Stamp Duty = stamp duty + Surcharge + Cess valueTotal Registration Fees : 1% of consideration amountUsing the above formula, we made a mock calculation based on my consideration price of Rs. 83 lakh.You can cross-check that the below figures are matching to above screenshot which we calculated through Kaveri online service.Stamp duty : 5% of consideration amount - Rs. 83,00,000 X5% = 4,15,000/-Surcharge : 0.1% of consideration amount - Rs.83,00,000 X 1% = 8,300/-Cess Value : 0.5% of consideration amount - Rs. 83,00,000 X0.5% =41,500/-Total Stamp Duty is Rs. 4,15,000+8300+14500 = 4,64,800/-Total Registration Fees : 1% of consideration amount - Rs.83,00,000 X 1% = 83,000/-Additional information:At the time of sale deed registration, you can offset the surcharge 0.1% of consideration value if franking is done for “Agreement of sale”.Offset is applicable for only franking mode of stamp duty and not for e-stamp.I hope, my answer gave you some insight.For assistance please whastapp to 9 7 4 2 4 7 9 0 2 0.Thank you for reading…

The status, rights and freedom of women declined dramatically during the Renaissance. Medieval women enjoyed greater freedoms, status and rights than women in the so-called “Renaissance.”Non-historians are inclined to assume that progress is linear. Since women did not obtain the right to vote in major democracies until the early 20th century, the assumption is that before the 20th century women had no rights. Yet, as the noted French historian Régine Pernoud argues eloquently in her book Women in the Days of the Cathedrals (Ignatius, 1989) women enjoyed much greater power in the Middle Ages than in the centuries that followed. In the introduction she notes:Women at that time [the 10th to 13th centuries] incontestably exercised an influence that the lonely rebels of the seventeenth century or the severe anarchists of the nineteenth century were not able to achieve. This influence manifestly decreased [thereafter] …dragging them toward an eclipse from which they emerged only in the twentieth century.Pernoud attributes this retrogressive development to the Renaissance and the attendant fascination with all things “antique.” The focus on Rome ultimately led to the re-introduction of many elements of Roman law, a legal tradition that was extremely misogynous.The higher status of women in the Middle Ages as compared to antiquity and the renaissance and early modern periods stems from the two principles that formed the basis of medieval society: 1) Christianity and 2) Feudalism.Christianity accorded women unprecedented status because it eliminated polygamy and divorce, while elevating women from sexual objects to spiritual beings. Feudalism raised the status of women because power derived through hereditary titles to land.Simplified: in feudalism bloodlines were more important than gender. What this means is that although the hierarchy gave precedence to the first born son over his brothers, and to sons before the daughters, it nevertheless gave the daughters precedence over cousins and illegitimate children of either sex, much less individuals without any blood relationship to the hereditary lord.Bonds of marriage, furthermore, were considered “blood-ties,” meaning that wives were given very powerful rights over property, which in turn gave them control over the vassals, tenants, servants and serfs that went with the land. In practice, the feudal focus on blood-ties and land meant that in the absence of a male, whether temporary or permanent, females exercised the same authority as the absent male. In other words, in a hierarchical society such as feudalism, class trumped gender. Thus, while women were to a degree subject to men of their own class, they nevertheless had a higher standing and more power than men of any lower class.At the pinnacle of feudal society, queens were anointed and crowned because they were expected to exercise authority over the entire kingdom, and so the blessings of the Divine were deemed essential. This was not a nominal nor ceremonial power. When a king died leaving a minor child as his heir, it was normal for the child’s mother to act as regent. In France the custom goes back at least to 1060, when, at the death of Henry I, his wife Anna became regent for their son Philip I. In England, an example of this is when Isabella of France served as regent for Edward III after his father’s death but before he attained his majority. Even when a king was not dead, circumstances might hand power to his wife. In England, Marguerite of Anjou ruled during the frequent periods of mental illness exhibited by Henry VI. When Louis IX of France went on crusade to the Holy Land in 1249, he left his mother as his regent ― a function she had fulfilled during his minority as well. Indeed, when Louis IX was taken captive by the Saracens, he negotiated a ransom with the caveat that, since he was a prisoner, his queen was reigning and only she could confirm the terms of the agreement.Across most of Europe women could be barons in the sense that they could both give and receive feudal oaths. The importance of this cannot be over stated: feudal oaths were the very basis of feudal society, they were the mortar that held society together, the social contract that made feudalism function. The recognition of a woman as a vassal and a lord ― not in her capacity as a man’s wife or daughter but in her own right ― entailed recognizing her as a fully independent legal entity. Thus, women in the Kingdom of Jerusalem could both initiate proceedings — and face trial as defendants — before the High Court. Treating women as judicial persons was absolutely unthinkable under Roman law, and, sadly, was not the case in the France from the 16th to the 20th century!Nor was this a rare occurrence. In depth studies of specific lordships in France such as Troyes in the Champagne have shown that women held 58 of a total of 160 fiefs held directly (as opposed to being property of a higher lord, administrated by an appointee). (Pernoud, p. 180.) This suggests that women inherited at a rate of slightly better than one out of three.Above just one of the medieval queens who commanded armies: the Empress Mathilda, 12th century.Not only did women hold the titles, they controlled the lands and commanded the men and women that went with them. One of my favorite stories in that of the “Keeper of the King’s Forrest” and Constable of Lincoln in 1217 ― a certain Nicholaa, who Austin Hernon has brought wonderfully to life in his well-researched novel The Women Who Saved England. She defended the castle of Lincoln against forces attempting to put the King of France on England’s throne during the minority of Henry III. She withstood multiple assaults, commanding the men of the garrison in person. But there are literally countless cases of women holding and defending castles against siege and storm.Last but not least, no description of political power in the Middle Ages would be complete without noting that the emergence of nuns and convents in the 5th century AD opened completely new opportunities for women. Convents were centers of learning, music, and illumination. The Order of the Hospital also offered women careers in social work and medical care ― not to mention an opportunity to travel to the Holy Land. Critical to understanding these institutions is to note that they were self-governing, so that women were not subject to any men inside the community, and ― often completely overlooked ― in many double foundations (monastery and convent side-by-side) the Abbess ruled over the men as well as the women. What this means is that monks entering the monastery took their vows to the abbess ― not the abbot. Finally, although such power is indirect, many abbesses enjoyed great influence outside the walls of the convent. As women of recognized learning and wisdom, some of the greater abbesses such as Agnes of Poitiers, Mathilda of Fontevrault, or Hildegard von Bingen, corresponded with popes, emperors and kings.Moving from the aristocracy to the middle class, the high status of women in the medieval period as opposed to the so-called “Renaissance” remains striking. This is because nothing gives women more power and status than wealth. In societies where women cannot own property (e.g. ancient Athens) they are not only powerless to take their fate into their own hands in an emergency, they are also generally viewed by men as worthless. Where women can possess, pass-on, and control wealth, they enjoy independence, respect and are viewed (and coveted) not only as sexual objects but as contributors to a man’s status and fortune (e.g. ancient Sparta). In Medieval Europe it was not just noblewomen who could inherit, own and bequeath property, but the peasant woman as well.Significantly, it was not only heiresses that enjoyed property and the benefits thereof. On the contrary, every married women received a “dower.”A dower is not to be confused with the dowry. A dowry was not an inheritance. It was property that a maiden took with her into her marriage. The key thing to remember about dowries, however, is that they were not the property of the bride. They passed from her guardian to her husband.Dowers, on the other hand, were women’s property. In the early Middle Ages, dowers were inalienable land bestowed on a wife at the time of her marriage. A woman owned and controlled her dower property, and she retained complete control of this property both before and after her husband’s death. In England, it was normal to view one-third of a man’s property his widow’s dower. In the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the dower portion was even higher: 50% of the deceased’s property.Whatever the source of a woman's wealth, in Medieval France, England and Outremer, women did not need their husband’s permission or consent to dispose over their own property. There are thousands of medieval deeds that make this point.Middle-class women could inherit whole businesses, and as widows they ran these businesses, representing them in the respective guilds. Indeed, most wives were active in their husband's business while he was still alive. Manuscript illustrations show, for example, a women bankers (collecting loans, while the husband gives them out), and "alewives." There are even illustrations of women in helmets bringing refreshment to archers engaged in a battle!More important, however, women could learn and engage in trades and business on their own. They could do this as widows, as single, unmarried women (femme sole), or as married women, running a separate business from that of their husbands. The skills acquired, even more than property, fostered economic independence and empowerment because property can be lost — in a fire, an invasion, from imprudence and debt — but skills are mobile and enduring, as long as one remains healthy enough to pursue one’s profession. Furthermore, once qualified in a trade, women took part in the administration of their respective profession, both as guild-members and on industrial tribunals that investigated allegations of fraud, malpractice and the like. In short, there was no discrimination against qualified women engaged in a specific trade.Women in the Middle Ages could learn a variety of trades. Some trades were dominated by women, for example, in England brewing, in France baking, and almost everywhere silk-making. However, women were also very frequently shopkeepers, selling everything from fruit and vegetables (not very lucrative) to spices and books (very up market!) In addition, women could be, among other things, confectioners, candle-makers, cobblers, and buckle-makers. Women could also be musicians, copiers, illuminators, and painters. More surprising to modern readers, medieval records (usually tax rolls) also list women coppersmiths, goldsmiths, locksmiths, and armorers. A survey of registered trades in Frankfurt for the period from 1320 to 1500 shows that of a total 154 trades, 35 were reserved for women, but the remainder were practiced by both men and women, although men dominated in 81 of these.Notably, in the early Middle Ages women could be medical practitioners. All midwives were women, of course, and sisters of the Hospital provided most of the care for women patients, but women could also be barbers (who performed many medical procedures such as blood-letting), apothecaries, surgeons, and physicians. A female doctor, for example, accompanied King Louis IX on crusade in the mid-13th century. Women learned these trades in the traditional way, by apprenticing with someone already practicing the profession, who was willing to take them on. It wasn't until the 14th century that universities imposed the exclusive right to certify physicians -- while excluding women from universities. Indeed, Pernoud argues that the growth and expansion of universities was one of the main factors leading to a deterioration of women’s position in society.To conclude, the fascination with all things “classical” that was inherent to the so-called “Renaissance” led to the re-introduction of many features of Roman law that included increasing restrictions on women’s status, independence and legal rights. The increasing centralization of government and the rise of absolutism undermined the power of all vassals (including women) and replaced inherited power with “professional” bureaucrats — the latter, however, being exclusively male.In other words, “who” one was (e.g. a Capet, a Plantagenet, an Ibelin) became less important than “what” one was (a man, a civil servant, a university graduate.)Likewise, the “enlightenment” replaced the unwavering Christian concept in the equality of all souls in the eyes of God with the concept of “intellect” — and pseudo-scientific studies “proving” that females had smaller brains and hence were “incapable” of intellectual activity equal to man’s.For more on women in the Middle Ages see my entries on:Women in the Middle Ages 3: Women and EducationWomen in the Middle Ages 4: Women and LoveAnd for a biography of just one powerful (and forgotten) medieval woman see:Queen Melisende I: The Formidable Wife of FulkQueen Melisende: Redoubtable Mother of Baldwin III