How did Jammu and Kashmir become a part of India? 9 facts on Accession Day

[Hellfire]

Yes there have been and it's been proven without doubt that the rebellion was from native folks, my forefathers all fought in it. Yes the army came in later, you should have read the entire thread.

And you can surely go over my contribution to it then. So won't waste bandwidth here.

I didn't go as I live in the UK. I would have though.

Oh, should have. I did get the chance as was on an impromptu visit there and did get to meet Wing Commander Nikki Thomas ex-CO 12(B) Squadron of RAF.
Cheers

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

India feels , Kashmiri want to be in India
India feels Sikh want to be in India

No .... 2020, Khalistan Independence Decleration
Kashmiri People get their Freedom

 

[TMA]

Brahmins have always been the first to adopt Buddhism, Christianity and Islam in the subcontinent.

Is that so? Any other famous Brahmins who left the Sanatum Dharm or famous descendants of Brahmins?

maybe if people valued secular education more, we would have the means and intelligence through which to completely decimate any indian propaganda attempts. pakistan could be the pearl among dirt of south asia if it took the right steps toward human development.



yet people advocate for ghazwa e hind which from what i understand is to create a neo-mughal empire in south asia. the mughals were originally also invaders. a unified south asia would be far different from the british colonial era. the only things that would be similar are the borders.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choudhry_Rahmat_Ali#/media/File:MAPOFRAHMATPLAN.jpg

Allama Iqbal did not want Punjab divided and neither did Quaid E Azaam.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Ballot paper is already ready

Kashmir is already known issue

Mean while , Sikh are also being abused

 

[SabzShaheen]

So Ghazwa e Hind some say has happened and others say is incomplete...but either way to base foreign policy on the basis of a single Hadith is not sensible.
True the Mughals were invaders as were most empires in the Subcontinent of India. But the non Muslims of the (Subcontinent) India would not like that and the many Muslims would not like to be a minority in a unified (Subcontinent) India. That is the issue. It would be nice...but the realities on the ground make it non sensible.....

Insha'Allah it will happen, in fact I am very sure it will but you are right we shouldn't base current foreign policy on that. Peaceful coexistence is the number one priority. The population of Muslims and Hindus is fairly balanced but even if Hindus have larger numbers, the power can still rest in the hands of Muslims for the most part. It was like that during Mughal times.

About people valuing secular education....even the secularists are still thinking in terms of a (post)colonial narrative....they think we were one as well...

By secular education I mean math, english, science etc. Both Islamic and secular education are needed.

Is that so? Any other famous Brahmins who left the Sanatum Dharm or famous descendants of Brahmins?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choudhry_Rahmat_Ali#/media/File:MAPOFRAHMATPLAN.jpg

Allama Iqbal did not want Punjab divided and neither did Quaid E Azaam.

That's very interesting...
So Bangladesh or Bangistan (lol) was never meant to be a part of Pakistan according to the original plans of the Pakistan movement?

 

[TMA]

Insha'Allah it will happen, in fact I am very sure it will but you are right we shouldn't base current foreign policy on that. Peaceful coexistence is the number one priority. The population of Muslims and Hindus is fairly balanced but even if Hindus have larger numbers, the power can still rest in the hands of Muslims for the most part. It was like that during Mughal times.


By secular education I mean math, english, science etc. Both Islamic and secular education are needed.


That's very interesting...
So Bangladesh or Bangistan (lol) was never meant to be a part of Pakistan according to the original plans of the Pakistan movement?

No neither Rehmat Ali, Quaid e Azaam( originally) nor Allama Iqbal envisionised this.

Insha'Allah it will happen, in fact I am very sure it will but you are right we shouldn't base current foreign policy on that. Peaceful coexistence is the number one priority. The population of Muslims and Hindus is fairly balanced but even if Hindus have larger numbers, the power can still rest in the hands of Muslims for the most part. It was like that during Mughal times.


By secular education I mean math, english, science etc. Both Islamic and secular education are needed.


That's very interesting...
So Bangladesh or Bangistan (lol) was never meant to be a part of Pakistan according to the original plans of the Pakistan movement?

The numbers would be about 1/3 Muslims vs 2/3 non Muslims.
I do not think this is balanced. Those days where power rests in the hands of Muslims are over. Back then there was no unified “Hindu” Rashtra. Just dozens of states. What the British did was create a unified “Hindu” state, that did not exist for centuries.
I suppose for this “new-Mughal” state to come into being, Bharat would have to first be divided into smaller states...I do not think that Pakistan has the capability to do this....

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Is that so? Any other famous Brahmins who left the Sanatum Dharm or famous descendants of Brahmins?

The Beginnings of the Syrian Christian Kitchen in Kerala
JULY 6, 2017 IN BOOK NIBBLES, FEATURED, FOOD

AUTHOR

THE PENGUIN INDIA BLOG

Long before the time of Christ, spice merchants and travelers from around the world would visit Kerala. The important seaport of Muziris or Cranganore was populated with Greeks, Syrians, Jews, and Chinese traders who lived in harmony with the people of the region. It was on one of these trading vessels, plying between Alexandria and the Malabar Coast, that Saint Thomas the Apostle is believed to have arrived in Cranganore in AD 52. He began preaching the Gospel to the people of these areas, and eventually established churches in Cranganore, Paravoor, Palur, Kokkamangalam, Niranam, Malayatoor, and Nillackel. Among those early conversions were several Namboodiri Brahmin families, from whom many of the present-day Syrian Christians trace their roots.

As legend has it, the upper caste Brahmins of Palur were converted after a miracle, whereby Mar Thoma (Saint Thomas) suspended water in midair as a testimony of his faith. Most of these early Christians followed the ancient Eastern Nestorian faith and were known as Malabar Christians until the advent of a Syrian merchant—Thomas of Canaan—who arrived in Muziris with four hundred Syrians, including several priests and a bishop. The Syrians were welcomed by the local Malabar Christians as the countrymen of Jesus and Saint Thomas. The two communities eventually intermarried and merged to become Syrian Christians, now recognized as one of the oldest Christian communities in the world.

The present-day Syrian Christians of Kerala are also known as Nazaranis, the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, and though they are now divided broadly into four sects—the Knanaya Christians, Jacobites, Marthomites, and Syrian Catholics—they share many common religious and social practices, and intermarriage is not uncommon. Collectively they retain a distinct identity and remain independent from other Christians in India because of their unique lineage. Life is centered around their liturgy and the observance of days of fasting and abstinence. They follow old Syrian church rites, chanting their singsong Syriac liturgy. The saga of the St. Thomas Christians is narrated in their song and dance forms—Margam Kali (the way of St. Thomas) and the Rabban Pattu (the songs of Rabban).

Syrian Christians are identified by their family names which reflect the profession of a family elder, place of origin, or sometimes nothing but pure whimsy. My own family, a large Syrian Catholic clan from Kanjirapally, is called Pallivathukkal, meaning “at the church gate,” as many centuries earlier my ancestors had settled near a church in Nillackel. My husband’s family name, Thekkekunnel, means “south hill.” Thadikaren, another family name, means “bearded man,” and the poetic Myladi means “peacock dance.” First names are biblical, and customarily the firstborn is named after a paternal grandparent and the secondborn after a maternal grandparent. Thereafter, aunts, uncles, and saints lend their names to the newborns. The second name is taken from the child’s father, but a Joseph George, say, may be anonymous until, when paired with his family name, he can be immediately placed as Joseph, the son of George of the Pottenkulam family. Syrian Christian names are distinctive and a George may also be known as Varkey or Varghese; a Paul can be Peeli or Paulose; and an Abraham can be called Avira or Ittira. Similarly, the female Syrian Christian name Rachel may be Raahel; Elizabeth can be Aley or Elamma; and Bridget, the melodious Uschita.

Most prominent Syrian Christian families are close-knit and connected by an intricate web of marriages. I have vivid memories of my mother and sisters spending hours disentangling family connections, the links being the women who married into each family. With many of these large clans expanding into several hundred members, some families now hold periodic kudumbayogams, family get-togethers which allow members of the family to reconnect.

Christianity in India has long been synonymous with education and the Syrian Christians have made a significant contribution to this field, partly by means of their large number of clergy. Today they have evolved into a distinct, indigenous community of agriculturists, scholars, industrialists, and professionals. A large number have moved to other cities in India as well as to distant lands, and though erudite and cosmopolitan, they are still attached to the traditions and customs of their ancestors.

Described as “Hindu in culture, Christian in religion, and Syro-Oriental in worship,” Syrian Christians enjoy the status of a prosperous and socially prominent community.


https://penguin.co.in/thepenguindigest/the-beginnings-of-the-syrian-christian-kitchen-in-kerala/

 

[SabzShaheen]

The numbers would be about 1/3 Muslims vs 2/3 non Muslims.
I do not think this is balanced. Those days where power rests in the hands of Muslims are over. Back then there was no unified “Hindu” Rashtra. Just dozens of states. What the British did was create a unified “Hindu” state, that did not exist for centuries.

Damn, I just did some of the math and that's probably right. I thought it was more like 45% Muslim vs 55% non-Muslim.

 

[TMA]

Damn, I just did some of the math and that's probably right. I thought it was more like 45% Muslim vs 55% non-Muslim.

Yeah I know. I did this math as well. My Bharati Muslim colleague forced me to do this cos I believed like you, he kept saying we would all better off if we stayed in a "United India". After I told him the maths he then said that at least Bharati Muslim would be better off than they are now but Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims would be worse off....

The more time passes by the more correct Quaid e Azaam and the whole Pakistan movement was/is. Remember he initially was an ambassador for "Hindu-Muslim" unity...but due to his intimate dealings he made a 180 degree. No-one can say to him, that he was just hater of the followers of Sanatum Dharm, no one can say the he did not try...
Also even if it were not for religion, the Indus Basin is different to the Gangetic plains...we are still different just now even more with religion in the mix....perhaps during Quaid e Azaam's & Allama Iqbal's life time the religion was the acute matter...therefore all else became forgotten to history.

Also it is a witness to the failure of the Muslims that they ruled for so long in the Subcontinent of India yet only managed to gain 1/3. Just look at how Muslims did in Malaysia and Indonesia. Or in Persia/Central Asia. Or in North Africa. Pretty much majority Muslim. But not India. I think some of this is due to the failures of the Muslims in their dealings with non Muslims....and converts....

 

[Cookie Monster]

Look even if Bharat agrees that “morally” Kashmir does not belong to them as the people don’t want to be...from a strategic point of view she will not let go willingly. Otherwise her foot on the jugular vein of Pakistan will be off...and why would she do that...her quest for regional hegemony will be severely dented....

I'm not expecting countries to do things that are morally right. The fact of the matter is that it's always been "might is right"...it still is that and will most likely forever remain that way.

I'm not making the case here that India should do what's morally right...
...I'm saying that Indians who get on their high horse and paint Pakistan as the war monger where India "has never invaded a country ever since it became independent" is nothing but fantasy...just showing them how things really are.

 

[TMA]

I'm not expecting countries to do things that are morally right. The fact of the matter is that it's always been "might is right"...it still is that and will most likely forever remain that way.

I'm not making the case here that India should do what's morally right...
...I'm saying that Indians who get on their high horse and paint Pakistan as the war monger where India "has never invaded a country ever since it became independent" is nothing but fantasy...just showing them how things really are.

True...but then that is the success of Bharati propaganda....Pakistan needs to do similar and it should be easier for her because she does not need to lie....

 

[Cookie Monster]

You may not agree on this. LOC is inviolable till India and Pak reach a legally recognised boundary agreement. India will defend the sanctity of LOC with all at it's disposal.

I find it baffling that Pakistanis believe that when they are militarily intervening in Kashmir they are not attacking India. Who exactly you are trying to take Kashmir from other than India?

I'm not discussing strategies here. What Pak military should or shouldn't take into account isn't the subject here. So let's get back to the topic below.

Junagadh was brought into the Indian dominion with a plebiscite after instrument of accession to Pak. Certainly not fair to Pak but India achieved it without bloodshed.

Bloodshed or not...if Junagadh signed the instrument of accession to join Pak just as Kashmir signed it with India
...then if an attack on Kashmir is to be seen as an attack on India by that same token an attack on Junagadh is to be seen as an attack on Pakistan.
So if u wish to call 1965 a "misadventure" by Pak then that "misadventure" was just a reply to India's "misadventure" earlier.

Its a moot point whether it would have gone the Bangladesh way with a Hindu majority Junagadh populace to boot.

That was never a point of discussion. Only u have brought it up in ur attempt to avoid answering what I asked

Pakistan held all the cards on Kashmir at time of independence - muslim majority area, Jammu & Kashmir geography contiguous to Pakistan, standstill agreement with maharaja. Maybe Pak shouldnt have jumped the gun and prematurely begin invasion of Kashmir, maybe once the issue went to UN they should have followed due process as required by the UN resolution for plebiscite. Who knows what might have happened.

I'm not discussing what could've happened. This isn't about reflecting on the past and trying to see what could've been done to have different outcomes.

My post was about the precedent India had set. When India ignored instrument of accession and invaded Junagadh then why cry foul and waive ur instrument of accession as a document of authority when Pak is doing the same?

1965 was an opportunistic attempt by Pak to wrest kashmir from India.

Just like how India made the opportunistic attempt using the fact that Pakistan army couldn't get to Junagadh to aid it?

And yes by attacking Kashmir Pak attacked India.

Is this ur answer? Bcuz I could've sworn u tried hard to avoid answering it. So in a convoluted way are u saying that if an attack on Kashmir is an attack on India then by that same token an attack on Junagadh was an attack on Pak?

True...but then that is the success of Bharati propaganda....Pakistan needs to do similar and it should be easier for her because she does not need to lie....

Pak doesn't need to do propaganda. Indian propaganda is targeted at the 1 billion sheep they have for their own political reasons. Nobody in the world is buying it bcuz they have facts and history of the world on their side. At best the world ignores a country's actions in order to gain something from them.

Examples...
- KSA has many proxy militant groups that it supports...and yet no eyebrows are raised against it
- Even though US was super anti communist but when it saw a chance to build up China against Soviet Union...US jumped on it
- The west and US have turned a blind eye to Israel's nuclear weapons
- The west and US had turned a blind eye to Pak's nuclear weapons program for a time when Pak was useful
- US is now propping up India against China...the same country that it threatened in 1971.

The whole world works on that principle. They side with u when they have something to gain. What Pak needs isn't propaganda or the truth or anything of that sort bcuz all of that is irrelevant on the world stage. Instead Pak needs to focus on making itself strong economically and militarily...and position itself strategically in a manner that it becomes indispensable to the rest of the world. The sooner Pak realizes this the better.

 

[SabzShaheen]

Yeah I know. I did this math as well. My Bharati Muslim colleague forced me to do this cos I believed like you, he kept saying we would all better off if we stayed in a "United India". After I told him the maths he then said that at least Bharati Muslim would be better off than they are now but Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims would be worse off....

The more time passes by the more correct Quaid e Azaam and the whole Pakistan movement was/is. Remember he initially was an ambassador for "Hindu-Muslim" unity...but due to his intimate dealings he made a 180 degree. No-one can say to him, that he was just hater of the followers of Sanatum Dharm, no one can say the he did not try...
Also even if it were not for religion, the Indus Basin is different to the Gangetic plains...we are still different just now even more with religion in the mix....perhaps during Quaid e Azaam's & Allama Iqbal's life time the religion was the acute matter...therefore all else became forgotten to history.

Also it is a witness to the failure of the Muslims that they ruled for so long in the Subcontinent of India yet only managed to gain 1/3. Just look at how Muslims did in Malaysia and Indonesia. Or in Persia/Central Asia. Or in North Africa. Pretty much majority Muslim. But not India. I think some of this is due to the failures of the Muslims in their dealings with non Muslims....and converts....

Good post, brother. I am a bit hesitant, however, to justify partition based on what is happening these days i.e beef lynchings, persecution of Muslims in Kashmir, Hindu-fanatic Indian government. One must ask, would this have happened if the Subcontinent had not been divided? Perhaps if it had not, Muslim influence would have been more significant in the region encompassing Pakistan, India and Bangladesh hence fear-mongering politics and ideologies would not have succeeded.

That being said, a good point should also be made that the above thoughts are irrelevant now as what happened has already happened. It is too early to say whether it worked best in the interests of the Muslims of the region as Jinnah's vision has arguably not be fulfilled yet. Insha'Allah it will be soon.

 

[TMA]

Good post, brother. I am a bit hesitant, however, to justify partition based on what is happening these days i.e beef lynchings, persecution of Muslims in Kashmir, Hindu-fanatic Indian government. One must ask, would this have happened if the Subcontinent had not been divided? Perhaps if it had not, Muslim influence would have been more significant in the region encompassing Pakistan, India and Bangladesh hence fear-mongering politics and ideologies would not have succeeded.

That being said, a good point should also be made that the above thoughts are irrelevant now as what happened has already happened. It is too early to say whether it worked best in the interests of the Muslims of the region as Jinnah's vision has arguably not be fulfilled yet. Insha'Allah it will be soon.

Sorry to nit pick...but partition of British India...the Subcontinent has always been divided for most of recorded history...Even if the Religion of Abraham (PBUH) had not come to (Sucontinent) India, there would still be dozens of states in India instead of the half dozen that exist now.
It was the British who really created a large unified state in India for the followers of Sanatum Dharm.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

All Pakistanis should Thank Gandhi & Nehru for forcing the partition of India.