Asaduddin Owaisi tells Pakistan to stop meddling in Kashmir

[Joe Shearer]

You betcha!



We're nowhere near that good at it though. That too I think Keyser Soze frankly gave even Satan a run for his money.

Poor HakHik. He's lapsing out of neo-palaeo-Turkish quite often nowadays.

 

[IceCold]

This is precisely what I meant about writing one's own narrative. Hari Singh acceded to India while still in Kashmir. For your ready reference, he signed the document in Srinagar; he shifted from Srinagar to Jammu; one was the summer capital, the other was the winter capital. Both were essential parts of Jammu & Kashmir; that was the name of the princely state, too. It was not Kashmir.

As for Kashmir always being part of India, the princely state consisted of several components, conquered, acquired and bought by the Dogras at different times. Is it your contention that every single portion of the agglomeration was not Indian?

Think about it.



There is a maxim that lawyers and judges use, and that you might keep in mind: Only he should approach the courts for justice who comes with clean hands.



Where did you get this wholly mistaken impression? Who told you that there was a rule of partition that all Muslim majority areas were to come to Pakistan, and not to India? If your basic facts are incorrect, what can be done?

Are you even willing to correct your mistakes and the gaps in your knowledge?

The Prince signed documents of accession, at the time when around 77% of the population were muslims and the prince did not represent the majority. The Partition happened based on the fact i.e Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations and so the predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new nation of Pakistan.

In June 1947, the nationalist leaders, including Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad on behalf of the Congress, Jinnah representing the Muslim League, B. R. Ambedkar representing the Untouchable community, and Master Tara Singh representing the Sikhs, agreed to a partition of the country along religious lines in stark opposition to Gandhi's views. The predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new nation of Pakistan

Based on the above Kashmir although a princely state was a predominantly Muslim area with more than 70% Muslim majority and Hindu prince made a unilateral decision without first taking the voice of his subjects if we were to believe the treaty of accession. Than comes this

In 1931, in response to a sermon that had tones of opposition to the government, the villages of Jandial, Makila, and Dana were ransacked and destroyed by the Dogra army, with their inhabitants burned alive. A legislative assembly, with no real power, was created in January, 1947. It issued one statement that represented the will of the Muslim people: "After carefully considering the position, the conference has arrived at the conclusion that accession of the State to Pakistan is absolutely necessary in view of the geographic, economic, linguistic, cultural and religious conditions…It is therefore necessary that the State should accede to Pakistan. This is one of the rare instances that an elected block of the people of Kashmir had been given the chance to speak. Representing the subjects who elected them, they sought accession with Muslim Pakistan. Prem Nath Bazaz, founder of the Kashmir Socialist Party in 1943, a reliable primary source of history, reiterated that a majority of Kashmiris were against the decision of the Maharajah in his book, The History of The Struggle of Freedom In Kashmir. He writes, "The large majority of the population of the State, almost the entire Muslim community and an appreciable number of non Muslims was totally against the Maharjah declaring accession to India." This statement, and the decision reached by the legislative assembly are important because they dispel any belief that the Kashmiris' religious ties with Pakistan did not necessarily indicate a will to unite. Indeed, the ethnic bond between Kashmir and Pakistan influenced a majority of the people to seek accession with Pakistan. The Hindu Maharajah would not listen, and continued to delay his decision about which nation to join. Still, even though Hari Singh’s actions were wrong, they do not compare to the deplorable pressure and tactics applied by India to capture Kashmir

Again the highlighted part, Indians claim everywhere that India sent army only after treaty of accession and when Maharajah requested support while historians tend to disagree. Here

Alaistar Lamb, author of a series of books on Kashmir, has discovered evidence based on declassified military papers that India had Patalia gunners at the Sringar airport by October 17 1947, and has scoffed at the Indian apologists who propose that India’s invasion of Kashmir was the triumph of improvisation. Instead, he states that India had troops mobilized for an invasion of Kashmir by October 25th This would mean that India’s army was in Kashmir before the decision of the Mahrajah. With India’s army already in Kashmir it is obvious why the Maharajah would hand his country over to India

When it comes to Kashmir India says the Maharajah had signed the accession even though the area was a muslim majority and called Pakistan an aggressor while on the other hand when the leader of Hyderabad decided to join Pakistan instead of India, India invaded it in September. Talk about hypocrisy.


PS sorry for the delayed response as busy in the office routine. Plus lots of things tend to skip your mind when burden of real life falls on ones shoulder. So wanted to read a bit on the basis of our claims before i responded to you and not just shoot in the dark.
And I respect you for your views and knowledge. I dont necessarily have to agree with them but does not mean i cannot respect them.

Best

 

[Hellfire]

Outside of such assumptions and hope (of a Pakistani stagnation or regression), the 'getting ducks in a row' idea you posited seems rather far fetched.

That is exclusively for you to believe/disbelieve. I can only comment on what is happening as openly sourced.

I only comment on topics that I have been trained in/professionally dealt with/acquired a formal education at.

As many violations as India has undertaken. We can keep going back through history and tallying up the violations, but at the end of the day neither side is innocent.

Precisely.

So, how does one approach the issue? Firstly, as per the proclaimed objective of insuring and ensuring the welfare of the Kashmiris, Pakistan can adopt a hands off approach. That is a suggestion that can be evaluated for it's merits. The moment that happens, the onus shifts on to India to reduce the level of violence as no "excuse" for use of force will remain. Also, serves to emphatically indicate the intent of Pakistan. What stops Pakistan from actually walking the talk? Forget the retort of 'India this...' and 'India that...'. The point is - what has Pakistan done to achieve peace for Kashmiris?

India and Pakistan have only one 'mutually agreed upon means of resolution of the J&K Dispute', which are the UNSC Resolutions..

Which were not implemented from the very first resolution. Were they?

And the last 'mutually agreed upon means' on the issue is the Simla Agreement, what stopped Pakistan from upholding at least that, in 1999 and 2007? Was it because it became a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan? Or was it because independence for Kashmir was not on table?

If the latter, what stops you from moving out of what you call AJK and GB and making a new country out of them? Walk the talk at some point! Let them apply to UN. Start the process.

And if the question of independence is not there (in our case that is a case), then why did Pakistan subvert attempts at peace by actions as taken?

India reneged on them and one could argue that subsequent military attempts to alter the status qou by Pakistan were a response to India's violation of her international commitment to the UNSC Resolutions.

Seriously? Operation Gulmarg was surely a diplomatic initiative of Pakistan against the independent State of Jammu & Kashmir then.

What are your comments on breaching the 'standstill agreement' that the Independent State of Jammu & Kashmir had signed with both Dominion of Pakistan and Dominion of India and yet you felt a need to invade them on 20 October 1947? Was that the 'good interests of the Kashmiris at heart' intent at play?

Junagadh acceded to Pakistan and its accession was accepted by Pakistan in 1947. Munavadh, I don't recall.

Indulging in a purely theoretical/intellectual exercise here:

And what happened? What did Pakistan do to undertake the defence of it's territories, may I ask?

In the case of J&K, Indian forces were sent upon the signature of Instrument of Accession.

If they were indeed incorporated into the State of Pakistan, it is for you to direct the queries on the status to the concerned leadership of your country. The analogical reference of Kashmir and Junagad is laughable at best as in the case of former, the State intervened militarily to buttress it's 'claims' arising out of an 'accession' while in the latter, the State claims accession but did not undertake any action to demonstrate/safeguard it's interests (apart from complaining at UN).

regards

I would suggest that India is already doing whatever it can to encourage the Baluchistan issue reach a boil. Where we are heading next will become clear once the US position in Afghanistan is finalized. It won't be long.

That remains a suggestion.

If the intervention in Baluchistan was a baseball, Indian actions are in Rookie League. Your Major League has some other neighbour and allies playing out their game.

Only serious attempt at playing Baluchistan angle was made by Modi in August 2016, for exactly 1 day, after that, we were the rookie league bottom dwellers and will remain as such.

Meanwhile, the allies of Pakistan and the other neighbour play out their game in the Major League. So how does Pakistan present the dilemma it faces - of course ... call out the 'rookie'

In all seriousness, if Baluchistan ever becomes of interest for India in terms of undertaking an action with any intent, results will be seen very quickly. But like I have been saying for over a decade now, a de-stabilized Pakistan is not in our interest. Hence, some sort of game will keep being played out there.

 

[M. Sarmad]

What are your comments on breaching the 'standstill agreement' that the Independent State of Jammu & Kashmir had signed with both Dominion of Pakistan and Dominion of India and yet you felt a need to invade them on 20 October 1947? Was that the 'good interests of the Kashmiris at heart' intent at play?

No, Sir, India didn't sign a Standstill Agreement with the State of Jammu and Kashmir,
Only Pakistan did (on Aug 15th, 1947). And that precisely is why Maharaja Hari Singh's accession to India was 'illegal' as it was in violation of the Standstill Agreement which was still in force at the time of the signing of the alleged Instrument of Accession (with India )



And we did not invade them on Oct 20, or even later, That's just an unsubstantiated allegation.

India took the matter to the UN in 1948 and accused Pakistan of giving assistance to the invading forces, "including, but not limited to, the supply of arms and ammunition."

Pakistan, instead of answering the specific charges of aggression, filed countercharges against the government
of India under Article 35, charging it with the breach of international agreements, incitement of revolution, "numerous attacks on Pakistan territory," and an "extensive campaign of genocide. . . the object [of which] is the destruction of the state of Pakistan


Pakistani diplomats prevailed, Pakistan was not declared an Aggressor State in Kashmir by the UN and the "The Kashmir Question" was changed to "India-Pakistan Question" on Pakistan's request

India accused Pakistan of assisting the invading tribals, Pakistan accused India of 'sponsoring' Muslim genocide in Jammu that led to the tribal raid. We can play this accusation and counter-accusation game all day long.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is precisely what I meant about writing one's own narrative. Hari Singh acceded to India while still in Kashmir. For your ready reference, he signed the document in Srinagar; he shifted from Srinagar to Jammu; one was the summer capital, the other was the winter capital. Both were essential parts of Jammu & Kashmir; that was the name of the princely state, too. It was not Kashmir.

As for Kashmir always being part of India, the princely state consisted of several components, conquered, acquired and bought by the Dogras at different times. Is it your contention that every single portion of the agglomeration was not Indian?

Think about it.



There is a maxim that lawyers and judges use, and that you might keep in mind: Only he should approach the courts for justice who comes with clean hands.



Where did you get this wholly mistaken impression? Who told you that there was a rule of partition that all Muslim majority areas were to come to Pakistan, and not to India? If your basic facts are incorrect, what can be done?

Are you even willing to correct your mistakes and the gaps in your knowledge?
Click to expand...

The Prince signed documents of accession, at the time when around 77% of the population were muslims and the prince did not represent the majority. The Partition happened based on the fact i.e Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations and so the predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new nation of Pakistan.

You are of course aware that this slides together the basis on which British India was partitioned, and the basis on which the princely states were given their choices? These majority rules did not apply to the states, but implicitly it was taken care of by Mountbatten's clear and positive guidelines to the rulers: contiguity was a must (applies to Junagadh and Hyderabad); joining one or the other was a must - no option of independence.

In every discussion, in every single discussion, my Pakistani friends bring in this unshakeable belief they have that the arrangements covered BOTH the directly-ruled British India Crown colony AND the princely states. Please try to remember: the Radcliffe Award meticulously determined the dividing line between India and Pakistan, everywhere that the Crown Colony was concerned, and nowhere that a princely state was concerned.

Is the distinction difficult to understand, or can we both conclude that the implications are too fundamental for any Pakistani to accept?

Abul Kalam Azad on behalf of the Congress, Jinnah representing the Muslim League, B. R. Ambedkar representing the Untouchablecommunity, and Master Tara Singh representing the Sikhs, agreed to a partition of the country along religious lines in stark opposition to Gandhi's views. The predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new nation of Pakistan

Based on the above Kashmir although a princely state was a predominantly Muslim area with more than 70% Muslim majority and Hindu prince made a unilateral decision without first taking the voice of his subjects if we were to believe the treaty of accession. Than comes this

The narration from the Pakistani side is ALWAYS this: "ALTHOUGH a princely state....."

In other words, we know that the basis was different, but we OUGHT to have been given Kashmir, and so on. Whatever was agreed was not good enough; whatever is agreed is never good enough, whether we are discussing Kashmir, or the decision to handle disputes bilaterally, or the decision to stop interfering in each other's internal affairs, or the decision on how to share the Indus Waters, or anything else. No agreement, no treaty is acceptable to Pakistan even after agreement and endorsement; it must always be revised to favour Pakistan, or it is an unfair agreement.

Alaistar Lamb, author of a series of books on Kashmir, has discovered evidence based on declassified military papers that India had Patalia gunners at the Sringar airport by October 17 1947, and has scoffed at the Indian apologists who propose that India’s invasion of Kashmir was the triumph of improvisation. Instead, he states that India had troops mobilized for an invasion of Kashmir by October 25th This would mean that India’s army was in Kashmir before the decision of the Mahrajah. With India’s army already in Kashmir it is obvious why the Maharajah would hand his country over to India

India had? If you take a cursory look at the post-independence history of the unification of the princely states with the Indian Union (V. P. Menon's book is the most authoritative), you will see for yourself that Patiala acted independently, and did not wait for orders or advice from the Union Government.

Patiala State forces acted independently; there was no coordination, no information, no direction whatsoever. They were not even in the chain of command.

Second, there is a serious mistake in interpreting the statement that Indian troops were ready for deployment by the 25th. It DOES NOT mean that troops were deployed; the deployment started late on the evening of the 26th, after consideration of the Instrument of Accession and instructions to the DMO, then Manekshaw, to move; the deployed troops started fighting as soon as they disembarked, and were in action on the 27th. If they had already been there, why would they have been waiting around?

Alastair Lamb makes much of nothing at all; the Indian Army was standing by from much earlier, Mountbatten had suggested a provisional accession to provide for military aid, but Nehru and Patel were in agreement that it should be the real thing, or nothing. So they waited; not in silence, Menon and Manekshaw were sent to Srinagar to get a document from the Maharaja or to report back that he was not going to sign. There was no agreement until they went to Srinagar.

When it comes to Kashmir India says the Maharajah had signed the accession even though the area was a muslim majority and called Pakistan an aggressor while on the other hand when the leader of Hyderabad decided to join Pakistan instead of India, India invaded it in September. Talk about hypocrisy.

The rule of contiguity had been conveyed clearly. Hyderabad knew that it was playing games; the Nawab of Chhatri saw what was going on, and resigned in protest. Again, these were rules that were conveyed to Mountbatten in his interview with George VI; in what way did India come into the picture? Did we have anything to do with forming these rules?
======================================================================

Now please read on; the next section is different.

 

[Hellfire]

Indeed. Off topic but how Do you see the idea of laser fences for LOC. Do you think its a good idea and how effective will it be?

Personal opinion - not suitable for the terrain (which is undulating) and difficult to deploy.

UGS (unattended ground sensors) are equally painful. More false positives.

That was not his strongest moment. He believes that the Stand Still Agreement was a permanent treaty of some sort, and that resisting the invasion was a breach of that agreement. Not allowing Pakistani officers in mufti to massacre the people of Baramula and take over the Valley was a breach of that agreement.

But that should not discourage an appreciation of the stout defence put up by Sarmad Sahib, and his very intelligent reading of history and re-interpretation to favour the Pakistani case.

Yes, his postings are a treat to read.

On an unrelated topic, recall the Mig-21 painted in PAF colours kept as 'war trophy' by our lot, a photograph oft posted here? Well, something interesting. Wonder what was this about:

source: Soviet Political and Military Conduct in the Middle East by A Sella
Springer, 1981
ISBN 1349165123, 9781349165124


It was pointed out to me that few Syrian Mig-21s had been sent over to Pakistan in 1971 war to aid it in the effort against India. Am not able to get to the bottom of this one yet, but the fact that Jordanian F-104s were also sent to bolster PAF (as also admitted subsequently by the King) and the close cooperation between PAF and the Syrian Airforce (1967 & 73), surely has my interest piqued.

Trying to ascertain if the Mig21s indeed came and if so, did they fly any combat mission against IAF?

@Nilgiri any clues?

@Signalian Another tidbit for you to consider. Aware of this one?

 

[VCheng]

That remains a suggestion.

If the intervention in Baluchistan was a baseball, Indian actions are in Rookie League. Your Major League has some other neighbour and allies playing out their game.

Only serious attempt at playing Baluchistan angle was made by Modi in August 2016, for exactly 1 day, after that, we were the rookie league bottom dwellers and will remain as such.

Meanwhile, the allies of Pakistan and the other neighbour play out their game in the Major League. So how does Pakistan present the dilemma it faces - of course ... call out the 'rookie'

In all seriousness, if Baluchistan ever becomes of interest for India in terms of undertaking an action with any intent, results will be seen very quickly. But like I have been saying for over a decade now, a de-stabilized Pakistan is not in our interest. Hence, some sort of game will keep being played out there.

Can we agree that India, even as a "rookie", is playing the Baluchistan game as best as it cares to play for the moment?

 

[Goku-kun]

You are of course aware that this slides together the basis on which British India was partitioned, and the basis on which the princely states were given their choices? These majority rules did not apply to the states, but implicitly it was taken care of by Mountbatten's clear and positive guidelines to the rulers: contiguity was a must (applies to Junagadh and Hyderabad); joining one or the other was a must - no option of independence.

In every discussion, in every single discussion, my Pakistani friends bring in this unshakeable belief they have that the arrangements covered BOTH the directly-ruled British India Crown colony AND the princely states. Please try to remember: the Radcliffe Award meticulously determined the dividing line between India and Pakistan, everywhere that the Crown Colony was concerned, and nowhere that a princely state was concerned.

Is the distinction difficult to understand, or can we both conclude that the implications are too fundamental for any Pakistani to accept?





The narration from the Pakistani side is ALWAYS this: "ALTHOUGH a princely state....."

In other words, we know that the basis was different, but we OUGHT to have been given Kashmir, and so on. Whatever was agreed was not good enough; whatever is agreed is never good enough, whether we are discussing Kashmir, or the decision to handle disputes bilaterally, or the decision to stop interfering in each other's internal affairs, or the decision on how to share the Indus Waters, or anything else. No agreement, no treaty is acceptable to Pakistan even after agreement and endorsement; it must always be revised to favour Pakistan, or it is an unfair agreement.



India had? If you take a cursory look at the post-independence history of the unification of the princely states with the Indian Union (V. P. Menon's book is the most authoritative), you will see for yourself that Patiala acted independently, and did not wait for orders or advice from the Union Government.

Patiala State forces acted independently; there was no coordination, no information, no direction whatsoever. They were not even in the chain of command.

Second, there is a serious mistake in interpreting the statement that Indian troops were ready for deployment by the 25th. It DOES NOT mean that troops were deployed; the deployment started late on the evening of the 26th, after consideration of the Instrument of Accession and instructions to the DMO, then Manekshaw, to move; the deployed troops started fighting as soon as they disembarked, and were in action on the 27th. If they had already been there, why would they have been waiting around?

Alastair Lamb makes much of nothing at all; the Indian Army was standing by from much earlier, Mountbatten had suggested a provisional accession to provide for military aid, but Nehru and Patel were in agreement that it should be the real thing, or nothing. So they waited; not in silence, Menon and Manekshaw were sent to Srinagar to get a document from the Maharaja or to report back that he was not going to sign. There was no agreement until they went to Srinagar.



The rule of contiguity had been conveyed clearly. Hyderabad knew that it was playing games; the Nawab of Chhatri saw what was going on, and resigned in protest. Again, these were rules that were conveyed to Mountbatten in his interview with George VI; in what way did India come into the picture? Did we have anything to do with forming these rules?
======================================================================

Now please read on; the next section is different.

even Mahraja signed accession on some conditions and that's the reason you have article 370 and 35A.
Try to read it:
so much autonomy in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_of_Accession_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)

1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the governor-general of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall, by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as "this State") such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August, 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as "the Act").
2. I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to the provisions of the ACT within this state so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession.
3. I accept the matters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislatures may make laws for this state.
4. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor General and the ruler of this state whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this state of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the ruler of this state, then any such agreement shall be deem to form part of this Instrument and shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
5. The terms of this my Instrument of accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 unless such amendment is accepted by me by an Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.
6. Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this state authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purposes of a Dominion law which applies in this state deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense or if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice Of India.
7. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future constitution.
8. Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over this state, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this state or the validity of any law at present in force in this state.
9. I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this state and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the ruler of the state is to be construed as including to my heirs and successors.

Given under my hand this 26th day of OCTOBER nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Hari Singh

Maharajadhiraj of Jammu and Kashmir State.

I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession. Dated this twenty seventh day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

(Mountbatten of Burma, Governor General of India).

The accession does clearly indicate that with so much autonomy Kashmir can never be a part of india.

 

[VCheng]

It was pointed out to me that few Syrian Mig-21s had been sent over to Pakistan in 1971 war to aid it in the effort against India. Am not able to get to the bottom of this one yet, but the fact that Jordanian F-104s were also sent to bolster PAF (as also admitted subsequently by the King) and the close cooperation between PAF and the Syrian Airforce (1967 & 73), surely has my interest piqued.

Trying to ascertain if the Mig21s indeed came and if so, did they fly any combat mission against IAF?

PAF pilots flew those jets in the ME skies in preparation, but they were not used in in actual combat in the Indo-Pak war.

 

[Hellfire]

No, Sir, India didn't sign a Standstill Agreement with the State of Jammu and Kashmir,

I stand corrected. We did not sign.

Our reply to the original telegram:

"Government of India wou:id be glad if you or some other Minister duly authorised in this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between Kashmir Government and India dominion. Early action desirable to maintain intact exlsting agreements and administrative arrangements."

So, does the above indicate an emphatic refusal of the same?

Only Pakistan did (on Aug 15th, 1947). And that precisely is why Maharaja Hari Singh's accession to India was 'illegal' as it was in violation of the Standstill Agreement which was still in force at the time of the signing of the alleged Instrument of Accession (with India )

Can you put out the exact terms and conditions of the 'Standstill Agreement' which forbade the Maharaja from taking any decision to accede to India?

And we did not invade them on Oct 20, or even later, That's just an unsubstantiated allegation.

Yes, yes. You never did. There was no war with India in 1947-48. Quite true.




There is no problem in Kashmir. End of problem

 

[M. Sarmad]

Y

India had? If you take a cursory look at the post-independence history of the unification of the princely states with the Indian Union (V. P. Menon's book is the most authoritative), you will see for yourself that Patiala acted independently, and did not wait for orders or advice from the Union Government.

Patiala State forces acted independently; there was no coordination, no information, no direction whatsoever. They were not even in the chain of command.
.

V. P. Menon? The advisor to British viceroys of India and later the Deputy Prime Minister of India?
The man played a vital role in the accession of Princely states to India predicated on fraud and violence, before and after partition. No one could be more unreliable than him when it came to the history of the unification of the princely states with the Indian Union.

And the Prince of Patiala was the first Indian Prince to accede his state to India. The very fact that Patiala was not an independent state but a part of India between August and October 1947 nullifies your argument of Patiala forces acting 'independently'

 

[Hellfire]

Can we agree that India, even as a "rookie", is playing the Baluchistan game as best as it cares to play for the moment?

And my precise point is .. not at all at best, if at all. I assure you.

Anyways am again out of here.

SELF DELETE AS INAPPROPRIATE OUTBURST

@WebMaster

You really need to get your moderators to behave like one instead of acting like one. Had tagged you earlier too.

Best of luck with your site.

 

[Goku-kun]

And my precise point is .. not at all at best, if at all. I assure you.

Anyways am again out of here.

Fucking idiotic moderators here.

they aren't idiots but you are an indiot LOL.
running away already? Yah, that's more like an indiot.good job.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The Prince signed documents of accession, at the time when around 77% of the population were muslims and the prince did not represent the majority. The Partition happened based on the fact i.e Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations and so the predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new nation of Pakistan.

Based on the above Kashmir although a princely state was a predominantly Muslim area with more than 70% Muslim majority and Hindu prince made a unilateral decision without first taking the voice of his subjects if we were to believe the treaty of accession. Than comes this



Again the highlighted part, Indians claim everywhere that India sent army only after treaty of accession and when Maharajah requested support while historians tend to disagree. Here


When it comes to Kashmir India says the Maharajah had signed the accession even though the area was a muslim majority and called Pakistan an aggressor while on the other hand when the leader of Hyderabad decided to join Pakistan instead of India, India invaded it in September. Talk about hypocrisy.


PS sorry for the delayed response as busy in the office routine. Plus lots of things tend to skip your mind when burden of real life falls on ones shoulder. So wanted to read a bit on the basis of our claims before i responded to you and not just shoot in the dark.
And I respect you for your views and knowledge. I dont necessarily have to agree with them but does not mean i cannot respect them.

Best

This is where I would like to place on record my respect for the deep understanding of the subject that has been displayed by @M. Sarmad (first and foremost, a partner in the discussion whom we sincerely respect), @AgNoStiC MuSliM, who has written with a firm grip on Pakistan's case, and @ice Cold, who has clearly done his homework.

Both @Vibrio and I have engaged with these three members - I should not speak for him, but ask him and others to bear with me - with respect; I believe that our language and our arguments reflect that respect. If at all it has fallen short of the highest standards of courtesy and civilised interaction, I would like to personally beg your pardon. If I - here I speak for myself, to absolve @Vibrio of any complicity in my failures - have refuted or contradicted some of the arguments that have been put forward, it is emphatically not due to any impression that those are put forward due to any lack of integrity.

Having said that, I would like to venture further afield. Why is there such a difference in the perception of these issues, on the Pakistani side, consistently, and on the Indian side, consistently? Let me put my own evaluation of the meta-logic - the logic behind the choice and selection of the logical arguments used - that seems to structure the views, the evidence gathering and the choice of exploratory fields.

On the Pakistani side, there is a feeling of having been cheated, again and again, not merely during the freedom struggle, but beyond that, during our long and abrasive years of co-existence.

First, the struggle rapidly saw the falling away of the professional Muslim classes, who saw their interests as distinctly under threat from the much larger Hindu professional classes (neither the Sikhs nor the Christians, forget about the Dalit or the tribal, seems to have been seen as threats, only the Hindus were); from a very early stage, from 1905, the first partition of Bengal itself. So the remarkable unity shown by the nascent middle classes and the artisan and leading craftsman classes in Indian society during the earlier agitation led by Surendranath Bannerjee was entirely depleted by the Muslim perception that Curzon's brazen divisive action, intended specifically to divide Indian society, and to defang the utterly disliked Bengali babu, was good for the left-behind Muslim upwardly mobile aspirations. In a year, in 1906, the Muslim League was formed; where and how? In Dhaka itself, the seat of the Muslim feeling that partitioning Bengal gave Muslims their place in the Sun that was being denied. How? By gathering the delegates to the All India conference on Muslim education! Can anything make it clearer where the Muslims felt that their interests lay? To them, education and Muslim separatism resonated; the separation was necessary to speed up education among the Muslims; speeding up was necessary because precious years had been lost in mourning the loss of empire in 1857, and the distinct shift in British sympathy away from the Muslim, especially the Muslim upper classes, who, inevitably, formed the corps of the Muslim professional classes, both due to social leadership, and due to financial and family support. Nothing could be done until and unless the Muslim aspirations to partnership in governing the country were met by a role in government and in the professions, and nothing could be done to satisfy these until Muslims were educated.

Second, during the struggle that followed, that we can divide into the period before Gandhi, and the period after Gandhi (we might just as easily create sub-sections to signify Jinnah's entry, but we can do that in any case at a later stage), the Muslim professional was absent, very largely; surprisingly, the Muslim support for Congress was based on the religious conservative classes among Muslims. Deoband and the orthodox favoured Congress over the Muslim League. The Congress could point to dozens of leaders who had led, and who had been jailed, and who were known widely. Until Jinnah returned from self-imposed exile, there was no strong figure on the Muslim League side, except for some of the giants from Bengal, who were forming their reputation in those years. To some extent, the Aga Khan filled the vacuum to some extent.

So the Muslim grievance was of being left out of consideration by the British while all these stirring goings on were, as it were, going on. This was over and above the feeling of having been left behind in the race for power.

Then came the clarion call from a revived Muslim League, led by a person with genuine charisma. Just as Gandhi had mobilised the masses in general in support of the Congress, Jinnah formed a pole around which the specifically Muslim interest could crystallise. I rather like the account in this URL:

https://revisitingindia.com/2017/07/27/2-the-rise-the-fall-and-the-return-of-jinnah/

The third grievance was the whole concept and idea of partition. Ayesha Jalal has argued very persuasively that Jinnah had not entirely walked away from the Young Jinnah who had been the poster child of Hindu-Muslim unity while the leading young light of the Congress; the Jinnah who had architected the Lucknow Pact of 1916; and that his pushing for Pakistan was a stalking horse to cover his actual intention: to give Muslims an impregnable bastion of power within the new India, a bastion that could not be swamped by the Hindu ocean. But when Nehru and Patel finally signalled that they were happy to separate, rather than work with a recalcitrant and obstructive League, there was no alternative left.

I will finish this later this evening.

even Mahraja signed accession on some conditions and that's the reason you have article 370 and 35A.
Try to read it:
so much autonomy in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_of_Accession_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)

1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the governor-general of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall, by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as "this State") such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August, 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as "the Act").
2. I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to the provisions of the ACT within this state so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession.
3. I accept the matters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislatures may make laws for this state.
4. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor General and the ruler of this state whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this state of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the ruler of this state, then any such agreement shall be deem to form part of this Instrument and shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
5. The terms of this my Instrument of accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 unless such amendment is accepted by me by an Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.
6. Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this state authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purposes of a Dominion law which applies in this state deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense or if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice Of India.
7. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future constitution.
8. Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over this state, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this state or the validity of any law at present in force in this state.
9. I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this state and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the ruler of the state is to be construed as including to my heirs and successors.

Given under my hand this 26th day of OCTOBER nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Hari Singh

Maharajadhiraj of Jammu and Kashmir State.

I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession. Dated this twenty seventh day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

(Mountbatten of Burma, Governor General of India).

The accession does clearly indicate that with so much autonomy Kashmir can never be a part of india.

I am well aware of this, thank you very much for your input.

Irrelevant.

He was not alone. Read up first, please, and read the other Instruments of Accession and find out how many of the acceding states set out to form their own constitutions.

V. P. Menon? The advisor to British viceroys of India and later the Deputy Prime Minister of India?
The man played a vital role in the accession of Princely states to India predicated on fraud and violence, before and after partition. No one could be more unreliable than him when it came to the history of the unification of the princely states with the Indian Union.

And the Prince of Patiala was the first Indian Prince to accede his state to India. The very fact that Patiala was not an independent state but a part of India between August and October 1947 nullifies your argument of Patiala forces acting 'independently'

Sir, that did not mean that the administration was immediately taken over. Nor did it mean that the Patiala State forces came under Indian Army control. Please do spend a little extra time reading up on the role of the Patiala troops and the conversations between the Maharajas of Patiala and J&K.

 

[Hellfire]

@Joe Shearer

True that. I share the sentiment.