Malang
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2007
- Messages
- 537
- Reaction score
- 0
"gestures of goodwill" are undertaken by the nations in question themselves, not by a third party that was supposed to be delineating the border based on a particular formula, and just decided to throw the rule book out when it came to those particular issues.
quite right but in my other post as I said there were 3 scenarios
kashmir goes to Pakistan
Kashmir goes to India
Kashmir is independent --> Kashmir anti-Pak and India, Kashmir Anti-Pak, Kashmir anti-India, Kashmir pro-Pak and India..
IN case of 1 it was undesirable for India getting land access to Pakistan in case 2 it was desirable (reqd or necessary, perhaps?) and in case 3 further cases..
again a topic comes that Jammu was hindu dominated and giving a land access to India would have done something.. It can also be argued Kashmir without a land access to India could've made them go against India..
(btw above all is speculation and a possible justification? ) to be fair there is no reason why Radcliffe did what he did and what formulae he used.... and Indians and Pakistanis can debate for the next years saying that Radcliffe was unfair to them.. from what little I have read Radcliffe was an astute Brit who did all he could to uphold British interests by again making people fight, this time on the drawing of borders...
I will repeat - there was already a much larger chunk of territory of Pakistan that was separated, and there were no issues over that particular "lack of connection".
it would've been impossible to give land access to both divisions of Pakistan.. but it would have been possible to give land access to a "Princely state
whose fate no one knew.. to protect its interests...
Also, were these districts the only connection that India would have had with kashmir, or was there more of a shared border between the two? If there was more of a shared border, then the argument of "providing a connection" is moot, since a connecting route could have been created at some expense elsewhere along the India-Kashmir border.
I am not really aware of the topography.. but the Jammu plains (and rest of Kashmir) are connected to India essentially through Pathankot (in the Punjab plains) rest of the paths are mountainous and often closed during winters or in case of land falls...
If there was no sharing of the border, except through these districts, then perhaps Venkat's argument of "no third choice" is revealing, since without a shared border Kashmir would have no choice but to join Pakistan.
I didn't happen to read Venkat's point but yes it would have given an (unfair?) advantage to Pakistan.. (I have also raise this point above)/.
[quoe] In either case, the decision to simply move Muslim majority provinces to India comes across as a biased decision with ulterior motives.[/quote]
Ulterior motives in interests of Kashmir not necessarily India though...
The part in parenthesis points out that your "single entity" statement is incorrect.
and why is that??? for all pratical purposes the subcontinent is a single entity ..
a person can to his PoV argue they are not one nation or were never one nation or there too many division etc.
but one thing is certain feelings of nationalism are quite ill defined...
a Pakistani Baloch may love Pakistan as much as a Pakistani Kashmiri but both have nothing in common...
similarly during the struggle for Independence Bacha Khan, Bose, Bhagat Singh, Tilak, Ashfaque Khan etc. all shared a similar passion and love for the nation though they had nothing in common in terms of language they spoke, religion they followed, customs and culture etc. etc...
similarly a person living in Lahore and a person living in Amritsar a distance of not more than 50km.. generally hate each other with as much vengeance as humanly(diabolically at times) possible..
so if you call subcontinent as a nation then it is a topic which you may successfully argue against (and by some may be for but I am not the guy IMO)..
even when Italy was created/unified, a politician said "We have created Italy and now all we have to do is create Italians" (not sure of exact wordings)...
similary the Swiss cantons are pretty much uncommon.. even Germany as a nation has existed for only 100 years...
is there a thread on this topic? I think this is an excellent topic to gain an understanding...