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

[SabzShaheen]

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.

Well, there have been a fair number of empires other than the British that united the continent to varying degrees. Obviously, the borders of the empires have never been the same so that's why I'm not fussed about those. The British empire has had the most lasting impact as it formed the basis for our modern borders and of course the modern states of Pakistan and India were formed from its remains.

When I refer to the subcontinent being left undivided, I refer to the entire land mass of British India becoming independent of Britain as one unit. This country may not have been simply called India or even if it had been, it would be very different from the modern country which happens to have the same name. The South Asian stance on China, the US and the USSR would have been different thus too would the outcome of the Cold War. Perhaps the USSR would still be around and the US may not enjoy a global hegemony. But this is all theory; what's happened has already happened.

 

[MultaniGuy]

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

I thought Jinnah was responsible for partition

 

[TMA]

Well, there have been a fair number of empires other than the British that united the continent to varying degrees. Obviously, the borders of the empires have never been the same so that's why I'm not fussed about those. The British empire has had the most lasting impact as it formed the basis for our modern borders and of course the modern states of Pakistan and India were formed from its remains.

When I refer to the subcontinent being left undivided, I refer to the entire land mass of British India becoming independent of Britain as one unit. This country may not have been simply called India or even if it had been, it would be very different from the modern country which happens to have the same name. The South Asian stance on China, the US and the USSR would have been different thus too would the outcome of the Cold War. Perhaps the USSR would still be around and the US may not enjoy a global hegemony. But this is all theory; what's happened has already happened.

I know what you mean, but I was just making a point as people often confuse India the Republic with India the Colony of Britain and India the Subcontinent. I suppose it depends on one's definition.

Yes many empires have "united" the Subcontinent, but for how long? How long did British India last for? How long did Gurkhan E Mughal "unite" the Subcontinent? How long did the Dehli Sultunate do it? How long did Mauryan empire? The Subcontinent of India has been more divided than it has been united. Just like the Subcontinent of Europe.

As to the legacy of the British Raj, true the current borders of not only Bharat or Pakistan, but Nepal, Bhutan, Burma and even Afghanistan were formed by this legacy. And so what? We ought not let political borders affect our values, traditions and cultures uncritically. Why can't Pakistan look back into her Sikh confederacy, Dehli Sultuante, Timurid or Mughal history and try and derive some values and traditions from there...and I do not mean just social ones which exist but political ones...military ones... it is just nonsensical to go back to British India and then stop. As if there was just a vacuum before then.
Burma, Afghanistan, Nepal and even Bharat look back before British India for their values and traditions..of course they have been affected by British India...but you won't find Burmese or Bharati saying that their country is only 70 odd years old....even though technically they are the similar age to Pakistan....

Too broaden it even more, about half the world's countries are formed by the legacy of the British Empire....

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

I thought Jinnah was responsible for partition

No man. Jinnah is over rated. His performance has always been below average.

Gandhi first forced him out of Congress while Nehru forced him into a small partitioned piece of land.

He could neither become the leader of the Congress nor PM of undivided India.

 

[Samlee]

That's the truth Pakistanis like it or not. Especially when it comes to Kashmir valley. There was no rebellion in Kashmir valley. Gilgitis and paharis of AJK are not Kashmiris.

I Always Knew You Were Nothing But A Two Bit Randian Thanx For Confirming Me

 

[MultaniGuy]

No man. Jinnah is over rated. His performance has always been below average.

Gandhi first forced him out of Congress while Nehru forced him into a small partitioned piece of land.

He could neither become the leader of the Congress nor PM of undivided India.

You fool, Jinnah was offered PM of a United South Asia, and Jinnah rejected the offer. Then Nehru took the job of being the PM of India instead.

Even Sarojini Naidu called Jinnah the ambassador of Muslim-Hindu unity, but then Jinnah saw the Indian National Congress and Gandhi were dishonest and lying goons, then partition had to happen.

Whatever, we Muslims would have been second class citizens in a united South Asia.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

You fool, Jinnah was offered PM of a United South Asia, and Jinnah rejected the offer. Then Nehru took the job of being the PM of India instead.

Even Gokhale called Jinnah the ambassador of Muslim-Hindu unity, but then Jinnah saw the Indian National Congress and Gandhi were dishonest and lying goons, then partition had to happen.

Whatever, we Muslims would have been second class citizens in a united South Asia.

You can believe in whatever you want to believe in but facts don't lie.

 

[MultaniGuy]

You can believe in whatever you want to believe in but facts don't lie.

Beta, I am telling facts. You are telling lies.

It was not Gokhale, it was Sarojini Naidu who called Jinnah the ambassador of Muslim-Hindu unity.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Beta, I am telling facts. You are telling lies.

It was not Gokhale, it was Sarojini Naidu who called Jinnah the ambassador of Muslim-Hindu unity.

I know that but tell me why was Jinnah in Congress until 1920?

 

[MultaniGuy]

I know that but tell me why was Jinnah in Congress until 1920?

Because Jinnah was a strong nationalist who originally believed in Muslim-Hindu unity.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Because Jinnah was a strong nationalist who originally believed in Muslim-Hindu unity.

Sir Syed, Sir Iqbal, Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru, Tagore, Ambedkar were leaders created by the British.

But Jinnah was a light weight actor and did not carry the same weight as the others.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Sir Syed, Sir Iqbal, Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru, Tagore, Ambedkar were leaders created by the British.

But Jinnah was light weight actor and did not carry the same weight as the others.

Also because Jinnah had regarded gandhi's tactic of satyagraha as moronic and wanted constitutional means to get independence for South Asia.

Sir Syed, Sir Iqbal, Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru, Tagore, Ambedkar were leaders created by the British.

But Jinnah was light weight actor and did not carry the same weight as the others.

Lol, you are such a moron. Jinnah believed South Asia should get independence from UK through constitutional means, not hunger strikes and peaceful protests like your Gandhi suggested.

Jinnah and Allama Iqbal were lightweights? It was the Muslim League in South Asia who divided the land!

had it not been for them, A United South Asia would have appeared.

Clearly you know nothing.

Yeah sure, everyone were British agents in the South Asian independence movement? Grow up man! Not everyone is an outside agent.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Also because Jinnah had regarded gandhi's tactic of satyagraha as moronic and wanted constitutional means to get independence for South Asia.


Lol, you are such a moron. Jinnah believed South Asia should get independence from UK through constitutional means, not hunger strikes and peaceful protests like your Gandhi suggested.

None of them were for independence. They were created by the British just to fool the public.

India got Independence by chance in spite of these leaders not because of these leaders.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Ofcourse Jinnah was for independence of a United South Asia with autonomy for Muslim majority regions and separate electorates for Muslims.

But of course the Indian National Congress rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Ofcourse Jinnah was for independence of a United South Asia with autonomy for Muslim majority regions and separate electorates for Muslims.

But of course the Indian National Congress rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan.

Yes. Jinnah wanted to become leader of the Congress and Leader of Undivided India but he could become either of them.