A 3rd Pakistan was supposed to be created

[chaman]

well... why would i get banned mate....

 

[ejaz007]

One should be very careful while expressing himself and extreme care should be taken to avoid using language that offends someone especially an entire nation.

Freedom of speech is one thing and stupid writing entirely another. Dear Chaman be careful in future.

 

[Majnun]

Apart from hyderabad & Junagarh there were also two districts namely Ferozpur and Gurdaspur. As per partition rules these states should have joined Pakistan because these were Muslim majority districts. However since these two districts bordered Kashmir and without them India would not have gained access to Kashmir these were given to India by the border commission formed to oversee the partition. How they managed it I am not sure but this did happened.

Gurdaspur is India's only link to Kashmir AND it is a Muslim majority province so both Kashmir and Gurdaspur should have been Pakistan's/ What about Gujarat?

 

[Venkat]

Whatever - Hyderabad was 95% Hindus - very unilikely it would remain a 'third pakistan'?

 

[ejaz007]

Venkat,
The point is not that whether Hyderabad would have remained third Pakistan or not. The point is that Nawab of Hyderabad declared independence and was also given some sort of representation at UN. Therefore India attacked an independent country and forced it to join.

 

[mujahideen]

Venkat,
The point is not that whether Hyderabad would have remained third Pakistan or not. The point is that Nawab of Hyderabad declared independence and was also given some sort of representation at UN. Therefore India attacked an independent country and forced it to join.

I agree. The resolution condemming India's illegal act is still pending at the U.N.

 

[Malang]

Gurdaspur is India's only link to Kashmir AND it is a Muslim majority province so both Kashmir and Gurdaspur should have been Pakistan's/ What about Gujarat?

Gurdaspur and Pathankot "had" a muslim majority.. today Gurdaspur is a Sikh dominated district, so is the case in all of Punjab except may be one subdistrict called Malharkotla which is Muslim dominated...

You have mentioned that since these districts "are" muslim dominated therefore they belong to Pakistan.. I think one must also see it this way that many Muslims had decided at the time not to join Pakistan therefore Pakistan could not claim those who didn't want it... even today India has many muslim dominated districts but Pakistan can't claim them..

-------
Looking at the situation pragmatically and esp with a empathetic view

1. State of Hyderabad had a minority population of Muslims therefore it would not have prospered in an Islamic state... esp when the land isn't contingent..
taking eg of Bangladesh, there were revolts regarding language and denial of Bangladeshis to rule Pakistan etc.

---
as for the most painful topic Kashmir, I personally believe Kashmir should be independent.. it has a very rich history of secularism and "Kashmiriyat" which would be destroyed in India and in Pakistan and if disunited...

why I say India?

1. Pakistani part of India would not be assimilated.
2. even if assimilated, giving special status to Kashmir would put undue pressure on the govt. and cause resentment..

why I say Pakistan?

1. Pakistan is an Islamic state.. Kashmir has many ethnic groups and a sizeable numbers of which are not muslims
2. In the interest of maintaining Kashmiriyat and culture it would imperative to all groups to live harmoniously the way they have for millenias...

these are my opinions I would not like to add anything to it.. nor possibly answer on this topic again.. so ...
----

 

[ejaz007]

We are not talking about todays population but the population as it was in 1947.In 1947 according to the best information I have Ferozpur, Gurdaspur and Junagarh had muslim majority population and should have joined Pakistan. They were located with Punjab and there was no issue of land access to them from Pakistan. However just to provide land route for India to Kashmir these areas were given to India.
As for Hyderabad its nawab declared independence and was annexed by India using force.

 

[Malang]

We are not talking about todays population but the population as it was in 1947.In 1947 according to the best information I have Ferozpur, Gurdaspur and Junagarh had muslim majority population and should have joined Pakistan. They were located with Punjab and there was no issue of land access to them from Pakistan. However just to provide land route for India to Kashmir these areas were given to India.
As for Hyderabad its nawab declared independence and was annexed by India using force.

should have? now here is the thing..
the maps and boundary if I remember correctly were made arbitrarily by some bloke in England who had never been to India.. to be fair to the brits they didn't know which way Kashmir would swing therefore I think letting India have a non mountainous route to Kashmir is quite pragmatic and wise on their part....

before the borders of Pakistan were drawn, the relation between Pakistan and India would not have been envisaged at being this bad (I mean these people had lived together had culutral contacts and lived in harmony for milleniums for all practical purposes they were treated as a singular entity) . so I don't think it would have mattered if one or two districts went here and there keeping in mind the "happiness" or will of Kashmiris (it is another matter that plebiscite or elections are yet to be held) and also the fact that Muslims were getting there state...


as for Hyderabad even under the British it was not an independent monarchy per se..(I am not sure but British had suzerainity over Hyderabad) another contention is that Free "India" had overwhelming decided to have the govt of the Demos and not monarchs.. hence it was imperative for Monarchs to honour the will of the people..

Nizam of Hyderabad (though I don't if he was entitled to enforce his will on the subjects but he) ought to have honoured the will of the people.. which could have been judged by the public mood, statisitics, demographics and to be sure by means of an election


as for the Kashmiri King his indecision like his barbaric rule led to the ruin of Kashmir... his PM had made it clear that it would not be a monarchy as the King would've had a (secret?) desire of... the two choices were Pakistan and India... and the rest of the story is now coloured b/w India and Pakistan...

 

[mujahideen]

should have? now here is the thing..
the maps and boundary if I remember correctly were made arbitrarily by some bloke in England who had never been to India.. to be fair to the brits they didn't know which way Kashmir would swing therefore I think letting India have a non mountainous route to Kashmir is quite pragmatic and wise on their part....

before the borders of Pakistan were drawn, the relation between Pakistan and India would not have been envisaged at being this bad (I mean these people had lived together had culutral contacts and lived in harmony for milleniums for all practical purposes they were treated as a singular entity) . so I don't think it would have mattered if one or two districts went here and there keeping in mind the "happiness" or will of Kashmiris (it is another matter that plebiscite or elections are yet to be held) and also the fact that Muslims were getting there state...


as for Hyderabad even under the British it was not an independent monarchy per se..(I am not sure but British had suzerainity over Hyderabad) another contention is that Free "India" had overwhelming decided to have the govt of the Demos and not monarchs.. hence it was imperative for Monarchs to honour the will of the people..

Nizam of Hyderabad (though I don't if he was entitled to enforce his will on the subjects but he) ought to have honoured the will of the people.. which could have been judged by the public mood, statisitics, demographics and to be sure by means of an election


as for the Kashmiri King his indecision like his barbaric rule led to the ruin of Kashmir... his PM had made it clear that it would not be a monarchy as the King would've had a (secret?) desire of... the two choices were Pakistan and India... and the rest of the story is now coloured b/w India and Pakistan...

Your analysis are no doubt correct in some aspects. Like the one you gave of hyderabad it was a Hindu majority state and I think if an election was held Hyderabad would of gone to India, but the fact is this election was never allowed to be held because India invaded before such a step could be taken. I think they should of waited for the election because this would of given them legal control of that area and other statea such as Jundagh, Kashmir and others.
Now this is just one view, the other view or the legal view which was agreed to by both sides was that all Princely states were to e given three choices. They were either join India, join Pakistan or declare independence and then move from their. Now Jundagh had acceded to Pakistan Hyderabad had declared independence and I know for a fact that as soon as India's blockade of that state began the government of Hyderabad had formally signed the accession papers for the state to acced to Pakistan.
As far as Kashmir goes India is right when it says Kashmir acced to India and thus belongs to India and it is Pakistan that is the occupying force. But then again Hyderabad and Jundagh had also acceded to Pakistan and India is the occupying force. Now if India has occupied Jundagh, Hyderabad and other states on the basis that they were majority Hindu states then they must give Kashmir to Pakistan on the basis that it is a majority muslim state.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

should have? now here is the thing..
the maps and boundary if I remember correctly were made arbitrarily by some bloke in England who had never been to India.. to be fair to the brits they didn't know which way Kashmir would swing therefore I think letting India have a non mountainous route to Kashmir is quite pragmatic and wise on their part....

That is a flawed assertion, because Pakistan was expected to survive and "retain contact" with two wings separated by a much greater distance, so why extend "special favors" for India by putting Muslim majority districts on its side?

before the borders of Pakistan were drawn, the relation between Pakistan and India would not have been envisaged at being this bad (I mean these people had lived together had culutral contacts and lived in harmony for milleniums for all practical purposes they were treated as a singular entity) . so I don't think it would have mattered if one or two districts went here and there keeping in mind the "happiness" or will of Kashmiris (it is another matter that plebiscite or elections are yet to be held) and also the fact that Muslims were getting there state...

If the relationship had been "harmonious for millennium" (PS: The subcontinent was considered a single entity only when subjugated by a colonial power and governed as a colony - other than that it has always existed as hodgepodge of sovereign empires, kingdoms, princely states etc. - never a "single entity") and given that Pakistan was divided into two wings, there was no reason to not expect India to deal with Kashmir, in case of accession to it, the same way West Pakistan and East Pakistan were to deal with each other.

 

[mujahideen]

We are not talking about todays population but the population as it was in 1947.In 1947 according to the best information I have Ferozpur, Gurdaspur and Junagarh had muslim majority population and should have joined Pakistan. They were located with Punjab and there was no issue of land access to them from Pakistan. However just to provide land route for India to Kashmir these areas were given to India.
As for Hyderabad its nawab declared independence and was annexed by India using force.

Well I have to correct you here Jundagh was not a muslim majority state, I really dont know about Ferozpur and Gurdaspur so i wont comment. Jundagh was not connect to Pakistan by land but its advantage was it was near the ocean and some suggested that later the capital would be moved their because was not connected to either wing, it was about 200 miles for Karachi. Now you are totally right India needed a land route to Kashmir and the Viceroy was well aware of that and he and Nehru drew up this boundary because of this excuse. It must also be noted Nehru had a personal connection to Kashmir, because his family came from their and he wanted to retain Kashmir at all costs.

 

[Malang]

Your analysis are no doubt correct in some aspects. Like the one you gave of hyderabad it was a Hindu majority state and I think if an election was held Hyderabad would of gone to India, but the fact is this election was never allowed to be held because India invaded before such a step could be taken. I think they should of waited for the election because this would of given them legal control of that area and other statea such as Jundagh, Kashmir and others.

I am not absolutely sure of what was going on in the then Minister Patel's mind but here is an attempt at the same nonetheless (please take this with a pinch of salt since Sardar Patel is not a figure I have had much of a reading on..)

1. the people of princely states wanted as much freedom as those under the suzerain of princely states..

2. most of the princely states had "agreed" to accede to either of the 2 nations(for the life of me I can't remember where I read this.. I shall look it up though)

3. Mr. Patel probably wanted to get over with the whole princely state thing and hurry up the integration of India..

4. Further having a "3rd Pakistan" or a Monarchy would have set the tone for other grumbling princely states and minorities to rebel or ask for greater autonomity etc.

5. Since electiosn in the princely states would have hardly been free, fair esp depending on who was more powerful/influential at the time(eg. the PM of Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah wielded considerably more influence and power than then Monarch)... and since the country naturally as a consequence of partition was beseeched with a humanitarian crisis, it was not possible for them to open talks or act as observers etc.

6. change in geo-politics and the hate that had emerged from partition made sure that it was either us or them and nothing in the middle. the location of certain states were quite important strategically as well..

these are some of the reasons I think would have made Sardar Patel act the way he did (barring for now his mental make up and temperament)

Now this is just one view, the other view or the legal view which was agreed to by both sides was that all Princely states were to e given three choices. They were either join India, join Pakistan or declare independence and then move from their.

Under the British ostensibly if you observe they dealt fairly but once you go into the nitty grittys .. fairness and equality was simply not adhered to..

Though the monarchy states were given a freedom of choice but Which as per my earlier contention was already mostly pre-decided so it was less of a choice.. further both countries had promised the princely states their jagirs, right to lands etc. so for them it was accepting instead of British, Indian or Pakistani lordship...

further the monarchs "ought" to have adhered (and later mostly did adhere )to their citizens will and not act as per their own whims or the whims of their adivsiors (none of the ruling families of the princely states were particularly known for their good governance but were rather famous for the poverty, famines occurring in their lands while they enjoyed their harems and reveled in their hedonistic lifestyles)

Now Jundagh had acceded to Pakistan Hyderabad had declared independence and I know for a fact that as soon as India's blockade of that state began the government of Hyderabad had formally signed the accession papers for the state to acced to Pakistan.

Junagadh and Hyderabad were both Muslim ruled states with Hindu majority..

this was the situation which was responsible for Pakistan really..

Muslims were amongst the elite in Indian subcontinent and ushering of democracy would have negated their powers and privileged status which they had enjoyed due to their faith.. further the monarchs would have felt "guilty/fearful/apprehensive/paranoid" of a backlash/revolt/revolution by their citizens (due to their ill rule or discrimination or policies or their paranoia or a reason to ""psyche"" themselves possibly?? etc. etc.) (those were quite lawless times so their paranoia might not have been entirely unfounded)

so I would have expected the heads of states of Hyderabad and Junagadh to accede to Pakistan when things got heated....

As far as Kashmir goes India is right when it says Kashmir acced to India and thus belongs to India and it is Pakistan that is the occupying force.

To be honest you are the first person of Pakistani origin to have said this...

But then again Hyderabad and Jundagh had also acceded to Pakistan and India is the occupying force. Now if India has occupied Jundagh, Hyderabad and other states on the basis that they were majority Hindu states then they must give Kashmir to Pakistan on the basis that it is a majority muslim state.

see the underlying fight here is on the 2 nation theory..

an Indian will see ascension of Hyderabad and Junagadh as will of demos
and ascension of Kashmir as a rejection by muslims (and inherent failure?) of 2-nation theory..

a Pakistani will see ascension of Hyderabad and Junagad a further proof of the need for 2 nation theory since India bullied its way in them

Kashmir for a Pakistan can be thought of as a much greater confirmation of 2 nation theory due to its unique nature because it has a muslim majority & that India has never held plebiscite ... (the killings of Muslim etc. is nonetheless propagandastic in nature and again reiterates 2 nation theory.. but if this was true I would imagine killings of muslims all over India.. but nonetheless for a Paksitan to say Kashmiris are tortured and for Indians to say they are not tortured is a necessary and critical shouting match.. as a component of the reason for their existence..)


the only soln. here is either dissolution of either Pakistan or India (hence absolute rejection or validation of 2-nation theory) or by use of force...

diplomacy, talks etc. are all futile because of the nature of the underlying causes of Kashmir..

another thing I would like to add is that both parties are just hoodwinking all if they have any empathy with the Kashmiris for they would have had teh Kashmir would have been solved and usually the party which loves most makes the sacrifice...

to sum up Kashmir is the ultimate verification or rejection of 2 nation theory..(the dissolution of Bangladesh was a sever blow to it and if I were a "ultranationalistic" Pakistani with full faith in Jinnah/2 nation theory, I would never withdraw Pakistan's claim on Kashmir... and vice versa for Indians)

 

[Malang]

That is a flawed assertion, because Pakistan was expected to survive and "retain contact" with two wings separated by a much greater distance, so why extend "special favors" for India by putting Muslim majority districts on its side?

Now you are totally right India needed a land route to Kashmir and the Viceroy was well aware of that and he and Nehru drew up this boundary because of this excuse. It must also be noted Nehru had a personal connection to Kashmir, because his family came from their and he wanted to retain Kashmir at all costs.

with all fairness boundaries were drawn arbitrarily... but giving 2-3 districts with an insignificant amount of land area would've helped a "friendly" (at least at the claimed to be) nation of Pakistan... a gesture of goodwill if you may...

further regarding Kashmir(these views may result in some negative responses but anyways)

1. Sheikh Abdullah was inmical to Jinnah (and had more sway over the masses than any other person in Kashmir)
2. the monarch was a hindu (and a bad ruler with an ambition to continue his "ill" rule)
3. Kashmir had a majority muslim population...

1. if the will of Sheikh Abdullah would have prevailed.. Kashmir would have been either pro-India or neutral(I am not sure if a provision was made of Making any of the princely states an independent nation minus the monarchy?? or the monarchy would've had a puppet rule.)
2. if the will of the monarch would have prevailed.. Kashmir would have been neutral(king was disliked by both Indians and Pakistanis besides Kashmiris)
3. if the will of the population would have prevailed.. Kashmir would have been either pro-india or pro-pakistan.. (anti-monarchy, I am not sure if a provision was made of Making any of the princely states an independent nation minus the monarchy?? or the monarchy would've had a puppet rule)

so in the case of Kashmir.. the monarch was inconsequential... there were 3 choices India, Pakistan or a neutral state..

if it went with India.. it would have been desirable for Kashmir to be linked to India with a land route (so that in case situation with Pakistan deteriorated) so Kashmir wouldn't be cut off...

if it were neutral again due to Kashmir's position if either of the parties turned inmical Kashmir wouldn't be cut off either ways..

if it were with pakistan it already has a route to Kashmir and denying Kashmir land access to India would have been desirable...

so by (law of probablity) giving a few districts to India would've resulted in not such a significant loss to Paksitan or a significant addition to India but would've significantly improved the future situation of Kashmir (by law of simple probablity)...

(another thing I would like to add is that.. before actual partition it was said that the people could travel back and forth .. so the british bloke designing the map could've felt that muslims of gurdaspur etc. wouldn't be put at much difficulty since it was so near the border... this is speculation really)

Mujahideen:

what you say could be correct.. but if Nehru had good terms with the British he would have got more territory for India... but I think Jinnah had far better relations with British than Nehru's with them... which went a long way in creation of Pakistan.. my 2 cents...

If the relationship had been "harmonious for millennium" (PS: The subcontinent was considered a single entity only when subjugated by a colonial power and governed as a colony - other than that it has always existed as hodgepodge of sovereign empires, kingdoms, princely states etc. - never a "single entity") and given that Pakistan was divided into two wings, there was no reason to not expect India to deal with Kashmir, in case of accession to it, the same way West Pakistan and East Pakistan were to deal with each other.

I didn't quite get this??

 

[mujahideen]

Mujahideen:
what you say could be correct.. but if Nehru had good terms with the British he would have got more territory for India... but I think Jinnah had far better relations with British than Nehru's with them... which went a long way in creation of Pakistan.. my 2 cents...QUOTE]

The fact is the Quaid-I-Azam was one person no one wanted to do business with. He was well focused on his goal and it was hard to change his mind. As far as relationships go Nehru was very close to Viceroy's wife and we cant forget that while the boundary line was being created Nehru was at the table and influenced Riducliff. Now as far as getting more territory is concerned India got was more territory then it deserved, the main reason why Pakistan was cheated was because the Quaid-I-Azam refused to give Mountbatten the job of the Governor-General of Pakistan. He wanted to be the Governor General of both countries and when the Quaid-I-Azam refused to give him the post his self-esteem was hurt and he became more hostile towards Pakistan. This is another reason why Pakistan didn't even get its rightful share of assets.