Illegal occupation: Nawab of Junagadh urges Pakistan to revive accession case

[Stephen Cohen]

I will never dispute the legality of Instrument of accession of Hari Singh. BUT the accession would be complete only when we hold a referendum in the state.

SO you are in effect supporting the Pakistani Position

Was there any provision for referendum in the Transfer of Power agreement OR
Indian Independence act OR the Instrument of accession

As far as I know ; referendum was just Nehru's verbal promise
which was then drafted in the UN resolution

 

[TheObserver]

totally isolated is a good joke. 50+ muslims country +italy+china stands with us.


there was no dispute. the muslim majority jonagarh simply acceded with pakistan and you invaded it. dispute is in kashmir why don't you apply this formula there. the accession of jonagarh was recognized by the parliament of that time too. so stop defending something you can't.

Sorry, "Muslim majority Junagadh". Bhai lagta hai "Beer of Muree" kaam kar rahi hai.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

How about we stand up with South-Indians who usually face discrimination at the hands of superior North-Indians ?

South Indians dont face any discrimination

South India has MADE much more PROGRESS than North India
because they are very smart ; hard working ; disciplined and dedicated

PS : I am an North Indian

 

[TheObserver]

SO you are in effect supporting the Pakistani Position

Was there any provision for referendum in the Transfer of Power agreement OR
Indian Independence act OR the Instrument of accession

As far as I know ; referendum was just Nehru's verbal promise
which then drafted in the UN resolution

It is not Nehru verbal promise but it is there in the UN Kashmir resolution. If we go by UN Kashmir resolution then Pakistan needs to do more house cleaning when compared to India. Pakistan would need to do teh following things:-
1. Take back shaksgam valley from China which it has ceded.
2. Remove the Punjabi's from Kashmir territory.
3. Roll back of its forces from all of the territories from Kashmir including Gilgit and Baltistan and respect the boundaries of J&K as independent region before 1947.

I think that Pakistan will not be able to do it. Therefore they only raise Human rights and abuse issues in UN not the UN Kashmir resolution at the UN.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

It is not Nehru verbal promise but it is there in the UN Kashmir resolution

I know it is in the UN resolution

Question is WHO put in there and how it entered the UN resolution

India approached UN simply because UK and US were already supporting Pakistan's position
that Kashmir ; we did it to PRE EMPT sanctions

But the promise of referendum was added to show that India cared for kashmiri people's
wishes ; It was a Trickery

But the WORD referendum does not appear in the Instrument of accession
or Indian Independence Act

 

[scorpionx]

SO you are in effect supporting the Pakistani Position

Was there any provision for referendum in the Transfer of Power agreement OR
Indian Independence act OR the Instrument of accession

As far as I know ; referendum was just Nehru's verbal promise
which was then drafted in the UN resolution

No it was not Nehru's verbal promise. Are you aware of the letter by the Governor General, the sole authority to accept the accession papers where there was attached a remark with his acceptance, saying “it is my Government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.”? This same promise had been often repeated in GoI white papers. It seems Government of India too was supporting the Pakistani position then.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I will never dispute the legality of Instrument of accession of Hari Singh. BUT the accession would be complete only when we hold a referendum in the state.

Sorry, invalid according to constitutional law.

The India Independence Act did not stipulate any additional procedures. Any Tom, Dickie or Harry could have suggested additional procedures - it's a free country, after all - and Dickie Mountbatten did. That in no way makes the Maharaja's sovereign right invalid in any way, since he adhered to the conditions that the British Crown had conveyed through its representative, the Viceroy: either of the two Dominions, no question of any more, meaning, no independence for any princely state, including Hyderabad, and a choice between India and Pakistan only; and a choice to be exercised with contiguity in mind.

Hari Singh handed over three, and only three rights to the Union of India. Those belong irrevocably to the Union of India. He retained the rest. These he devolved on the Assembly of the State of J&K that was formed on the basis of the J&K State Constitution. So the sovereignty lies divided between the Union of India and the State Legislative Assembly of J&K State, and the plebiscite proposed by Mountbatten and confirmed by Nehru, and taken up by the UN is not a mandatory part of the procedure of devolution of the sovereign power but only a proposal, a recommendation that was rendered infructuous by the resistance off the battlefield of an aggressor power.

In Junagadh, the Nawab acceded irregularly; there was no contiguity, so he could not have acceded to Pakistan, any more than could have Bhopal. His sovereignty did not vest in the people of his state because he gave it to them. They took it from him by vote in the plebiscite.

In Hyderabad, the Nizam held out against accession in irregular fashion. Independence was not an option, but he and the Razakars thought they could make it one.They too found out the hard way the difference between rioting and military action.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

No it was not Nehru's verbal promise. Are you aware of the letter by the Governor General, the sole authority to accept the accession papers attached a remark with his acceptance, saying “it is my Government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.”? This same promise had been often repeated in GoI white papers. It seems Government of India too was supporting the Pakistani position then.

What we were doing is that we were playing a game

US and UK were clearly supporting Pakistan because of Cold war considerations
against Communism and the Link to Central Asia which was a part of USSR

China too was coming under communism

Read a BOOK called -- War and diplomacy in Kashmir by C Dasgupta

ANYWAY I am giving a link about the Book review which is a Brilliant SUMMARY

http://www.kashmirherald.com/bookreviews/waranddiplomacyinkashmir.html

This proves that India was under tremendous PRESSURE for Ceasefire and
hence we went to UN and promised a referendum

This is the BIO DATA of C Dasgupta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrashekhar_Dasgupta


He is EX -- IFS and has been awarded the Padma Bhushan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But India wanted Kashmir and WE HAD No intention of holding a referendum
in Kashmir even in 1947 ; we were just buying TIME

 

[coffee_cup]

What are you blathering about? Which parliament might that have been? If you are referring to the British Parliament, it had given away its powers on the 15th of August. Pakistan did not even acknowledge the accession until September.

On Founder's Day, in fact.

Heh, heh, heh.....

I think the message which is being given here is, "If you mess with me, I'll exploit any possible fault line".

And India happens to have a horde of them.

 

[Post Colonnial]

South Indians dont face any discrimination

South India has MADE much more PROGRESS than North India
because they are very smart ; hard working ; disciplined and dedicated

PS : I am an North Indian

Not to mention the peace that comes from the protection (we) S.Indians have traditionally enjoyed offered by the services of brave North Indians.

I think the message which is being given here is, "If you mess with me, I'll exploit any possible fault line".

And India happens to have a horde of them.

the diff being it only helps the Pakistani credibility to go from zero to -ve.

 

[Jaanbaz]

So after reading 4 pages of cow manure I have come to the conclusions that according to Indians they can invade any territory and declare it legal but Pakistan can't do the same.

 

[scorpionx]

Sorry, invalid according to constitutional law.

The India Independence Act did not stipulate any additional procedures. Any Tom, Dickie or Harry could have suggested additional procedures - it's a free country, after all - and Dickie Mountbatten did. That in no way makes the Maharaja's sovereign right invalid in any way, since he adhered to the conditions that the British Crown had conveyed through its representative, the Viceroy: either of the two Dominions, no question of any more, meaning, no independence for any princely state, including Hyderabad, and a choice between India and Pakistan only; and a choice to be exercised with contiguity in mind.

Hari Singh handed over three, and only three rights to the Union of India. Those belong irrevocably to the Union of India. He retained the rest. These he devolved on the Assembly of the State of J&K that was formed on the basis of the J&K State Constitution. So the sovereignty lies divided between the Union of India and the State Legislative Assembly of J&K State, and the plebiscite proposed by Mountbatten and confirmed by Nehru, and taken up by the UN is not a mandatory part of the procedure of devolution of the sovereign power but only a proposal, a recommendation that was rendered infructuous by the resistance off the battlefield of an aggressor power.

In Junagadh, the Nawab acceded irregularly; there was no contiguity, so he could not have acceded to Pakistan, any more than could have Bhopal. His sovereignty did not vest in the people of his state because he gave it to them. They took it from him by vote in the plebiscite.

In Hyderabad, the Nizam held out against accession in irregular fashion. Independence was not an option, but he and the Razakars thought they could make it one.They too found out the hard way the difference between rioting and military action.

Please excuse my ignorance, but was it really unconstitutional in 1947? As per Indian Independence act the Governor General had full authority to adopt, amend Government of India act'1935 until 31st March, 1948. After which it was open to constituent assembly to modify or adopt the same act if necessary. So how could Mountbatten's assurance of a plebiscite be termed as unconstitutional?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Not to mention the peace that comes from the protection (we) S.Indians have traditionally enjoyed offered by the services of brave North Indians.

Where would India be WITHOUT the IT revolution started by South Indians

We would have become bankrupt and would have split up into Pieces

It was IT industry which saved India from the Financial crisis of the Nineties
and gave the cushion and headroom for absorbing the Crisis ; ie till the time
we could move forward with our economic reforms and strengthen our economy

 

[coffee_cup]

Sorry, invalid according to constitutional law.

The India Independence Act did not stipulate any additional procedures. Any Tom, Dickie or Harry could have suggested additional procedures - it's a free country, after all - and Dickie Mountbatten did. That in no way makes the Maharaja's sovereign right invalid in any way, since he adhered to the conditions that the British Crown had conveyed through its representative, the Viceroy: either of the two Dominions, no question of any more, meaning, no independence for any princely state, including Hyderabad, and a choice between India and Pakistan only; and a choice to be exercised with contiguity in mind.

Hari Singh handed over three, and only three rights to the Union of India. Those belong irrevocably to the Union of India. He retained the rest. These he devolved on the Assembly of the State of J&K that was formed on the basis of the J&K State Constitution. So the sovereignty lies divided between the Union of India and the State Legislative Assembly of J&K State, and the plebiscite proposed by Mountbatten and confirmed by Nehru, and taken up by the UN is not a mandatory part of the procedure of devolution of the sovereign power but only a proposal, a recommendation that was rendered infructuous by the resistance off the battlefield of an aggressor power.

In Junagadh, the Nawab acceded irregularly; there was no contiguity, so he could not have acceded to Pakistan, any more than could have Bhopal. His sovereignty did not vest in the people of his state because he gave it to them. They took it from him by vote in the plebiscite.

In Hyderabad, the Nizam held out against accession in irregular fashion. Independence was not an option, but he and the Razakars thought they could make it one.They too found out the hard way the difference between rioting and military action.

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!

 

[scorpionx]

What we were doing is that we were playing a game

US and UK were clearly supporting Pakistan because of Cold war considerations
against Communism and the Link to Central Asia which was a part of USSR

China too was coming under communism

Read a BOOK called -- War and diplomacy in Kashmir by C Dasgupta

ANYWAY I am giving a link about the Book review which is a Brilliant SUMMARY

http://www.kashmirherald.com/bookreviews/waranddiplomacyinkashmir.html

This proves that India was under tremendous PRESSURE for Ceasefire and
hence we went to UN and promised a referendum

This is the BIO DATA of C Dasgupta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrashekhar_Dasgupta


He is EX -- IFS and has been awarded the Padma Bhushan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But India wanted Kashmir and WE HAD No intention of holding a referendum
in Kashmir even in 1947 ; we were just buying TIME

I will definitely read it. But i don't agree with the part that Britain and US were supporting Pakistan in fear of the Russian influence in the region. This is a popular theory but as far as the American papers suggest, they were mostly indifferent and just did not care which side Pakistan chooses to be.