DOOMED PRESIDENT GERALD FORD’S FRATERNITY HOUSE BUILDING DISCOVERS REDEEMER
I speak of Doomed Presidency of Nixon-Kissinger and Gerald R. Ford in the context of Doomed US Policy they initiated and followed. US Policy doomed for it fundamentally violates values cherished by Founding Members who enshrined those Principles in ‘Declaration of Independence’ to establish USA as Free Nation.
The historical legacy of Doomed Nixon-Kissinger and Ford Presidency trapped my life and military career since 1971. I left India in 1984 in search of ‘REDEEMER’ or ‘DISCOVERER’ to find the true purpose in my life.
My readers may not be surprised to note my interest in a story published by MLive.com giving account of historic DKE Shant Building at 611 ½ East William Street, Ann Arbor. Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity is not able to use this Building for their activities and listed it for lease. To my utter surprise, this Doomed Building used by Gerald R. Ford is discovered by ‘REDEEMER ANN ARBOR’ Church for their Worship Service. This historic Building got a new tenant to keep its life. The Story gives me Hope of reaching my true destination in life with guidance from my personal REDEEMER.
DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER
Historic DKE Shant building on Ann Arbor’s William Street listed for lease for retail user
The Shant building, which is owned by the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity and located at 611 1/2 E. William St. is up for lease. Melanie Maxwell | The Ann Arbor News
on October 02, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Set behind a seven-foot brick wall and a padlocked cast-iron gate in downtown Ann Arbor is an unusual historic building in transition.
After serving as a space for weekly Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity rituals and later, as the international headquarters for the fraternity, the 135-year-old building at 611 1/2 E. William St. is listed for lease for a retail user.
The building is located between Hunter House Hamburgers and Tianchu Restaurant.
An online real estate listing markets the building, known as the Shant, as the “most unique building on the University of Michigan campus,” noting it’s “the first time the property has been offered to the public.” The 2,000-square-foot space is listed for lease with Colliers International Ann Arbor for an annual $35 per square foot.
“Very rare opportunity for retail coffee shop or similar uses for very unique original space on campus,” the listing says.
Listing broker Jim Chaconas described the Shant as “the building that everybody wants to know.”
A long-time fixture near campus
The Shant sticks out in its surroundings – an evolving near-campus retail area – although it’s set back from the sidewalk and behind a tall brick wall. The building has retained its historic character as the area around it continues to develop.
The historic Shant building is located on a narrow lot at 611 1/2 E. William St. Ben Freed | The Ann Arbor News
The Shant has a rich history in Ann Arbor; architect William Le Baron Jenney, later known as the “father of the American skyscraper,” designed the building for the Omicron Chapter of DKE at U-M. Jenney taught the university’s first courses in architecture.
The cornerstone for the chapter hall on East William Street was laid in 1878 and construction finished the following year.
As for the building’s name, people aren’t quite certain where it comes from.
“Nobody really knows,” said Sarah Christensen, DKE’s administrative director.
Designed in thirteenth century French style, the two-story building features a stone foundation, intricate wood arches, a vaulted ceiling and stained glass windows with the DKE symbol.
A historic photo of the Shant shows the building before 1901, when the brick wall was constructed to keep people off the property. Photo courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan
When the building was completed, it was used for weekly chapter meetings and other rituals that remain a mystery to those outside the DKE fraternity.
The building was never used to house fraternity members, who stayed at a house at 609 S. State, then a house at 1912 Geddes before DKE secured its current home at 1004 Olivia Ave.
Over time, DKE has lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding the Shant building. Years ago, only fraternity members were allowed to step foot inside the house and the brick wall outside was constructed in 1901 to keep people off the property.
Christensen said in the 1970s and 1980s, DKE members and alumni would often use the Shant building as a gathering place on football Saturdays. People would sometimes watch the games on a television on the building’s second floor.
DKE almost sold the Shant in 1980 as the fraternity faced financial troubles. A fundraising effort led by DKE alumni David K. Easlick saved the building and ownership was transferred to the newly formed Rampant Lion Foundation, which supports DKE’s educational activities.
Listing broker Jim Chaconas described the Shant as “the building that everybody wants to know.”
Today, the Omicron Chapter of DKE only meets inside the Shant about twice a year.
“It might be an alumni event, it could be a physical pinning of the pledges,” Christensen said.
The fraternity’s international headquarters rents the building’s first floor from the Rampant Lion Foundation.
A look inside the building
The DKE fraternity is proud of its history.
The walls inside the Shant are lined with photographs of DKE alumni, including five U.S. presidents: Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, U-M grad Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
The DKE flag on display at the Shant building in 2009.The Ann Arbor News file photo
The Gerald Ford library is on the building’s second floor, featuring works by and about DKE members.
Old DKE artifacts, including a paddle from Yale’s DKE chapter, are on display on the second floor. One photograph shows the DKE flag when it was carried to the North Pole by its discoverer.
Bricks on the Shant’s outdoor patio feature names of DKE alumni, including Gerald Ford, who have donated to the Rampant Lion Foundation.
New life for the Shant
The Shant building is listed for lease as the building is in need of repairs to its four architectural chimney features. Christensen said the fraternity organization does not have the cash flow to make the necessary repairs, and selling the building would be a last resort.
The building has a 2014 assessed value of $209,300. The property’s 2013 taxes were about $4,070.
A lease agreement with a future tenant would offer discounted rent while repairs are made to the building.
“The idea is that we would rent the space and do an agreement with a reduced rent amount and the tenant would pay for necessary repairs,” Christensen said. “The tenant would get a beautiful, unusual building to lease and then we would have the building maintained.”
Chaconas, of Colliers, said to restore the chimneys with the original materials would cost upward of $60,000. To rebuild them with different materials but a similar appearance would cost about $12,000.
Chaconas said a new tenant would not alter the character of the building.
“I’ve gone to the Historical Society and City of Ann Arbor and they are going to work with us so we don’t have to disturb the structure of the Shant,” he said.
Chaconas said he’s received preliminary interest in the building and had some showings. Examples of retail tenants he cited include a coffee shop, a wine bar or a small restaurant. Christensen mentioned a yoga studio as another example.
“It’s in a hot little area, and you’ve got your outside seating,” Chaconas said. “The upstairs could be seating, and downstairs could be a little coffee bar. …Somebody is going to do really well there.”
Lizzy Alfs is a business reporter for The Ann Arbor News. Reach her at 734-255-2638, email her firstname.lastname@example.org or follow her on Twitter
© 2017 MLive Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of MLive Media Group.
Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.
DOOMED PRESIDENCY OF GERALD FORD – AMERICA’S UNFINISHED WAR
Nixon-Kissinger and Gerald Ford initiated era of Doomed US Presidency when they concluded War against Communism through negotiated Surrender. Unchecked Communist Expansionism in Southern Asia poses severe risks to vital US security interests in Asia-Pacific Region.
FORD SAYS THAT WAR IS FINISHED FOR AMERICA
At a speech at Tulane University, President Gerald Ford says the Vietnam War is finished as far as America is concerned. “Today, Americans can regain the sense of pride that existed before Vietnam. But it cannot be achieved by re-fighting a war.” This was devastating news to the South Vietnamese, who were desperately pleading for U.S. support as the North Vietnamese surrounded Saigon for the final assault on the capital city.
The North Vietnamese had launched a major offensive in March to capture the provincial capital of Ban Me Thuot (Darlac province) in the Central Highlands. The South Vietnamese defenders there fought very poorly and were quickly overwhelmed by the North Vietnamese attackers. Despite previous promises by both Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford to provide support, the United States did nothing. In an attempt to reposition his forces for a better defense, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu ordered his forces in the Highlands to withdraw to more defensible positions to the south. What started out as a reasonably orderly withdrawal soon degenerated into a panic that spread throughout the South Vietnamese armed forces. The South Vietnamese abandoned Pleiku and Kontum in the Highlands with very little fighting and the North Vietnamese pressed the attack from the west and north. In quick succession, Quang Tri, Hue, and Da Nang in the north fell to the communist onslaught. The North Vietnamese continued to attack south along the coast, defeating the South Vietnamese forces at each encounter.
As the North Vietnamese forces closed on the approaches to Saigon, the politburo in Hanoi issued an order to Gen. Van Tien Dung to launch the “Ho Chi Minh Campaign,” the final assault on Saigon itself. Dung ordered his forces into position for the final battle.
The South Vietnamese 18th Division made a valiant final stand at Xuan Loc, 40 miles northeast of Saigon, in which the South Vietnamese soldiers destroyed three of Dung’s divisions. However, the South Vietnamese finally succumbed to the superior North Vietnamese numbers. With the fall of Xuan Loc on April 21 and Ford’s statement at Tulane, it was apparent that the North Vietnamese would be victorious. President Thieu resigned and transferred authority to Vice President Tran Van Huong before fleeing Saigon on April 25.
By April 27, the North Vietnamese had completely encircled Saigon and began to maneuver for their final assault. By the morning of April 30, it was all over. When the North Vietnamese tanks crashed through the gates of the Presidential Palace in Saigon, the South Vietnamese surrendered and the Vietnam War was officially over.
NO CHINA, NO RUSSIA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM
United States must define Foreign Policy before choosing allies. “AMERICA FIRST” Foreign Policy demands choosing “TIBET EQUILIBRIUM.”
Both Russia and China are major military powers of world competing for Superpower status. To achieve ‘Balance of Power’ to restore ‘Power Equilibrium’, America must choose Tibet because of its strategic location.
Tibet is second largest nation of the region and Tibet’s Independence from military occupation is the only real solution to contain and engage military powers like Russia and China.
Major Retd Rudranarasimham, DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER
CHINA OR RUSSIA? U.S. MAY HAVE TO CHOOSE AN ALLY
© Provided by IBT Media (UK) RTX2QS13
This article originally appeared on The Conversation.
Forty-five years ago, last February, U.S. President Richard Nixon returned from a visit to China that shocked the world and unsettled leaders in Moscow, who were awaiting a visit from Nixon a few months later.
Soviet leaders wondered if they were finally witnessing the birth of a U.S.-China alliance that they had feared ever since the breakdown of the Sino-Soviet alliance in the early 1960s.
As Washington and the media convulse over every new outrage emanating from Moscow, while President Trump repeatedly asks, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia?” U.S. policymakers are faced with the same choice between Russia and China, though this time the stakes might be even higher.
The history of persistent tensions between Russia and China suggests two choices: Accommodate and reconcile with Russia to balance against the greater power—China. Or, align with China to defend a rules-based international order from its most powerful antagonist—Russia.
It should be clear by now that we can no longer oppose Russia and China at the same time. Though that route might seem tempting and natural, given the historical aspirations of U.S. foreign policy to protect territorial sovereignty, promote human rights and provide a framework for free trade, we are no longer equal to the task.
At a minimum, that would require decisive U.S. action in Syria, firm military support for the government in Kiev, a drastic military buildup of NATO forces across Eastern Europe and a more confrontational posture in the South and East China seas. Doing that would further stretch a U.S. military that is already facing a personnel shortage. It would also represent a burden that the American people apparently no longer wish to carry.
Lost in the discussion of whether Trump’s “America First” bravado reflects militarism or isolationism are the ways in which our options have been shaped by the administration that preceded him.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, second from right, and China President Xi Jinping watch the Victory Day parade at Red Square in Moscow, Russia, May 9, 2015. Reuters
We have only begun to reckon with the foreign policy legacy of Barack Obama, but he has clearly done more to shape the current global predicament than Trump has. When the Russian, Iranian and Turkish foreign ministers met in Moscow in the final weeks of the Obama administration to solve the Syrian crisis by themselves without inviting
the U.S., they were making a startling declaration: The nation that had once declared itself to be “indispensable” was now very clearly dispensable. It would have been unthinkable at any point since Pearl Harbor for American interests to be discounted so brazenly in solving the most pressing international crisis.
It is hard to separate the factors that brought us to this point. Is this simply an inevitable product of relative, or even absolute, American decline? Is it a product of a president who sought to “lead from behind” and whose fundamental foreign policy principle was that sins of commission are always worse than sins of omission? Or did Obama conclude he was dealing with a country, already exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that was no longer willing to shoulder the burden of defending the free world? Either way, Trump has inherited a country that is no longer willing and able to play the leadership role it once did in world affairs.
So where do we go from here? If we cannot oppose both Russia and China, then we need to compromise with at least one of them.
MAKE FRIENDS WITH RUSSIA?
Arguing for a Russian alignment is the notion that China already does more damage to American interests around the globe than Russia does. China damages U.S. economic interests through unfair trade practices, our standing in Asia by undermining our alliances, and our ability to promote democracy, particularly in Africa, by offering aid and investment without good governance conditions. As China grows more powerful and assertive, its efforts to drive the U.S. out of East Asia, coupled with increasing challenges to American interests around the globe, will amount to a full-spectrum challenge to the current U.S. position in the world.
In contrast, Russia’s challenges to American interests are relative pinpricks. Russia does not have the ability to turn either Eastern Europe or the Middle East into its own sphere of influence. It is even losing the competition for economic influence in Central Asia, its own post-Soviet backyard, to China.
Putin might not be an evil dictator bent on doing as much damage to the West as possible, but rather a spurned pragmatist with a realistic view of Russia’s position in the world who had initially hoped to cooperate with Western leaders, but has been embittered by poor treatment by them. Putin’s Russia, therefore, would represent not a mortal threat to the international world order, but rather a missed opportunity, one that can still perhaps be salvaged.
OR CHOOSE CHINA INSTEAD?
Alternatively, we could align with China against Russia.
This approach makes sense if you believe Putin began as a pragmatist, but that was only a temporary tack, given his KGB background and nationalist authoritarian inclinations. But now that he has seen how weak his opponents are and how much havoc he can wreak, he has set his sights higher. Fifteen years ago he might not have imagined he could break NATO or the EU, but now that seems within reach, and nothing will deter him from this chance to realize the fondest dreams of his Soviet predecessors. What could we possibly offer him to match such dreams? He would revel in the chaos that would follow.
Chaos, however, is precisely the opposite of what the leaders in Beijing desire. China’s resurgence is built on a world of peace and trade, a world ultimately sustained by American military strength. For China to seek to challenge such an order, it would have to imagine that it could not only fill the role the U.S. currently fills, but manage the transition in such a way as to avoid a chaotic interlude. Chinese leaders are far too clear-headed for such a gambit, and in any case they see no need to rush such a transition before conditions for it have matured.
President Xi Jinping is anyway preoccupied with ensuring the indefinite continuation of Communist Party rule. What could jeopardize that more than a world in chaos and economic disaster?
IS THE CHOICE EVEN OURS?
With Russia against China? With China against Russia?
There is no question such a choice is unpalatable. Not only would either alternative involve morally difficult concessions, but having to make the choice at all implies that the United States is no longer capable of defending the world order it has long sponsored. This is a difficult reality to accept.
And broaching the possibility of such a choice leads to more difficult questions.
Could Russia even be persuaded to align with the U.S. against China or China against Russia? What would we have to offer either side? What would this mean for our allies, especially in Europe and East Asia? The latter question might not be as insoluble as it may seem, because our allies have long since begun anticipating just such a scenario. But if we are no longer able and willing to perform the role we once did, we need to reckon with the consequences.
Jeremy Friedman is Assistant Professor, Business, Government, and the International Economy, Harvard Business School.
CHINA MINUS TIBET EQUALS TO POWER EQUILIBRIUM
To deal with problems of Red China’s Economic, Political, Military, Maritime, and Nuclear Expansionism, I have to address the problem of Red China’s Territorial Expansionism. Red China gained 965, 000 square miles of Tibetan Territory through military occupation. In terms of size, Tibet is the second largest nation in Southern Asia, almost as large as Republic of India( over 1, 269, 221 square miles).
Evicting Tibet’s military occupier is the first step that will restore Balance of Power in Asia and I name this process as ‘TIBET EQUILIBRIUM’ for Tibetan Territory is the Key for Political, Economic, Military Imbalance that is undermining International Relations.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE
UNITED STATES – CHINA RELATIONS DEMAND TIBET EQUILIBRIUM
In 1971, United States during Doomed Presidency of Nixon-Kissinger initiated a Policy that disregards the Doctrine of Balance of Power which formulates a system of international relations in which nations shift alliances to maintain an Equilibrium of Power and prevent dominance by any single state. For Balance of Power is the goal of Foreign Policy, nation can enter alliances to maintain stable power relations. Balance of Power describes the posture and policy of a nation or group of nations protecting itself against another nation or group of nations by matching its power against the power of the other side. States can pursue a policy of Balance of Power in two ways; 1. By increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or, 2. By adding to their power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances. The role of “BALANCER” or “Holder of the Balance” is guided by one and only one consideration – the maintenance of “BALANCE” itself.
In my analysis, with emergence of Red China as a major economic and military power of the world, Balance of Power is by necessary has become the focus of United States foreign relations. The geographical location and size of Tibet’s territory give it a predominant role in formulating US relations with all other nations of that region in Asia. For example, the size of China’s immediate neighbors is as follows:
1.Tibet – 965,000 square miles
2. Japan – 142, 811 square miles
3. North Korea – 46, 540 square miles
4. South Korea – 38, 321 square miles
5. Philippines – 115, 830 square miles
6. Taiwan – 13, 885 square miles
7. Malaysia – 128, 430 square miles
8. Indonesia – 741, 096 square miles
9. Brunei – 2, 228 square miles
United States has no choice other than that of upholding the principle of Balance of Power to defend vital, national security interests. US must perform the role of “BALANCER” or Holder of the Balance by restoring Tibet Equilibrium. Tibetan territory cannot remain under Red China’s military occupation.
TIBET SUPPORTERS CONVERGE ON CAPITOL HILL TO LOBBY CONGRESS
March 31, 2017 7:22 PM
FILE – The U.S. Capitol building is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 28, 2014.
More than 130 people from 23 states converged on Capitol Hill to lobby for Tibet the week before Chinese President Xi Jinping is scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Florida on April 6.
Although the leaders’ meeting is expected to focus on trade and the need for China to do more to rein in the nuclear and missile programs of its neighbor and ally North Korea, Tibet remains a contentious issue between the two nations.
“Congress has shown a strong interest in Tibet since the 1980s, passing dozens of laws and resolutions related to Tibet, speaking out about conditions in Tibet, and welcoming visits by the Dalai Lama,” according to a 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service. “Such actions have long been a source of friction in the U.S.-China relationship. China charges that they amount to support for challenges to Chinese rule in Tibet.”
FILE – Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson before their meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, March 19, 2017.
Bhuchung Tsering of the International Campaign for Tibet in Washington, which organized Tibet Lobby Day, said, “Looking at the meeting of President Xi of China and President Trump, we want to send a message to President Trump, through Congress and to Trump directly, that there is traditional bipartisan support for dialog with China on Tibet,” he said, adding “Secretary [of State Rex] Tillerson says he is committed to promoting dialogue on Tibet and receiving the Dalai Lama.”
Tibet Lobby Day was held simultaneously in Washington, Brussels and Canberra, Australia, March 27-29.
“U.S. policy has not changed,” Anna Richey-Allen, a spokeswoman for the State Department’s East Asia and Pacific Bureau, said Friday, adding that the U.S. recognizes the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan autonomous prefectures to be a part of the People’s Republic of China.
“We remain deeply concerned about human rights abuses and restrictions, including those imposed on religious freedom, in the TAR and elsewhere in China,” she said. “We remain committed to supporting meaningful autonomy for Tibetans and the preservation of their unique religious, cultural and linguistic traditions.
“The United States encourages the People’s Republic of China to engage with the Dalai Lama and his representative without preconditions.”
Ngawang Norbu of Boston, Massachusetts, was one of the Tibetan-Americans and Tibet supporters who spoke with more than 250 members of Congress and their staffs during Tibet Lobby Day.
Ngawang Norbu, a Tibetan-American and Tibet supporter shown in this photo taken from video, attended Tibet Lobby Day on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 2017.
The activists asked them to continue funding Tibet programs and to promote efforts to gain access to Tibetan areas for U.S. officials, citizens and journalists. They also want the Trump administration to implement the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 (TPA), which has the stated purpose of supporting “the aspirations of the Tibetan people to safeguard their distinct identity.”
“The important thing today is that there’s a new administration in America and, along with that, the exile Tibetan administration in India has declared 2017 to be a year of action for Tibet, and so that’s why I’m here,” Norbu told VOA on Wednesday. “It’s our responsibility and obligation to lobby for Tibet, and whether our requests are responded to or not is, of course, up to the leadership here, but in our mind we think our objectives and efforts will bear fruit.”
Bhuchung expects to see the reintroduction of the proposed Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act by Representative Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts; Representative Randy Hultgren, a Republican from Illinois; Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican; and Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat.
Marah Litchford of North Carolina, shown in this photo taken from video, participated in Tibet Lobby Day in Washington, March 2017.
North Carolinian Marah Litchford, who has expressed concern about religious freedom in Tibet, participated in the Washington movement. “They listen,” she said. “You just have to talk loudly.”
Nike Ching and Steven Herman contributed to this report, which originated with reporting by Dondhon Namling of the VOA Tibetan service.
TIBETAN RESISTANCE MOVEMENT – A DAY TO REMEMBER – MARCH 10, 1959
Tibetans remember March 10, 1959 as Tibetan National Uprising Day. Tibetans are not asking for “SEPARATION” from Red China. Tibetans claim that Tibet is Never Part of China. The issue of concern is illegal Occupation of Tibet. The purpose of Tibetan Resistance Movement is that of resisting illegal Occupation and to Evict Occupier of Tibet.
Rebellion in Tibet
On this day in 1959, Tibetans band together in revolt, surrounding the summer palace of the Dalai Lama in defiance of Chinese occupation forces.
China’s occupation of Tibet began nearly a decade before, in October 1950, when troops from its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) invaded the country, barely one year after the Communists gained full control of mainland China. The Tibetan government gave into Chinese pressure the following year, signing a treaty that ensured the power of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the country’s spiritual leader, over Tibet’s domestic affairs. Resistance to the Chinese occupation built steadily over the next several years, including a revolt in several areas of eastern Tibet in 1956. By December 1958, rebellion was simmering in Lhasa, the capital, and the PLA command threatened to bomb the city if order was not maintained.
The March 1959 uprising in Lhasa was triggered by fears of a plot to kidnap the Dalai Lama and take him to Beijing. When Chinese military officers invited His Holiness to visit the PLA headquarters for a theatrical performance and official tea, he was told he must come alone, and that no Tibetan military bodyguards or personnel would be allowed past the edges of the military camp. On March 10, 300,000 loyal Tibetans surrounded Norbulingka Palace, preventing the Dalai Lama from accepting the PLA’s invitation. By March 17, Chinese artillery was aimed at the palace, and the Dalai Lama was evacuated to neighboring India. Fighting broke out in Lhasa two days later, with Tibetan rebels hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned. Early on March 21, the Chinese began shelling Norbulingka, slaughtering tens of thousands of men, women and children still camped outside. In the aftermath, the PLA cracked down on Tibetan resistance, executing the Dalai Lama’s guards and destroying Lhasa’s major monasteries along with thousands of their inhabitants.
China’s stranglehold on Tibet and its brutal suppression of separatist activity has continued in the decades following the unsuccessful uprising. Tens of thousands of Tibetans followed their leader to India, where the Dalai Lama has long maintained a government-in-exile in the foothills of the Himalayas.