On Behalf Of The 2012 Annual Conference: Fill & Download for Free

In fact, Hong Kong did have a well worked-out public housing policy at the time when the British returned Hong Kong to China in 1997.When Tung Chee Hwa was chosen to be Hong Kong's first Chief Executive after the handover, he and his team announced the “85,000 policy” in Oct 1997 as part of the Hong Kong government’s Long Term Housing Strategy. It stated that no less than 85,000 public and private flats would be built annually starting in 1999.However, it was not meant to be. A year after the announcement, Tung scrapped the plan. In fact, Leung Chun-ying, Hong Kong's 3rd Chief Executive who served between 2012 and 2017 blamed Tung for scrapping the housing plan and not standing firm. Leung was working under Tung and known for being an advocate for the “85,000 policy” during Tung’s tenure.Leung told the media in 2018 that Hong Kong’s present housing crisis could have been averted if the “85,000 policy” had stayed in place.Leung blamed the opposition parties blocking the “85,000 policy” during the first post-handover administration. Leung also said that, contrary to popular belief, the policy did not cause the 1997 housing market crash.“If Tung’s 85,000 policy had the acceptance and cooperation of the public, including those in the legislature, today’s housing problems would not exist,” Leung said. “Because people at the time widely believed that the 85,000 policy was responsible for the fall in prices, the government decided to cancel the goal, and you can see the effect today."“Tung and others wanted to enact the 85,000 policy, but popular opinion – especially the opposition faced in the Legislative Council – made it impossible,” he said. “It was the same over the past few years: we tried to increase the land supply, but we could not get it passed because the opposition parties control whether the budget gets approved.”Collusion between officials and property tycoons in HKIt's no secret that Hong Kong property market is controlled by a minority of rich property tycoons in Hong Kong.For example, Lam Woon-kwong who was the Convenor of the Executive Council between 2012 and 2017, once lamented to the media that the biggest land bank was not owned by the government, but was in the hands of property tycoons.Naturally, a policy like Tung's “85,000 policy” flooding the market with property units would be detrimental to the interests of those property tycoons. It has thus been speculated that the scrapping of the “85,000 policy” was in-part linked to pressures from the tycoons.Eurasia Review, an independent Journal and Think Tank, wrote an article some years ago pointing to collusion between officials and property tycoons in Hong Kong."The collusion outcry definitely fans the popular speculation that the economy of this Special Administration Region is de facto ruled by the four major property tycoons in Hong Kong. By virtue of their riches, they command the attention of senior politicians in public office, to such an extent that policies are usually formulated with their best interests in mind and preference treatment or direct favoritism are granted to them from time to time either above the law or below the table," it said.Publicly, there have been numerous allegations of favoritism, conflicts of interest and suspected bribery with property tycoons by public officials that lend credence to the above speculation.Such speculations were especially heightened when Hong Kong was shaken by the arrest of Sun Hung Kai Properties (SHKP) Executive Director Thomas Chan by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) on 19 March 2012. Co-chairmen Thomas and Raymond Kwok and five others were later also arrested as part of an extensive corruption probe. Rafael Hui, former chief secretary of Hong Kong, was taken in for questioning. In December 2014, Thomas Kwok and Rafael Hui were convicted of the HK$8,500,000 bribery, and Hui was convicted of four more charges relating to misconduct in public office.In addition to being the Chief Secretary, Hui was also the managing director of Mandatory Providence Fund (MPF), and the chairman of the steering committee on the development of western Kowloon, a mega project valued at USD 1.0 billion involving cultural facilities and real-estate development. Even before the corruption case erupted, Hui was seen as a close friend and business associate of Kwok’s brothers. In 2003, after his resignation from the MPF Office, Hui set up a consultancy firm dedicated to providing political and economic consultancy services. The following year, while serving as a director of the Kowloon Motor Bus Company, a corporation under the SHKP Group, Hui was offered to live in a luxurious apartment in Leighton Hill which is worth about HK$ 150 million and apparently at the expense of the Kwok’s brothers. In 2005, Hui was invited by the former Chief Executive, Donald Tsang, his long-term alliance in the government, to become the Chief Secretary for the Administration. But instead of moving into the official residence at Barker Road, Hui insisted to stay in Kwok’s luxurious Leighton Hill apartment. This insistence of maintaining a close tie with the Kwok’s brothers, along with the suspicion that he was granted an overdraft privileges at banks without collateral so as to maintain his lavish style of living eventually aroused the suspicion of corruption. Hui became the highest ranked civil servant in Hong Kong history to be put behind bar for bribery.The collusion of Hui with the Kwok’s brother undoubtedly has helped SHKP to dominate the Hong Kong property market. During the period Hui was in various senior public offices, it was believed that he had revealed substantial confidential information to his related parties with regard to government policies, internal planning on land sales and zoning, and accorded these parties preferential treatments in exchange of the favors and benefits he received from them.Rafael HuiThen there was a controversy involving another senior civil servant, Permanent Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands, Leung Chin-man, and the New World Development Group (NWD). In the year prior to 2004, Leung acted on behalf of the government to sell a never-occupied high-rise complex called the Hung Hom Peninsula, which was built under the Private Sector Participation Scheme project, for a below-market land premium of HK$864 million to NWD. The latter subsequently sold off half of the share to SHKP. In late 2004, the consortium announced the demolition of these buildings to make way for luxury apartments. Their plan was eventually withdrawn due to the huge public outcry against this needless destruction of “perfectly good buildings” to satisfy “corporate greed”.Leung was also involved in another case of suspected preferential treatment granted to property developer Henderson Land Development (HLD), which had won a tender for a site in Sai Wan Ho for Grand Promenade with a land premium of HK$2.43 billion in January 2001. Six months later, the developer successfully applied for and was granted permission by Leung to exclude the public transport terminus from the gross floor area in its building plan. This exclusion was akin to granting HLD an additional 10,700 square meters to the project, doubling the number of apartments from 1,008 to 2,020, and resulted in lost revenue to the government amounting to HK$125 million. A 2005 Audit Report criticized Leung for having exercised his discretionary power before conferring with other government departments, thus handing to the developer additional revenue of HK$3.2 billion in exchange for a land premium of $6 million. Leung tabled a judicial review to justify his discretionary power and eventually forced the Government in May 2006 to drop the legal proceedings. The government drew severe criticism for not pressing the case in court, despite of wide suspicion that conflict of interest was involved in Leung’s dealings with NWD and HLD.The public outcry was soon proven well founded. In July 2008 after his retirement, Leung was offered a post as deputy managing director of New World China Land, a subsidiary of NWD. It turned out that after one year ‘sterilization period’ after retirement, Leung obtained approval from the Civil Service Bureau to take up employment with New World China Land. This job offer immediately provoked public uproar amidst widespread suspicion that it was a quid pro quo for the favors he apparently granted to NWD in 2004 for the Hung Hom project.Controversies surrounded not only the suspicions of Leung’s own conflict of interest, but also of the insensitivity of the committee which recommended the approval for him to take up his new job with a HK$3.12 million pay packet in less than two years after his official retirement. Under public pressure, NWD announced on 16 August, 2008 that Leung had resigned from his post. The Secretary for the Civil Service apologized for the poor handling of the case, which seriously undermined the authority and credibility of the Civil Service Bureau.There were more precedents in favoritism towards property tycoons behind the scenes than meets the eye. One of the most conspicuous one is the Cyberport Project. This project has been conjured up to build a physical hub for information technology on 26 hectares of prime land in Hong Kong Island. The development was announced by Donald Tsang, then Financial Secretary, in his budget speech on 3 March, 1999. The project was awarded to the Pacific Century Group (PCG), with no tender called. PCG is a private company controlled by Richard Li, younger son of Li Ka Shing, who is a long-time friend of Hong Kong’s first Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa. The Cyberport project was described in the budget on March 3, 1999 as being a “HK$13bn development, mostly from private investment”. A statement from the Information Technology and Broadcasting Bureau (ITBB) the same day said “the Government will provide the site as its equity contribution while PCG will make a capital contribution of about HK$7 billion to the whole development”. From this one could infer that the government values the land merely at HK$6 billion, a valuation believed to be much lower than its fair market price.Upon public disclosure, it turned out that over 75% of the developed area is residential, whereas the office space allocated for the Information Technology firms represents only 17% of the total. And the purported “shared facilities” such as “demonstration facilities”, a “media laboratory”, and “exhibition and trade show facilities” make up part of a small 18,000 sq. m. block which includes houses and apartments, so even if half of this block is shared facilities, it would only account for 1.7% of the development, amounting to a shared Laundromat in a housing estate! Hence, it becomes obvious that the so called Cyberport project is in fact a residential development project in disguise, and it was granted exclusively to the company of property tycoon Li Ka Shing’s son without any formal tender process.Finally, one mustn't forget about Donald Tsang, the 2nd Chief Executive of Hong Kong from 2005 to 2012. In the last months of his term, Tsang was embroiled by various corruption allegations. He was discovered to have received favours and hospitality from the tycoons on various occasions, including private jet and yacht trips and was labelled as "Greedy Tsang". He was subsequently charged by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and was found guilty of one count of misconduct in public office in February 2017 and was sentenced to a 20-month imprisonment, becoming the highest officeholder in Hong Kong history to be convicted and imprisoned. The Court of Final Appeal unanimously quashed his conviction and sentence in June 2019, ruling that he had already suffered a “just punishment” by being jailed 12 months.HK protests stem from stratospheric housing pricesIn Aug 2019, renowned economist Andy Xie opined that at the root of the civil unrest in Hong Kong actually stems in part from stratospheric housing prices that have locked many residents out of the market.Xie pointed out that HK property tycoons ‘are the problem’ underlying the unrest. Property prices in Hong Kong have appreciated over 300% since 2003 but wages have largely stagnated in the same period, so “it’s very difficult to see how young people can feel hope. They know they’ll never be able to afford a place, so they cannot start a family. How can they get ahead in life? Desperation, and really a deep sense of unhappiness, is driving this unrest,” said Xie.Xie attributed the sky-high property price to the housing market being lead by local business leaders. “The Hong Kong government is not really in charge (even though) most people think that they need to listen to Beijing, but perhaps more importantly, they are really influenced by the big property tycoons,” said Xie.Although the Hong Kong authorities have changed housing policies several times, “in the end, they favor tycoons, giving the land to the tycoons,” the economist asserted. But private developers “hold the land, not building much and they just try to squeeze the market and push the prices as much as possible,” he said.“For ordinary people, you make an income about 5% of a financial guy and they think you should get 5% of an apartment, so they create something like a ‘nano flat,’” he said, referring to tiny apartments in Hong Kong that can be the size of a parking space. “That is really crazy.”Nano flat“They think that people will just take it lying down forever, (but) eventually, it blows up,” said Xie, who was a former chief Asia-Pacific economist at Morgan Stanley. “The key is that the political structure here is neither the Singapore situation where the government is on top, nor like Taiwan (where) it’s a democracy and people can vote,” said Xie, who also writes for South China Morning Post from time to time. Hong Kong is “in between — just a bunch of business people calling the shots,” he added. He said that Beijing needs to distance itself from the tycoons in Hong Kong.“Every time, there’s a disturbance in Hong Kong, Beijing goes to these business guys for advice; you know something’s very wrong,” said Xie. “These guys are causing the trouble in Hong Kong, why are you going to them for advice every time?”“They are the problem; they need to become regular business people, not having political power (and) running the place,” said Xie.Echoing what Xie said, Simon Lee from the Chinese University of Hong Kong Business School also opined that while the protests were squarely directed at the controversial Extradition Bill in the beginning, it became clearer over time that there was deep dissatisfaction over the administrative failures of the Hong Kong government in meeting its people’s needs, especially on housing, which of course, is the bread and butter business of the property tycoons in Hong Kong.In the 5000 year history of China, every time corruption permeates and, officials and business people start to collude to fleece and oppress the peasants to such an extent that they have to sell their wife and daughters to survive, revolution will surely follow resulting in chaos and deaths for everyone. Wasn't that how the Communist Party of China was founded? To build a new China and take down the landlords aligning themselves with the Nationalist warlords, who were all colluding to oppress and fleece the peasants in order to enrich themselves further?Ref:https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/06/13/ex-hong-kong-leader-cy-leung-defends-controversial-1990s-housing-policy-says-crisis-averted/Property market in 'dangerous situation', warns Lam Woon-kwongHong Kong: Revelations In SHK Bribery Case; Collusion Between Politicians And Property Tycoons – OpEdSun Hung Kai Properties - WikipediaDonald Tsang - WikipediaEconomist: Hong Kong's tycoons 'are the problem' underlying recent unrestUpdate (17 Sep 2019):On 12 Sep 2019, the People's Daily published an editorial piece (解决住房问题，香港不能再等了!) urging the Hong Kong authorities to act on the housing problems in Hong Kong. The title of the article read, "Fix the housing problem, Hong Kong can no longer wait!"The People's Daily (人民日報) is the largest newspaper group in China and is an official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Hence, it provides direct information on the policies and view points of the Communist Party of China.The editorial noted that the housing problem in Hong Kong is becoming more serious. The average waiting time for public housing applications has increased to 5.4 years, with 100,000 people living in “coffin rooms” and subdivided flats."This situation is incompatible with the internationally renowned metropolis and is in stark contrast to the mansions on the Taiping Mountain (where the rich lives)," it said.Having a house, clothing, and food is the most basic human right and the most basic dignity one should have, it added."There is no reason for Hong Kong to wear a glamorous coat such as 'the most competitive economy in the world' when it embarrassingly fails in housing."The editorial also reiterated that the crux of Hong Kong's housing problem lies in land supply. It noted that it isn't the case that Hong Kong has no land but the Hong Kong government has too little.It further noted that Hong Kong property developers have been hoarding most of the land and not developing them. It opined that the Hong Kong government could consider taking the land back from the developers after compensating them with the amount "equivalent to the actual value of the property at the time", under Article 105 for the Basic Law.The editorial then turned to the developers, saying, "In public interest, in order to solve the livelihood of the people, it's time for the real estate developers to release the greatest goodwill, instead of being selfish, hoarding land and earning the last penny.""We can understand that some Hong Kong people are worried that the increase in supply of land may result in a rapid depreciation of assets in the short term. It is also understandable that real estate developers are concerned about not making money," it said."But this is precisely the time to re-examine immediate interests against long-term interests, and re-balance personal interests against the greater societal interests.""Once the Hong Kong society is deadlocked and loses competitiveness, the value of everyone's property will depreciate; as long as the Oriental Pearl continues to remain competitive, then the beneficiaries must be Hong Kong enterprises and its people."The editorial also opined that a large part why the Extradition Bill was able to rope in many of the young people, who originally didn't care about politics, to protest was because they feel despair of the future of Hong Kong, and housing is an important reason.It went on to criticise the previous and current Hong Kong Chief Executives, Tung Chee Hwa, Leung Chun-ying and Carrie Lam, for failing to carry out their promises to fix Hong Kong's public housing problems. Many of their plans ended sloppily, were heavily discounted or stalled altogether, noted the editorial.It further criticised the opposition parties in the Legislative Council opposing for the sake of opposing, crippling some of the Hong Kong government's housing plans. It also criticised the property developers, "There are property developers for the sake of profits, coerce the Hong Kong government and shackle public will, causing the entire Hong Kong society to fall into a mess where housing prices are beyond public reach but at the same time cannot afford to fall, where housing are insufficient but not built.""And some members of public neither understand nor trust the SAR government's ability to improve Hong Kongers' livelihood," it added."Hong Kong can't wait any further," the editorial ended with a warning.More Updates:About 2 weeks after the publication of an editorial piece from the People's Daily urging the Hong Kong authorities to act on the housing problems and singling out Hong Kong developers for not doing enough to alleviate housing problems, Reuters reported (25 Sep 2019) that New World Development had declared that it would donate 3 million square feet of its farmland reserves for social housing. This constitutes about one fifth of its land bank with an attributable total site area of around 16.9 million square feet.The Chengs of New World Development is one of the big 4 property oligarchs controlling most of the residential land bank in Hong Kong. The other 3 are:Kwoks of Sun Hung Kai Properties which owns an estimated 30 million sq ftLee Shau Kee's ('Uncle Fouth') family of Henderson Land Development which owns about 45 million sq ftLi Ka-shing's ('Superman Li') family of CK Asset which owns about 9 million sq ft.Hong Kong political parties have called on the government to make more use of an ordinance to resume agricultural land from property developers to build public housing, instead of letting them sitting on it. To maintain the high property prices in Hong Kong, the big 4 have been controlling the housing constructions and limiting supply.The People's Daily criticised the Hong Kong developers for hoarding land and said it was time for them “to release the greatest goodwill, instead of just playing their own calculations, smashing the land, earning the last copper plate”.Facing increasing pressure from Beijing, Adrian Cheng, executive vice chairman of New World Development, has assured in a press conference that his company would adopt an open attitude if the HK government needed to look for land for public housing.

A.P.J Abdul Kalam —The 11th President of India, is also popularly known as the Missile Man.He was a protégé of the great Indian scientist Dr. Vikram Sarabhai who guided him and gave him valuable advice.He was the first bachelor to become the president and occupy Rashtrapati Bhawan.Born in Rameshwaram, Tamil NaduHe was the third President of India to have been honored with a Bharat Ratna before being elected to the office of President.2. Sir C V Raman —Born in Tiruchirappalli, Madras ProvinceSir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman, the Indian physicist who made his motherland proud by becoming the first Indian to win the Nobel Prize for Physics, was a scientist par excellence.He is best known for discovering the ‘Raman Effect’, or the inelastic scattering of a photon. He showed through experimentation that when light traverses a transparent material, some of the deflected light changes in wavelength. This was a ground breaking discovery in early 20th century physics.He won the 1930 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his work on the scattering of light and for the discovery of the Raman Effect", becoming the first Indian to win a Nobel Prize in the sciences.He was honored with the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian award, in 1954 in recognition of his invaluable contributions to the field of science.3. Sir M. Visvesvaraya —Born in Muddenahalli, ChikballapurAn engineer par excellence, he was the chief architect behind the construction of the Krishna Raja Sagara dam in Mandya which helped to convert the surrounding barren lands into fertile grounds for farmingHe was knighted as the Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire (KCIE) by the British for his contributions to the society in 1915.He was awarded with independent India’s greatest honor, The Bharat Ratna in 1955 for his relentless work in the fields of engineering and education.He is the recipient of several honorary doctoral degrees from eight universities in India.4. Srinivas Ramanujam —Born in Erode , Tamil NaduConsidered to be a mathematical genius, Srinivasa Ramanujan, was regarded at par with the likes of Leonhard Euler and Carl Jacobi. Along with Hardy, he studied the partition function P(n) extensively and gave a non-convergent asymptotic series that permits exact computation of the number of partitions of an integer. Their work led to the development of a new method for finding asymptotic formulae, called the circle method.He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1918, as one of the youngest Fellows in the history of the Royal Society. He was elected "for his investigation in Elliptic functions and the Theory of Numbers."Google honored him on his 125th birth anniversary by replacing its logo with a doodle on its home page.5. C.N. R Rao —Born in BangaloreHe was a front-runner in synthesizing two dimensional oxide materials like La2CuO4At present he serves as Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India, a responsibility he has undertaken under different regimes that speaks volumes of the immense faith shown upon him by different governments.He holds honorary doctorates of sixty universities across the world.On February 4, 2014, he was conferred the ‘Bharat Ratna’ by President Pranab Mukherjee. With this he became the third scientist after C.V. Raman and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam to receive the highest civilian honour of India.6. C.RajagopalachariBorn in MadrasHe was the first and last Indian Governor General of India after Lord Mountbatten left India in 1948.For his outstanding contribution to Indian politics and literature, he was awarded with Bharat Ratna in 19547. E.SreedharanBorn in Palakkad, KeralaPopularly known as the “Metro Man”, is an Indian engineer who played a key role in the building of the Konkan Railway and the Delhi MetroThe Government of India honored him with the Padma Shri, the fourth highest civilian award in the Republic of India, in 2001.The Government of France bestowed upon him The Order of Légion d'Honneur, the highest decoration in France, in 2005.In 2008 he received the Padma Vibhushan, the second highest civilian award in the Republic of India, in recognition of his work with the Delhi Metro.8. Dr. M.S. Swaminathan —Born in KumbakonamIs a renowned Indian geneticist and administrator, who made a stellar contribution in the success of India's Green Revolution program; the program went a long way in making India self-sufficient in wheat and rice production.Dr. Swaminathan is celebrated as the leader of India’s ‘Green Revolution’ program. He is also a resourceful writer. He has written several research papers and books on Agricultural Science and Biodiversity like ‘Building a National Food Security System, 1981’, ‘Sustainable Agriculture: Towards an Evergreen Revolution, 1996’, etc.He is the recipient of national honours like Padma Shri in 1967, Padma Bhushan in 1972 and Padma Vibushan in 1989. Moreover, he has received over 70 honorary PhD degrees from world-wide universities.9. N. R. Narayana Murthy —Born in MysoreHe is best known as one of the co-founders of Infosys Ltd., one of India’s largest IT services company with offices all across the globe.Under his leadership Infosys became the first Indian company to be listed on the Nasdaq. It also became the first listed Indian company with revenue of $1 billion a year.He was honored with the Padma Shri, India’s fourth highest civilian award, for his distinguished contribution to industry in 2000.In 2008, the Government of India bestowed upon him the Padma Vibhushan, the second highest civilian award of India, for his exceptional services to Informational Technology in India.In 2013, he became the first recipient of the Sayaji Ratna Award (SRA Award) which was established to mark the 151st birth anniversary of Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad III, the erstwhile ruler of Baroda.10. R.K Laxman —Born in MysoreRasipuram Krishnaswami Laxman, famously known as R. K. Laxman was an Indian cartoonist who created the comic strip ‘You Said It’, featuring the “Common Man”—a silent observer representing the average Indian.The character was so popular that he was even featured in a commemorative postage stamp released by the Indian Postal Service on the 150th anniversary of the ‘Times of India’ in 1988.In 2005 he was awarded the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian honour.He was honored with The Ramon Magsaysay Award in 1984 in the category Journalism, Literature, and the Creative Communication Arts (JLCCA).11. R.K Narayan —Born in ChennaiR.K. Narayan made India accessible to the outside world through his literature. He will be remembered for the invention of Malgudi, a semi-urban fictional town in southern India where most of his stories were set.He won numerous accolades for his literary works. These include: Sahitya Akademi Award (1958), Padma Bhushan (1964), AC Benson Medal by the British Royal Society of Literature (1980), and Padma Vibhushan (2001).Narayan is regarded as one of the three leading English language Indian fiction writers, along with Raja Rao and Mulk Raj Anand.12. Raja Ravi Varma —Born in Kilimanoor, a small town in KeralaAt the beginning of his career, in 1873, he won an award in Vienna where his paintings were exhibited.At the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893, he was bestowed with three gold medals for his work of art.In 1904, on behalf of the King Emperor, Viceroy Lord Curzon awarded him with the Kaisar-i-Hind Gold Medal.In 2013, a crater on Mercury was named in the honor of this greater Indian painter.13. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan —Born in Thiruttani, Tamil NaduHis birthday, 5 September, has been celebrated as Teachers' Day in India since 1962, the year he became the president, in honor of his belief that "teachers should be the best minds in the country."In 1954, he was honored with the Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian award in India.In 1968 he became the first person to get Sahitya Akademi fellowship, the highest honor conferred by the Sahitya Akademi on a writer.Shortly before his death in 1975, he was bestowed with the Templeton Prize for advocating non-aggression and conveying "a universal reality of God that embraced love and wisdom for all people."14. Shakunthala Devi —Born In BangaloreShe was an Indian writer and mathematical genius popularly known as the "human computer". She was reputed to make complicated mathematical calculations in her head and effortlessly speak out the results!Her extraordinary abilities also earned her a place in the 1982 edition of ‘The Guinness Book of World Records’Shakuntala Devi is best remembered for demonstrating the multiplication of two randomly picked 13-digit numbers—7,686,369,774,870 × 2,465,099,745,779 on 18 June 1980. She correctly gave the answer as 18,947,668,177,995,426,462,773,730 in 28 seconds. This unbelievable feat of hers earned her a place in the ‘Guinness Book of Records’ in 1982.In 1969 she was awarded the title of the 'Most Distinguished Woman of the Year' by the University of Philippines.15. Verghese Kurien —Born in Kozhikode, KeralaBest known as the “Father of the White Revolution” in India, was the founder Chairman of the National Dairy Development Board.Verghese Kurien is the man behind the success of the milk cooperative, Amul Dairy, which not only spurred India’s White Revolution, but also became one of the country’s largest and most trusted food brands which also expanded into overseas markets.He was honored with several prestigious awards for his relentless services to the dairy and farming communities. Some of his awards include: Padma Shri (1965), Padma Bhushan (1966) and Padma Vibhushan (1999) by the Government of India, the Ramon Magsaysay Award (1963), and World Food Prize (1989).This famous personality, known as the Father of White Revolution, never drank milk himself!16. Ammembal Subba Rao Pai —Born in Mangalore, KarnatakaHe was the founder of Canara Bank , now one of India's leading banks17. Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty —Born in Mangalore, KarnatakaHe is chairman and Founder of Narayana Health, a chain of 21 medical centers in IndiaIn 2004 he was awarded the Padma Shri, the fourth highest civilian award followed by the Padma Bhushan in 2012, the third highest civilian award by the Government of India for his contribution to the field of affordable healthcare18. Shivappa Gurubasappa Balekundri —Born in BelgaumWas an irrigation expert from KarnatakaHe was the chief engineer and architect of the Alamatti Dam.He is best remembered today as Second Visweswarayya19. Pandit Bhimsen Joshi —-Born In Gadag, KarnatakaThroughout his life, he was conferred with numerous prestigious and highly esteemed awards, the most prolific amongst them being the national awards such as, ‘Padma Shree’, ‘Padma Bhushan’, ‘Padma Vibhushan’ and ‘Bharat Ratna’ in 1972, 1975, 1999 and 2009 respectively.His legacy survives in the form of the annual Sawai Gandharva Festival, held in Pune every year which he initiated in 1953 and continued to administer until his retirement in 2002. The festival has become an institution of sorts for the people of the music fraternity and features the most able and proficient Hindustani classical music singers.20. M.S.Subbalakshmi —Born in MaduraiShe was known by various sobriquets, namely, the Queen of Music, Nightingale of India, the Eighth Tone of Music and the Goddess of Perfect NoteShe enriched and popularised India's musical tradition. She acted as India's cultural ambassador and introduced the rhythms and richness of Carnatic music to the West through her concerts.In 1998, she was honoured with Bharat Ratna, India;s highest civilian award,. The award was to honour her excellence over classical Indian music and her efforts in promulgating the same both in India and abroad.She was the first musician to receive the Bharat Ratna and the first Indian musician to receive Ramon Magsaysay award.21. Saalumarada Thimakka —Born in Hulikal, Ramhagar district, KarnatakaNoted for her work in planting and tending to 384 banyan trees along a four-kilometre stretch of highway between Hulikal and Kudur.Her work has been honoured with the National Citizen's Award of India.One of BBC’s 100 women of 2016.And many many more ..Thank you :)Source — Google

Q. What was the original agreement between the Sioux and the U.S. government?A. TL;DR1851 First Fort Laramie Treaty or Treaty of Traverse des Sioux signed between Sioux and US government established land rights and attempted to create peace between white miners traveling to California for the Gold Rush and the Sioux people. The U.S. agreed the Sioux held sovereign rights to the Black Hills and the Sioux agreed to allow railroad and trail passage across these territories in exchange for annual federal payments of $50,000 for 50 years to the tribes. Shortly after the treaty was signed, the U.S. government began erecting several fortified trading posts.Sioux land represented about 5% of the entire continental US - covering most of the present-day states of North and South Dakota, and parts of Nebraska, Montana and Wyoming.1868 Fort Laramie Treaty (XVII Articles) brought peace between the Sioux and the US government by guaranteeing that the Sioux had "absolute and undisturbed use of the Great Sioux Reservation...No persons...shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in territory described in this article, or without consent of the Indians...No treaty for the cession of any portion or part of the reservation herein described...shall be of any validity or force...unless executed and signed by at least three-fourth of all adult male Indians, occupying or interested in the same."This treaty proved to be one of the most controversial in the history of US-Indian relations - it ended the war between the Sioux and the U.S. government, split the Oglala nation into those "friendlies" willing to work with the U.S. government and the "hostiles" with whom the U.S. banned trade, and set the legal stage for Sioux claims to the Black Hills that continue into the 21st Century.The Federal Government and the Lakota Sioux (Chronology of Exploits)Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, 1851 (First Fort Laramie Treaty)Sioux Treaty of 1868Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) - WikipediaThe Federal Government and the Lakota Sioux (Chronology of Exploits)1851 First Fort Laramie Treaty signed between Sioux and US government established land rights and attempted to create peace between white miners traveling to California for the Gold Rush and the Sioux people. The U.S. agreed the Sioux held sovereign rights to the Black Hills and the Sioux agreed to allow railroad and trail passage across these territories in exchange for annual federal payments of $50,000 for 50 years to the tribes. Shortly after the treaty was signed, the U.S. government began erecting several fortified trading posts.Sioux land represented about 5% of the entire continental US - covering most of the present-day states of North and South Dakota, and parts of Nebraska, Montana and Wyoming.1852 U.S. government violated the 1851 treaty. The U.S. Senate decreased the annual payment of $50,000 to the Sioux people from 50 years to 10 years.1862 Gold found in Montana. The US began building the Bozeman Trail through Sioux territory as well as army forts along the trail - both actions being in direct contravention of the 1851 Fort Laramie treaty.1866 Sioux Indians attacked a supply train traveling on the Bozeman Trail on December 21st. Soldiers led by Lieutenant Colonel William Fetterman retaliated but all 80 soldiers were killed by a small Sioux army led by Red Cloud. General Sherman's response on behalf of the U.S. Army was, "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women, and children." The Indians called the Fetterman Massacre the Battle of 100-In-The-Hands. This map shows the trail, U.S. forts, and the site of the Fetterman Massacre.1867 Congress passed a bill for an Indian peace commission to be lead by Lieutenant General William T. Sherman. Government negotiators were to offer $15,000 annual annuites for tribes of 5,000 or 6,000 people if they would remove themselves from the traditional Sioux homelands in the Great Plains - the Powder River Country. During negotiations between government officials and Oglala chief Red Cloud (pictured to the right),Red Cloud walked out of the meeting declaring: "The Great Father sends us presents and wants us to sell him the road, but the White Chief comes with soldiers to steal it before the Indian says yes or no! I will talk with you no more! I will go - now! - and I will fight you! As long as I live I will fight you for the last hunting grounds of my people."Thus began the Powder River War (Red Cloud's War) as the Lakotas and their Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho allies fought the U.S. Army at the various forts in Lakota territory. Those Sioux friendly to the U.S. government, however, signed a treaty giving Euro-Americans the right to use the Bozeman Trail in return for guns and ammuition. Soon thereafter, the U.S. Army began building more forts along the Trail.At the Grand Council of 6,000 tribes at Bear Butte, the sacred mountain of the Cheyenne, Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, and Sitting Bull, among other great leaders, pledged to end further encroachment of Sioux territory by the whites.1868 Fort Laramie Treaty brought peace between the Sioux and the US government by guaranteeing that the Sioux had "absolute and undisturbed use of the Great Sioux Reservation...No persons...shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in territory described in this article, or without consent of the Indians...No treaty for the cession of any portion or part of the reservation herein described...shall be of any validity or force...unless executed and signed by at least three-fourth of all adult male Indians, occupying or interested in the same."This treaty proved to be one of the most controversial in the history of US-Indian relations - it ended the war between the Sioux and the U.S. government, split the Oglala nation into those "friendlies" willing to work with the U.S. government and the "hostiles" with whom the U.S. banned trade, and set the legal stage for Sioux claims to the Black Hills that continue into the 21st Century.1874 Gold discovered in the Black Hills and white miners began trespassing on Lakota hunting grounds in the Black Hills. An expedition began into the Black Hills led by George Armstrong Custer. In the photo below, Custer poses with his Indian scouts during the Black Hills expedition. The man pointing to the map was named "Bloody Knife," a member of the Cree tribe.Kneeling Bloody Knife next to seated George Custer1875 Federal government tried to buy the Black Hills for $5 million. The Sioux refused to meet with the government commission.On December 3, 1875, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs required that all Sioux people report to their agency by January 31, 1876 for a head count.1876 On February 7, the War Department authorized General Sheridan to move into Indian lands and round up the "hostile Sioux" who had not reported to their agency. The first attack happened on March 17 - sooner than the Sioux were expecting - thus escalating hostilities that culminated in the Battle of Little Big Horn on June 17 - also known as Custer's Last Stand. The battle occurred after General Custer and the 7th Calvary attacked a Sioux camp. Custer and all his men were killed in what was the largest defeat ever of a U.S. force by Native Americans. Afterwards, Congress voted funds for two new forts along the Yellowstone River, authorized 2,500 new recruits to be sent to Sioux country, and moved control over reservations from the Indian Bureau into the hands of the U.S. Army.In August, Congress passed the Sioux Appropriation Bill stating that “hereafter there shall be no appropriation made for the subsistence” of the Sioux, unless they first relinquished their rights to the hunting grounds outside the reservation and ceded the Black Hills to the United States. Red Cloud's Oglala band signed, after which all of his followers were disarmed and dehorsed.1877 Congressional Act of 1877 violated the Fort Laramie Treaty by requiring the Sioux to relinquish the Black Hills and 22.8 million acres of their surrounding territory. In less than 20 years, the Sioux Nation shrunk from 134 million acres to less than 15 million.1889 After the Sioux refused to sell 9 million additional acres of their reservation to the US government, Congress passed the Sioux Act. The Act redefined the requested 9 million acres as "surplus lands" open to white settlement under the Dawes Act and divided the Lakotas into five separate reservations: Standing Rock, Cheyenne River, Pine Ridge, and Upper and Lower Brule. The remaining land was given to the new states of North and South Dakota. Any Indians who refused to be confined to reservations were declared "hostile." The 9 million acres was then opened up for public purchase for white ranchers and homesteaders.1890 The Battle at Wounded Knee occurred after U.S. Army was sent to Pine Ridge Reservation to quell Sioux participation in the Ghost Dance. The Ghost Dance originated with Wovoka of the Paiutes who reported that God told him in a dream that if Indians danced for five days, they could meet their departed ancestors. After their reunion, the dead relatives would come back to life and help to save the Sioux from the evils of white domination. To the Indians, the Ghost Dance offered hope and a chance for survival; to the U.S. Army, the dance symbolized resistance and the possibility of Indian rebellion.On December 29, 1890, Sioux Chief Big Foot met four cavalry units which were under orders to capture him. The Sioux raised a white flag to signal their promise not to fight. They were taken to an army camp at Wounded Knee Creek where they were ordered to give up their weapons. The medicine man, Yellow Bird, started the Ghost Dance, urging his tribesmen to join him by chanting in Sioux, "The bullets will not go toward you." When one young Indian refused to give up his rifle, confusion ensued during which several braves pulled rifles from their blankets, and the soldiers opened fire. At least 150 Indian men, women, and children were left dead; as many as 300 may have perished when the wounded died soon thereafter. The Seventh Calvary, Custer's avenged regiment, received 23 Congressional medals of honor for their involvement at Wounded Knee.1896 On February 22, 1897, President Grover Cleveland established the Black Hills Forest Reserve. This land was protected against fires, wasteful lumbering practices, and timber fraud. In 1905, the Black Hills Forest Reserve was transferred to the Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1907, it was renamed the Black Hills National Forest.1910 The Sioux Reservation was further reduced with the Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations losing more land to white homesteaders.1918 The Lakota Sioux hired an attorney who sought the return of the Black Hills under the Treaty of 1868. Thus began the longest lawsuit in American history.1923 The Lakota Sioux filed suit with the US Court of Claims demanding compensation for the loss of the Black Hills. It was not until 1942 that the Court finally dismissed the claim.1946 The Sioux filed suit with the newly-created Indian Claims Commission. In 1954, the Commission dismissed the case on the grounds that it had already been denied.1956 Sioux reinstated their claim to the Indian Claims Commission on the grounds that they had been represented by "inadequate counsel."1973 The American Indian Movement (AIM) began the first organized extralegal battle for the Black Hills. AIM occupied Wounded Knee Cemetery on Pine Ridge Reservation to alert the world about the vested economic interest the U.S. government held in the Hills and the extent to which that interest governed U.S. governmental policy and federal court cases regarding their land. (For a detailed understanding of the upheaval at the Pine Ridge Reservation between 1973 and 1975, as well as the aftermath, click here.)1974 The Indian Claims Commission decided that the US government had taken Sioux land in violation of the 5th Amendment because it had not paid just compensation, and subsequently awarded the Sioux $17.5 million (the estimated "value" of the land at the time it was misappropriated) plus 5% simple interest calculated annually since 1877 - for a total of $105 million. The US government appealed and the Court of Claims reversed the decision on the grounds that the claim had already been litigated and decided in 1942. However, it also found that "a more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability, be found in our history."1978 Congress passed an act enabling the Court of Claims to rehear the case. Sioux argued that they should be compensated on new grounds - "dishonorable dealings."1979 The U.S. Court of Claims found that the 1877 Act that seized the Black Hills from the Sioux violated the 5th Amendment. The US had taken the Black Hills unconstitutionally and court reinstated the $17.5 million plus 5% interest for a total of $105 million. The US government appealed.1980 In the United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, the US Supreme Court found that the Congressional Act of 1877 constituted "a taking of tribal property which had been set aside by the treaty of Fort Laramie for the Sioux's exclusive occupation." The $105 million award was upheld. The Sioux then turned down the money, claimed that "The Black Hills are not for sale." Instead, they demanded that the US government return the Black Hills and pay the money as compensation for the billions of dollars in wealth that had been extracted and the damages down while whites illegally occupied the Hills.AIM, under direction of Russell Means, occupied an 880 acre area in the Black Hills which became known as Yellow Thunder Camp. The U.S. government sued AIM, claiming that they must leave federal property. AIM counter-sued, arguing that U.S. Forest Service policies in the Black Hills violated the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and Lakota religious freedom under both the First Amendment and the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA).1983 The Black Hills Steering Committee was created and its members drafted a bill for Congress that asked for 7,300,000 acres of federal land in the Black Hills in South Dakota. The Committee promised to keep all federal employees working in the Black Hills.1985 U.S. District Court Judge ruled in favor of AIM, arguing that the Lakota had every right to the Yellow Thunder Camp, particularly because AIRFA recognized entire geographic areas as well as specific sites to be sacred areas.1988 The Eighth Circuit Court reversed the U.S. District Court's decision. AIM ended its occupation of Yellow Thunder Camp.1995 Controversy erupted when the U.S. National Park Service asked climbers to consider not climbing Devil's Tower in the Black Hills during the month of June to honor the Lakota's spiritual traditions. A local climbing company and several climbers sued the National Parks Service by arguing that the Park Service's actions violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. which prohibits the government from sponsoring, supporting, or becoming entangled in religious affairs.A Wyoming judge decided that the Park's policy was an "endorsement" of one religion over another and delivered a court injunction on the Park's policy. The Park Service appealed.1999 Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeal determined that the Park's policy was not an endorsement, but rather was an "accommodation." The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.2000 The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's appeal of the 10th Circuit ruling, thus upholding the appellate court’s decision as final. Nonetheless, climbing was allowed to resume. However, National Park Policy requires that during June, rangers ask climbers to voluntarily refrain from climbing on the Tower and hikers to voluntarily refrain from scrambling within the inside of the Tower Trail Loop2007 On December 19, a small group of activists calling itself the Lakotah Freedom Delegation announced that the Lakotah were withdrawing from all treaties previously signed with the United States and were planning to regain their sovereignty over thousands of acres of traditional territory in North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska and Montana. According to the group, the withdrawal immediately and irrevocably ended all agreements between the Lakota Sioux Nation of Indians and the United States Government outlined in the 1851 and 1868 Treaties at Fort Laramie Wyoming. The group argued that their declaration of independence was not a secession from the United States, but rather a reassertion of sovereignty. Their leader is Russell Means, one of the prominent members of the American Indian Movement in the late 1960's and 1970's.Property ownership in the five-state area of Lakota nation - parts of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana - had been illegally homesteaded. Lakota representatives announced that if the United States did not enter into immediate diplomatic negotiations, liens would be filed on real estate transactions in the five state region, clouding title over literally thousands of square miles of land and property.2008 Indian activists ask that the 23 Medals of DIS Honor awarded in 1890 to the members of the 7th Calvary of the United States Army be rescinded for the murder of innocent women children and men at Wounded Knee.2009 Internal conflicts about the Black Hills claim erupted among the Sioux. Some tribal members have hired a lawyer and have filed suit to receive the money rather than the land as compensation. This has caused a great deal of animosity among tribal members, some who feel that taking money for the Black Hills was the equivalent of giving up their identities as Indians.2012 The monetary compensation gained through the longest legal battle in U.S. history remained unclaimed; the settlement is now worth about $1 billion. The map to the left shows the orginal land promised by the 1868 treaty (gold), the land - including the Black Hills - illegally taken by the U.S. government in the 1877 (orange), and the Lakota reservations as they appeared after 100 years of court actions (brown).Pine Ridge Reservation, home to many of the Lakota people, is one of the poorest communities in the United States.Transcript of "America's native prisoners of war"Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, 1851Eric W. WeberCite Weber, Eric. "Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, 1851." MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, 1851 (accessed March 15, 2018).Painting by Frank B. Mayer, a witness to the negotiations and signing of the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux. Painted in 1885.The Treaty of Traverse des Sioux of 1851 is an agreement between the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of Dakota and the U.S. government. It transferred ownership of much of southern and western Minnesota from the Dakota to the United States. Along with the Treaty of Mendota, signed that same year, it opened twenty-four million acres of land to settler-colonists. For the Dakota, these treaties marked another step in the process that saw them increasingly marginalized in and dismissed from land that was their home.During the early decades of the 1800s, white immigrants began moving west of the St. Croix River into land held by American Indians. Though their numbers were relatively small at first, they were eager to use the land for farming and industry. They wanted to move further west, deeper into Indian lands. Influential men, including Alexander Ramsey and Henry Sibley, convinced the U.S. government to negotiate the purchase of land from American Indian groups living in the region. Through this transaction, Ramsey and Sibley also hoped to recoup debts that fur traders claimed various Indian bands owed to them.By 1850, both the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of Dakota were in a difficult situation. Animals that they had hunted for food and trade were not abundant enough to support their people anymore. Some groups saw selling their land as a way to gain resources they needed to survive. A land cession treaty, with guaranteed annuity payments, could help them through these tough times and, for some Dakota, offered a way to rebuild their communities.In July 1851, Sibley, Ramsey, and federal commissioner Luke Lea chose Traverse des Sioux as the site for treaty negotiations. It took several weeks for enough representatives of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands to arrive. Once they had arrived, however, it did not take long to come to an agreement. The Dakota were in a very weak bargaining position because they believed that if they did not sell their land, the United States would take it. Negotiations took several days, and some Dakota leaders initially resisted the demands made by the commissioners because they asked for so much. Ultimately however, the Dakota gave in.On July 23, the Dakota signed the treaty with the government commissioners. The Treaty had three primary results. First, it ceded much of the southern and western portion of Minnesota to the U.S. for about seven and a half cents an acre. Second, it provided for a reservation of ten miles on each side of the Minnesota River. Finally, the treaty arranged for payment to the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands for the land they had ceded. They were to receive a portion of the money immediately. Some funds were set aside for the construction of schools and other services. The rest was to be placed in an account managed by the federal government. From that account, the bands were to receive an annual interest payment in both cash and goods.After the Dakota leaders had signed two copies of the treaty, they were directed to a third piece of paper held by Joseph R. Brown, a prominent fur trader. All but two of them also signed this agreement. The paper, known as the Traders' Paper, directed the government to pay off various debts claimed by white and mixed-race fur traders using the money owed to the bands from the treaty. This repayment method was common at the time, and the Dakota, given the chance, would perhaps have agreed to it. However, the deceptive methods that Brown and other traders used to get the leaders to sign angered the Dakota. No one read the paper aloud or translated it for the Dakota, many of whom believed it to be another copy of the treaty. Many Dakota felt cheated by this process, and they added this incident to a growing list of reasons to distrust the federal government.Following the treaty, Sibley, Ramsey, and Lea negotiated a similar treaty at Mendota with other Dakota bands, which was signed on August 5. In the decade after the signing of these treaties, over 100,000 white immigrants moved to Minnesota to live on the land that Indigenous peoples had ceded.CiteWeber, Eric. "Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, 1851." MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, 1851 (accessed March 15, 2018).© Minnesota Historical SocietySioux Treaty of 1868Spotted Tail, Sinte Gleska, Sicangu or Brulé Lakota Sioux Chief of Great Renown, about 1880.Background"This war was brought upon us by the children of the Great Father who came to take our land from us without price."--Spotted TailThe report and journal of proceedings of the commission appointed to obtain certain concessions from the Sioux Indians, December 26, 1876The history of Native Americans in North America dates back thousands of years. Exploration and settlement of the western United States by Americans and Europeans wreaked havoc on the Indian peoples living there. In the 19th century the American drive for expansion clashed violently with the Native American resolve to preserve their lands, sovereignty, and ways of life. The struggle over land has defined relations between the U.S. government and Native Americans and is well documented in the holdings of the National Archives. (From the American Originals exhibit script.)From the 1860s through the 1870s the American frontier was filled with Indian wars and skirmishes. In 1865 a congressional committee began a study of the Indian uprisings and wars in the West, resulting in a Report on the Condition of the Indian Tribes , which was released in 1867. This study and report by the congressional committee led to an act to establish an Indian Peace Commission to end the wars and prevent future Indian conflicts. The United States government set out to establish a series of Indian treaties that would force the Indians to give up their lands and move further west onto reservations.In the spring of 1868 a conference was held at Fort Laramie, in present day Wyoming, that resulted in a treaty with the Sioux. This treaty was to bring peace between the whites and the Sioux who agreed to settle within the Black Hills reservation in the Dakota Territory.The Black Hills of Dakota are sacred to the Sioux Indians. In the 1868 treaty, signed at Fort Laramie and other military posts in Sioux country, the United States recognized the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation, set aside for exclusive use by the Sioux people. In 1874, however, General George A. Custer led an expedition into the Black Hills accompanied by miners who were seeking gold. Once gold was found in the Black Hills, miners were soon moving into the Sioux hunting grounds and demanding protection from the United States Army. Soon, the Army was ordered to move against wandering bands of Sioux hunting on the range in accordance with their treaty rights. In 1876, Custer, leading an army detachment, encountered the encampment of Sioux and Cheyenne at the Little Bighorn River. Custer's detachment was annihilated, but the United States would continue its battle against the Sioux in the Black Hills until the government confiscated the land in 1877. To this day, ownership of the Black Hills remains the subject of a legal dispute between the U.S. government and the Sioux.The DocumentsSioux Treaty of 1868Click to EnlargeView Pages: 1 | 2 | 3National Archives Identifier: 299803General Alfred Terry's TelegramClick to EnlargeView Pages:Endorsement1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 910 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 1617 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21National Archives Identifier: 300379Letter from Captain John S. PolandClick to EnlargeView Pages: Endorsement | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6National Archives Identifier: 301973Selected Photographs of Custer's 1874 Expedition 519425Click to EnlargeColumn of Cavalry, Artillery, and Wagons, 1874National Archives Identifier: 519427This article was written by Linda Darus Clark, a teacher at Padua Franciscan High School, in Parma, OH.Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) - WikipediaThe Treaty of Fort Laramie (also called the Sioux Treaty of 1868 was an agreement between the United States and the Oglala, Miniconjou, and Brulé bands of Lakota people, Yanktonai Dakota and Arapaho Nation signed on April 29, 1868 at Fort Laramie in the Wyoming Territory, guaranteeing the Lakota ownership of the Black Hills, and further land and hunting rights in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. The Powder River Country was to be henceforth closed to all whites. The treaty ended Red Cloud's War.BackgroundMap showing the major battles of Red Cloud's War along with major treaty boundariesThe first Treaty of Fort Laramie, signed in 1851, attempted to resolve disputes between tribes and the US Government, as well as among tribes themselves, in the modern areas of Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota. It set out that the tribes would make peace among one another, allow for certain outside access to their lands (for activities such as travelling, surveying, and the construction of some government outposts and roads), and that tribes would be responsible for wrongs committed by their people. In return, the US Government would offer protection to the tribes, and pay an annuity of $50,000 over 10 to 15 years. However, the 1851 treaty had a number of shortcomings which contributed to the deterioration of relations and subsequent violence over the next several years. The federal government never kept its obligation to protect tribal resources and hunting grounds, and only made a single payment toward the annuity. Although the federal government operated via representative democracy, the tribes did so through consensus, and although local chiefs signed the treaty as representatives, they had limited power to control others who themselves had not consented to its terms. Finally, the discovery of gold in the west, and the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad led to substantially increased travel through the area, and conflicts between the tribes, settlers, and the US government, and eventually open war beginning in 1866.Alexander Gardner (1821-1882) Native American ImagesIndian Peace CommissionThat year the United States Department of the Interior called on tribes to negotiate safe passage through the Bozeman Trail, while the United States Department of War moved Henry B. Carrington along with a column of 700 men into the Powder River Basin, sparking Red Cloud's War. After losing resolve to continue the war, following defeat in the Fetterman Fight, sustained guerrilla warfare by the Native Americans, exorbitant rates for freight through the area, and difficulty finding contractors to work the rail lines, the US Government, organized the Indian Peace Commission to negotiate an end to ongoing hostilities.A peace counsel chosen by the government arrived on April 19, 1868, at Fort Laramie in what would later become the US state of Wyoming.ArticlesThe treaty was laid out in a series of 17 articles:Article IArticle one called for the cessation of hostilities, stating "all war between the parties to this agreement shall for ever cease." If crimes were committed by "bad men" among white settlers, the government agreed to arrest and punish the offender, and reimburse any losses suffered by injured parties. The tribes agreed to turn over criminals among them, any "bad men among the Indians," to the government for trial and punishment, and to reimburse any losses by suffered by injured parties.These terms effectively relinquished the authority of the tribes to punish crimes committed against them by white settlers. It also provided that if the tribes failed to deliver their wrongdoers to the government, the government was authorized to reimburse losses out of annuities owed to the tribe.Similar provisions appeared in nine such treaties between the government and tribes. In practice, the "bad men among the whites" clause was seldom enforced. The first plaintiff to win a trial case on the provision did so in 2009, based on the provision in the 1868 Fort Laramie treaty.Article IIFront page of 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, from US Government archivesArticle two of the treaty changed the boundaries for tribal land and established the Great Sioux Reservation, to include areas of present day South Dakota west of the Missouri River, which included the Black Hills, and set aside for the "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians". In total, it set aside about 25% of the Dakota Territory as it exited at the time.It made the total lands smaller and moved it further eastward. This was to "take away access to the prime buffalo herds that occupied the area and encourage the Sioux to become farmers."The government agreed that no parties, other than those authorized by the treaty, would be allowed to "pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory".According to one source writing on article two, "What remained unstated in the treaty, but would have been obvious to Sherman and his men, is that land not place in the reservation was to be considered United States property, and not Indian territory."Article IIIArticle three provided for allotments of up to 160 acres (65 ha) of tillable land to be set aside for farming by members of the tribes.By 1871, 200 farms of 80 acres (32 ha) and 200 farms of 40 40 acres (16 ha) had been established including 80 homes. By 1877, this had risen to 153 homes "50 of which had shingle roofs and most had board floors" according to an 1876 report by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.Article IVThe government agreed to build a number of buildings on the reservation: Warehouse, Store-room, Agency Building, Physician residence, Carpenter residence, Farmer residence, Blacksmith residence, Miller residence, Engineer residence, School house and Saw mill.Article four also provided for the establishment of an agency on the reservation for the purpose of government administration, although in practice, five were constructed and two more later added. These original five were composed of the Grand River Agency (Later Standing Rock), Cheyenne River Agency, Whetstone Agency, Crow Creek Agency, and Lower Brulé Agency. Another would be set up on the White River, and another on the North Platte River, later moved to also be on the White.Article VThe government agreed the agent for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and keep his office open to complaints, which he will investigate and forward to the Commissioner. The decision of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of the Interior, "shall be binding on the parties".Article VIArticle six laid out provisions for members of the tribes to take legal individual ownership of previously commonly held land, up to 320 acres (130 ha) for the heads of families, and 80 acres (32 ha) for any adult who was not the head of a family.This land then "may be occupied and held in the exclusive possession of the person selecting it, and of his family, so long as he or they may continue to cultivate it."Article VIIArticle seven addressed education for those aged six to 16, in order to, as the treaty states, "insure the civilization of the Indians entering into this treaty".The tribes agreed to compel both male and females to attend school, and the government agreed to provide a schoolhouse and teacher for every 30 students who could be made to attend.Article VIIIIn article eight, the government agreed to provide seeds, tools, and training for any of the residents who selected tracts of land, and agreed to farm them. This was to be in the amount of up to $100 dollars worth for the first year, and up to $25 worth for the second and third years.These were one of a number of provisions of the treaty designed to encourage farming, rather than hunting, and move the tribes "closer to the white man's way of life."Article IXAfter ten years the government may withdraw the individuals from article 13, but if so, will provide $10,000 annually "devoted to the education of said Indians ... as will best promote the education and moral improvement of said tribes." These are to be managed by a local Indian agent under the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.Article XArticle 10 provided for an allotment of clothes, and food, in addition to one "good American cow" and two oxen for each lodge or family who moved to the reservation.It further provided for an annual payment over 30 years of $10 for each person who hunted, and $20 for those who farmed, to be used by the Secretary of the Interior for the "purchase of such articles as from time to time the condition and necessities of the Indians may indicate to be proper."Article XIOne of the signature pages from the treaty, including X marks for the tribal leaders, as a substitute for signed namesArticle eleven included several provisions stating the tribes agreed to withdraw opposition to the construction of railroads, military posts and roads, and will not attack or capture white settlers or their property. The government agreed to reimburse the tribes for damages caused in the construction of works on the reservation, in the amount assessed by "three disinterested commissioners" appointed by the President.It guaranteed the tribes access to the area to the north and west of the Black Hills[c] as hunting grounds, "so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase."As one source examined the treaty language with regard to "so long as the buffalo may range", the tribes considered this language to be a perpetual guarantee, because "they could not envision a day when buffalo would not roam the plains"; however:The concept was clear enough to the commissioners … [who] well knew that hide hunters, with Sherman’s blessing, were already beginning the slaughter that would eventually drive the Indians to complete dependence on the government for their existence.Article XIIArticle seven required the agreement of "three-fourths of all the adult male Indians" for a treaty with the tribes to "be of any validity".Hedren reflected on article 12 writing that the provisions indicated the government "already anticipated a time when different needs would demand the abrogation of the treaty terms."These provisions have since been controversial, since subsequent treaties amending that of 1868 did not include the required agreement of three-fourths of adult males, and so under the terms of 1868, are invalid.Article XIIIThe government agreed to furnish the tribes with a "physician, teachers, carpenter, miller, engineer, farmer, and blacksmiths".Article XIVThe government agreed to provide $100 in prizes for those who "in the judgment of the agent may grow the most valuable crops for the respective year."Article XVOnce the promised buildings were constructed, the tribes agreed to regard the reservation as their "permanent home" and make "no permanent settlement elsewhere"Article XVIArticle 16 stated that country north of the North Platte River and east of the Big Horn Mountains would be "unceded Indian territory" that no white settlers could occupy without the consent of the tribes.This included 33,000,000 acres (13,000,000 ha) of land outside the reservation which were previously set aside by the 1851 treaty, as well as around an additional 25,000,000 acres (10,000,000 ha).As part of this, the government agreed to close the forts associated with the Bozeman Trail. Article 16 did not however, address issues related to important hunting grounds north and northwest of the reservation.Article XVIIThe treaty, as agreed to "shall be construed as abrogating and annulling all treaties and agreements heretofore entered into."SigningOver the course of 192 days ending November 6, the treaty was signed by a total of 156 Sioux, and 25 Arapaho, in addition to the commissioners, and an additional 34 signatories as witnesses.Although the commissioners signed the document on April 29 along with the Brulé, the party broke up in May, with only two remaining at Fort Laramie to conclude talks there, before traveling up the Missouri River to gather additional signatures from tribes elsewhere.Throughout this process, no further amendments were made to the terms. As one writer phrased it, "the commissioners essientially cycled Sioux in and out of Fort Laramie ... seeking only the formality of the chiefs' marks and forgoing true agreement in the spirit that the Indians understood it."http://amertribes.proboards.com/thread/609/gardner-fort-laramie-1868?page=3Sioux ChiefsMembers of the Peace Commission at Fort Laramie, 1868Following initial negotiations, those from the Peace Commission did not discuss the conditions of the treaty to subsequent tribes who arrived over the following months to sign. Rather, the treaty was read aloud, and it was allowed "some time for the chiefs to speak" before "instructing them to place their marks on the prepared document."As the source continues:These tribes had little interest in or understanding of what had taken place at the Fort Laramie councils. They wanted the whites out of their country and would fight as long as necessary.The process of abandoning the forts associated with the Bozeman Trail, as part of the conditions agreed to, proved to be a long process, and was stalled by difficulty arranging the sale of the goods from the fort to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Fort C.F. Smith was not emptied until July 29, and Fort Phil Kearny and Fort Reno until August 1. Once abandoned, Red Cloud and his followers, who had been monitoring the activities of the troops rode down and burned what remained.The peace commission dissolved on October 10 after presenting its report to Congress, which among other things, recommended the government "cease to recognize the Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations," and that no further "treaties shall be made with any Indian tribe."William Dye, the commander at Fort Laramie was left to represent the commission, and met with Red Cloud, who was among the last to sign the treaty on November 6.The government remained unwilling to negotiate the terms further, and after two days, Red Cloud is reported to have "washed his hands with the dust of the floor" and signed, formally ending the war.The US Senate ratified the treaty on Feb. 16, 1869.SignatoriesNotable signatories presented in the order they signed are as follows. Two exceptions are included. Henderson was a commissioner, but did not sign the treaty. Red Cloud was among the last to sign, but is listed out-of-order along with the other Oglala.CommissionersNathaniel Green Taylor, Commissioner of Indian AffairsWilliam Tecumseh Sherman, then lieutenant general, US ArmyWilliam S. Harney, then brevetted as major general, US ArmyJohn B. Sanborn, former general, US Army, and former member of a previous peace commission organized by Alfred SullySamuel F. Tappan, journalist, abolitionist, and activist who rose to prominence after investigating the Sand Creek massacreChristopher C. Augur, then brevetted as major general, and director of the Department of the PlatteAlfred Terry, then brevetted as major general, US ArmyJohn B. Henderson, then US Senator and Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Indian AffairsChiefs and headmenBruléIron ShellSpotted TailWhite BullOglalaYoung Man Afraid Of His HorsesSitting BullAmerican HorseBlue HorseRed CloudMiniconjouLone HornSpotted ElkBig EagleYanctonaisLittle SoldierRed HorseLittle ShieldAftermath and legacyMap of the 1868 Great Sioux Reservation, and the subsequent changes in reservation borders. Although the treaty required the consent of three fourth of the males of the tribes, many did not sign or recognize the results. Others would later complain that the treaty contained complex language that was not well explained in order to avoid arousing suspicion.Yet others would not fully learn the terms of the agreement until 1870, when Red Cloud returned from a trip to Washington D.C.The treaty overall, and in comparison with the 1851 agreement, represented a departure from earlier considerations of tribal customs, and demonstrated instead the government's "more heavy-handed position with regard to tribal nations, and ... desire to assimilate the Sioux into American property arrangements and social customs."According to one source, "animosities over the treaty arose almost immediately" when a group of Miniconjou were informed they were no long welcome to trade at Fort Laramie, being south of their newly establish territory. This was notwithstanding that the treaty did not make any stipulation that the tribes could not travel outside their land, only that they would not permanently occupy outside land, and only expressly forbid the traveling of white settlers on the reservation.Both the tribes and the government chose to ignore portions of the treaty, or to "comply only as long as conditions met their favor," and between 1869 and 1876, at least seven separate skirmishes occurred.The government eventually broke the terms of the treaty following the Black Hills Gold Rush and an expedition into the area by George Armstrong Custer in 1874, and failed to prevent white settlers from moving onto tribal lands. Rising tensions eventually lead again to open conflict in the Great Sioux War of 1876.The 1868 treaty would be modified three times by the US Congress between 1876 and 1889, each time taking more land originally granted, including unilaterally seizing the Black Hills in 1877.However, as of 2018, Congress does not recognize these subsequent modifications.United States v. Sioux Nation of IndiansOn June 30, 1980, in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government had illegally taken the land. It upheld an award of $15.5 million for the market value of the land in 1877, along with 103 years worth of interest at 5 percent, for an additional $105 million. The Lakota Sioux, however, have refused to accept payment and instead continue to demand the return of the territory from the United States. As of 24 August 2011 the Sioux interest on the money has compounded to over 1 billion dollars.CommemorationMarking the 150th anniversary of the treaty, the South Dakota Legislature passed Senate Resolution 1, reaffirming the legitimacy of the treaty, and according to the original text, illustrating to the federal government that the Sioux are "still here" and are "seeking a future of forward-looking, positive relationships with full respect for the sovereign status of Native American nations confirmed by the treaty."On March 11, 2018, the Governor of Wyoming, Matt Mead signed a similar bill into law, calling on "the federal government to uphold its federal trust responsibilities," and calling for a permanent display of the original treaty, on file with the National Archives and Records Administration, in the Wyoming Legislature.See alsoBlack Hills Land Claim, ongoing dispute between the Sioux and the US GovernmentDakota Access Pipeline, underground oil pipeline, opposed by some Sioux based on the terms of the 1851 and 1868 treatiesIndian Appropriations Act, series of legislation passed by the US government related to tribal landsFort Laramie Treaty of 1868American Indian Rights And Treaties – The Story Of The 1868 Treaty Of Fort Laramie, video from Insider ExclusiveFort Laramie Treaty: Case Study from the National Museum of the American IndianCollection of Photographs by Alexander Gardner (photographer), from his travels with the Peace Commission at Fort Laramie in 1868, from the Minnesota Historical SocietyBlack Hills of South Dakota and WyomingThe signing of a peace treaty by William T. Sherman and the Sioux at Fort Laramie, Wyoming.Describe the agreement the dakota sioux made the U.S. government and the reason for their uprising? (answers.yahoo.com)Best Answer: Reason for their Uprising -Land dispute between the government and the Siuox Tribe in Minnesota.Agreement-The US set aside two reservations for the Sioux along the Minnesota River, each about 20 miles (30 km) wide and 70 miles (110 km) long.The Upper Sioux Agency was established near Granite Falls, Minnesota, while the Lower Sioux Agency was established about thirty miles downstream near Redwood Falls, Minnesota. The Upper Sioux were satisfied with their reservation, since it included several of their old villages.The Lower Sioux were displaced from their traditional woodlands, and were dissatisfied with their territory. The Sioux were also resentful of the separate "trader's paper" included in the treaty, which paid $400,000 of the promised treaty total to fur traders and mixed-bloods who had financial claims against the Indians.Peace, War, Land and a Funeral: The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868