I like this "If heads I win, if tail, you lose" logic very much...
If a ruler of a state decides joining India, it is
lawful, never mind if the majority of population revolts against that.
If the ruler of state decides against joining India, it is
unlawful.
You go bro!
@coffee_cup
It wasn't that simple.
It sounds like that because we are considering the actions which became controversial later. But the perspective will change if you look at the actual situation not only there but elsewhere as well.
The case of Kalat was one. Just as in the case of Kashmir, the Khan acceded to the Dominion of Pakistan granting it the originally envisaged three powers of defence, foreign affairs and communications. For a while, things went smoothly. He found that he was suddenly swept aside, the other powers were taken from him summarily, and he was fully absorbed into Pakistan.
The case of Bahawalpur was another. The ruler, according to Penderel Moon, had ambiguous feelings about accession. He, however, stifled them, partly due to Mountbatten's strong advice, and joined Pakistan. This would have been a first class disaster if anything but accession had happened; his troops had already started cleansing the state of non-Muslim elements.
Coming to the provinces, the case of the NWFP was an example. Led by a Congress Government, elected under the restrictive franchise of the times, it had no inclination whatsoever for Pakistan. There was, in fact, a deeply submerged movement for joining Afghanistan; Bacha Khan was, after all, born in Jalalabad. The Congress leadership flatly refused to support the elder Khan's (the Chief Minister's) bid for accession to India, and the way forward was to hold a plebiscite. In that plebiscite, the number of invalid votes was exactly equal to the lead of the pro-Pakistan vote, and the province was found to have declared for Pakistan.
In Bengal, it was different once again; both the Punjab and Bengal were to be partitioned, and there too, popular opinion was sought, but in radically different ways. Please take a look at the arrangements to get an idea how the vote was sought to be 'dressed' in favour of the Dominion of Pakistan.
Did you know that Liaqat Ali Khan had the same views as yours? But that he was partly responsible for the mess that he felt the situation to be? In Kashmir, he supported the people (of Poonch, of Muzaffarabad later) against the Maharaja, but he supported the Nawab against the people in Junagadh.
Now apply your formula to Liaqat Ali Khan's position and see how it sounds.
We will support our Chinese brothers regardless.
South Tibet's occupation is nothing but a colonial legacy - there is no legal basis for Indian occupation in the post-colonial era.
Feel free. Be our guest. Presumably you know that they had already indicated their position in the correspondence before the 1962 war. But don't let that stop you from deciding the fate of the state.
Pakistan should also renew it's uncanny support to China on Aruanchal Pradesh......
@Chinese-Dragon
Uncanny?