India and Pakistan Are Edging Closer to War in 2020

[SIPRA]

and this is a voice of a rapist.
I guess if we just say word, it makes them true now

Well Done. Only one correction, Maharaja of Kashmir was not king. Kings are sovereign, while the Kashmir state was under the paramountcy and suzerainty of British.

 

[HAIDER]

In next phase Modi is going to challenge the citizenship of Kashmiri muslim and may turn there status into refugee. Pakistan has no much time.

 

[Rusty]

Well Done. Only one correction, Maharaja of Kashmir was not king. Kings are sovereign, while the Kashmir state was under the paramountcy and suzerainty of British.

Thanks for the correction bro.

 

[BringHarmony]

Well Done. Only one correction, Maharaja of Kashmir was not king. Kings are sovereign, while the Kashmir state was under the paramountcy and suzerainty of British.

Not in October 1947, when he signed the letter of accession. Don't you remember Jinnah's argument?

He was as much as sovereign as that of Junagar.

 

[SIPRA]

Thanks for the correction bro.

Because, in that case, we would have 500 PLUS Kings, scattered hither and thither.

 

[sachin10]

@Kaniska
I sense some sincerity in your posts (rare for an Indian) so I will give you an honest response.

If you can put aside your Indian nationalism and look at it from a neutral point of view, you will realize that India is completely wrong on Kashmir, and here is why:

1. India agreed to let Muslim majority areas go to Pakistan, and they would get non-Muslim majority areas. Keep in mind that the vast majority of the land was non - Muslim majority so India got MASSIVE amounts of land already.

2. Pakistan and India mutually agreed that they would not honor the 3rd option of "going independent"
All states were to go to Pakistan or India.

3. Hyderabad, Junagadh, and a few other sultans wanted to go to Pakistan, but India invaded and forced them to go to India. We Pakistanis do not have a problem with this as they were Hindu majority and were rightfully Indian.

4. Kashmir had the opposite situation and yet India also invaded Kashmir.

5. Patel told Nehru to not get involved in Kashmir, he said it was going to be a mess.

6. Here we are now with nukes pointed at each other, wasting considerable resources fighting.

I am not saying Pakistan is some innocent state and India is evil.
Pakistan has it's own skeletons.

However, it is undeniable that if Nehru had just listened to Patel and left Kashmir to Pakistan, the world would have been a better place and India/Pakistan relations would be much warmer.

India did not Invade. it was Pakistani forces that Invaded Kashmir.
We pitched in only at the end after the request was made from then Maharaja of Kashmir.

other points are more or less correct.

Also, Kashmir problem will never solve. but, there is a good possibility that Asia will become Nuclear field on this issue.

 

[ARMalik]

I am afraid this is what the shadowy forces want - a war between India and Pakistan. Have a look around you - everything is in turmoil in this region and around the World according to a deliberate plan.

 

[Aryan0395]

@Kaniska
I sense some sincerity in your posts (rare for an Indian) so I will give you an honest response.

If you can put aside your Indian nationalism and look at it from a neutral point of view, you will realize that India is completely wrong on Kashmir, and here is why:

1. India agreed to let Muslim majority areas go to Pakistan, and they would get non-Muslim majority areas. Keep in mind that the vast majority of the land was non - Muslim majority so India got MASSIVE amounts of land already.

2. Pakistan and India mutually agreed that they would not honor the 3rd option of "going independent"
All states were to go to Pakistan or India.

3. Hyderabad, Junagadh, and a few other sultans wanted to go to Pakistan, but India invaded and forced them to go to India. We Pakistanis do not have a problem with this as they were Hindu majority and were rightfully Indian.

4. Kashmir had the opposite situation and yet India also invaded Kashmir.

5. Patel told Nehru to not get involved in Kashmir, he said it was going to be a mess.

6. Here we are now with nukes pointed at each other, wasting considerable resources fighting.

I am not saying Pakistan is some innocent state and India is evil.
Pakistan has it's own skeletons.

However, it is undeniable that if Nehru had just listened to Patel and left Kashmir to Pakistan, the world would have been a better place and India/Pakistan relations would be much warmer.

This is what our forefathers warned us about when they said 'incomplete knowledge is dangerous'.
1. True, as it should have been, but there was no agreement.

2. Neither was it feasible for any princely state to stay independent.

3. If you wanna compare Kashmir to Junagarh, I suggest you look at timeline. It was in September that Pakistan actually accepted the accession of Junagarh. Kashmir war started in Oct end.
The main reason for this was to use it as a bargaining chip for J&K. Even after this, India didn't sent military to Junagarh, but to its vassal states and Nawab had threatened them against joining India, which they wanted to do. Nawab didn't meet VP Menon, who went there to discuss issue and when things deteriorated with the locals, he fled to Pakistan. Soon after a plebiscite was held and 91% locals chose India.

4. India did not invade Kashmir, infact, even before Sheikh came to power, India maintained diplomatic relations with the state and friendly relations with Sheikh. Even supported freedom. But it was Pak's acceptance of Junagarh and Travancore's request for accession that made Patel change his mind, as you yourself say that Patel at the start was against taking kashmir forcefully.

5. It was the tribals (whether with or without support of Pak state and military, although it does seem surprising that they would get modern weapons, have knowledge of military tactics without state support) who invaded kashmir and that's when Maharaja asked for India's assistance in protecting the land from the invasion for which India laid down the condition for accession.

Blaming the mess in Kashmir entirely on India saying 'its coz India INVADED' is incorrect. Im not saying India hasn't been at fault in kashmir, but India certainly didn't start the mess.

 

[Wrath]

I am here to see all the fun in PDF....Anyway...in PDF, We fight every day...

Yeah . It's fun .

 

[KhanBaba2]

Well Anti Indian elements, hmmm Tell me who started all that ? Wasn't it India who first start the state sponsor Terrorism by Army the Mukti Bahini ?

There were things that happened prior to Mukti Bahini.

Nehru agreed to Muslim areas going to Pakistan when he agreed to the existence of Pakistan.

That did not apply for the princely states. Mental gymnastics done.

 

[YeBeWarned]

There were things that happened prior to Mukti Bahini.

Like what ? you can't escape the fact the It was India who started all this in the region .

 

[KhanBaba2]

Like what ? you can't escape the fact the It was India who started all this in the region .

Pakistan trained and gave arms to Naga National Council and Mizo National Front. The training was done in camps in Chittagong hill tracts. This happened from the late 1950s onwards. Around 15 years before Mukti Bahini.

We learned the tricks of the trade from you. We were just more successful in our arming and training.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Pakistan trained and gave arms to Naga National Council and Mizo National Front. The training was done in camps in Chittagong hill tracts. This happened from the late 1950s onwards. Around 15 years before Mukti Bahini.

We learned the tricks of the trade from you. We were just more successful in our arming and training.

Do you have any evidence ? and did we officially claimed to do so ?

 

[xyx007]

India did not Invade. it was Pakistani forces that Invaded Kashmir.
We pitched in only at the end after the request was made from then Maharaja of Kashmir.

other points are more or less correct.

Also, Kashmir problem will never solve. but, there is a good possibility that Asia will become Nuclear field on this issue.

Quaid’s adherence to principles was borne out by his policy towards the indian princely states. He disagreed with the interpretation of the Cabinet mission memorandum of 12 May 1946 that the states had no option but to join Indian or Pakistan. Asserting that ‘That are free to remain independent if they so desire’, he said on 17 June 1947: ‘ We do not wish to interfere with the internal affairs of any state, for that is matter primarily to be resolved between the rulers and the peoples of the States’ . The same was reiterated on 30 july 1947 that ‘ the muslim league recognizes the right of each state choose its destiny.It has no intention of coercing any state into adopting any particular course of action’. Needless to state that this policy was in complete contrast to India’s occupation of Junagadh despite the Nawab’s accession to Pakistan and its subsequent ‘police action’ in Hyderabad on the eve of the Quaid’s death.
The Kashimir issue and the ensuing Indo-Pakistan encounter bears ample testimony to his adherence to the principle of non-use of force, his conviction in the democratic principle of people’s right to decide their own destiny and his firm belief in peaceful settlement of disputes. certain feature emerge from an analysis of his policy statements on Kashmir and his handling of the whole affair
1. Being a democrat he sough the resolution pf the problem on the basis of the wishes of the people
2. he consistently opposed the policy of coercion and intimidation of the people to influence their choice
3. he did not rule out the option of independence for princely states
4. being a realist, he opted for policy of dialogue and discourse instead of dialogue and discourse instead of dialogue and confrontation

at the time of partition, Jammu and Kashmir, where Muslim constituted about 78 per cent of population, was ruled by Hindu Mahraja. He signed a standstill agreement with pakistan under which latter was to operate posts, telegraphs, and railways which were till then maintained by the gov f undivided India. meanwhile the situation in Kashmir began to deteriorated rapidly. muslims of poncho area revolted against the Maharaja and set up the Azad Kashimir gov under the presidency of Sardar mohammad ibrahim.after the entry of tribesmen from NWFP and afghanistan into sashimi valley in mid-october 1947, the Maharaja accused pakistan of violating the standstill agreement and announce his accession to india on 26 october 1947, seeking at the same time latter military assistance . the Maharaj;s allegation evoked prompt denial by the Quaid.in his reply to the Maharja he not only proposed to hold talks on the development in Kashmir to smooth out difficulties and adjust matters in friendly way but he also endorsed the Mahraja suggestion for an impartial enquiry into the whole affair. when jinnah leaned about idea airlifting of some tis troops in Srinagar he , according to Stanley wolpert ordered the then acting Army chief army , Sir Douglas grace to move two brigades of the pakistan army to Kashmir. however, Gracey refused to carry out the Quaid;s orders, taking the plea that he could not issue the instruction to Pakistan army units without the prior approval of the supreme commander, Claude Auchinleck, how far the attitude of some of the members of Quaid cabinet and top-level bureaucrats of the pakistan Ministry of Defense was responsible for grace’s non-compliance with Jinnah’s instruction , nothing could be said with certainty. regarding the question weather the quaid, at the time of tribesmen from the NWFP towards kashmir, had he been aware of the tribesmen’s operation, he would have reacted strongly to their activities. in view of jinnah’s integrity , sense of prosperity and preference for non-use of force, it could be asserted that tribal invasion could not be a part of jinnah’s policy.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

If Pakistan wouldn't have attacked Kashmir first, maybe Kashmir might have joined Pakistan sooner. And if Pakistan really wanted Kashmir, they should have attacked with full force. Pakistan could have taken whole of Kashmir and the case would have rested just like India took over Junagarh or Hyderabad. After attacking Kashmir, calling them unruly militants also did not help. Pakistan should have been decisive but wasn't. India was decisive in 1971. Who would have even thought Bangladesh would get independent? After all, East and West Pakistan were Muslim right? East and West Pakistan would have been a big headache for India. But Indira Gandhi was a strong PM who took the risky decision of declaring war on Pakistan with America breathing down her neck.