Junagadh dispute & Kashmir

[Hulk]

But then you have to hand over Junagadh and Hyderabad to Pakistan - the point being that one cannot subscribe to both positions - that Junagadh and Hyderabd are Indian territory and so is J&K.

At the root of the accessions was the condition of plebsicite in case of disputes - a very smart thing to do that placed the final decision in the hands of the people of those Princely States, instead of possibly corrupt and brutal dictators.

That underlying principle was the reason for the UNSC endorsing plebsicite as a solution to J&K. As I pointed out before, India adhered to that principle in Junagadh, by conducting a plebsicite that went in favor of India, after India had militarily occupied the State, but has refused to do so in J&K.

My point is not about subscribing to both positions, my point is that you should challenge the wrong position if any. If by agreement accession of Kashmir was right then why Pakistan is fighting on Kashmir.
We should fight on what is wrong and not what is right. So your stand on Kashmir is completely invalid.

Now about princely states in case they were forcibly annexed their ruler of their people can challenge India. I do not see anyone challenging us on that, not that I heard of. Also Pakistan has never objected to it, I do not know why. It seem Pakistan was not interested in those states instead they were interested in Kashmir, so even if Kashmir was correctly annexed you are still fighting on it and care less about Junagarh or Hydrabad.

 

[Hulk]

This was explained somewhat in the excerpt I posted above, which quotes the Indian Government's own White Paper on Kashmir in 1948, along with Mountbatten's comments in the acceptance of the accession, that disputed accessions required a plebiscite.

If there was no dispute over an accession, there was no need for a plebsicite. That is why India conducted a plebsicite in Junagadh, despite the fact that she occupied the entire territory militarily, and why India accepted the principle of plebiscite in J&K, and why the UNSC also endorsed the plebsicite as the means of dispute resolution.

Who will determin if it was disputed, as ruler has given the instrument of accession where is dispute here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Who will determin if it was disputed, as ruler has given the instrument of accession where is dispute here.

The dispute was between India and Pakistan, and the Maharajah himself was fighting a revolt against his rule, before the tribal's came into the picture, so it could be argued that the revolt indicated his decision to accede would be disputed by the people of the State as well.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It applied to the Princely States just as much as it applied to the Provinces.

'The rulers were technically at liberty to accede to either dominion.' - Mountbatten

Although you have quoted Robert Wrising, you seem to have overlooked the following paragraphs on pg 37 and 59, of the same book

Pakistan insisted that Junagadh belonged to it, because the Nawab had chosen to accede to Pakistan. Plebiscite meant nothing. In respect of Kashmir, Pakistan simply reversed its position to deny India’s right to Kashmir by virtue of the ruler choosing to accede to India and demanded plebiscite.

Before accusing India to be hypocrite, it would be better if you get off that high horse.

AFAIK Pakistan, while claiming Junagadh as legally having acceded to Pakistan, also wished to discuss a plebiscite in Junagadh after a withdrawal of Indian troops.

Regarding the manner of withdrawal, time of withdrawal and what constituted minimal Indian force in Kashmir, the ‘negotiations’ were justified. But, what could possibly be the reason or terms of ‘negotiation’ for complete withdrawal of ‘Pakistani citizens and tribals’ from the P0K? What prevented Pakistan from doing that?

Btw, which ‘subsequent resolutions completely debunked the irrational Indian demand of a complete unilateral Pakistani withdrawal’?

The plebiscite was not a free lunch. It not only came with a pre-condition that Pakistan must fulfill its half of the responsibility, it also came with UN assurance that unless Pakistan fulfilled its conditions, plebiscite will not be binding on India.

That ‘excuse’ has a valid legal ground. And, again, which ‘subsequent resolutions’ rejected India's position?

Please see the UNSC resolutions sticky.

Actually, Independence was an option for the Princely States, although it was buried under so many layers of legalities, that it ultimately meant surrender of sovereignty. It is on this basis, that Pakistan supported Nizam's (of Hyderabad) right to remain independent.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Hulk]

The dispute was between India and Pakistan, and the Maharajah himself was fighting a revolt against his rule, before the tribal's came into the picture, so it could be argued that the revolt indicated his decision to accede would be disputed by the people of the State as well.

Do you have any reference to the written rules laid out for partition. I want to find out how dispute would play role as per written rules. I know people might not be happy and what not but, what I am trying to figure out is legally by rules (partition rules) will it be called dispute.

 

[toxic_pus]

'The rulers were technically at liberty to accede to either dominion.' - Mountbatten

‘…you cannot run away from the Dominion Government which is your neighbour any more than you can run away from the subjects for whose welfare you are responsible.’ – Mountbatten at the Chamber of Princes, 25th July, 1947.

What it meant was that, the Princely States, although ‘technically’ free to remain independent or choose between the two emerging Dominions, should give consideration to the geographical contiguity with the neighbouring Dominion. The above was the first public announcement of the applicability of the principle of contiguity in respect of the Princely States.

AFAIK Pakistan, while claiming Junagadh as legally having acceded to Pakistan, also wished to discuss a plebiscite in Junagadh after a withdrawal of Indian troops.

Perhaps, I don’t recall though. But I guess now you realize, that India’s insistence on removal of Pak army, as well as the ‘tribals’ from the P0K, is not an ‘excuse’, UN mandate and assurances aside, and is perfectly in line with Pakistan’s stance on Junagadh.

Anyway, the point is that Pakistan claimed Junagadh, on the basis of Instrument of Accession – and continues to do so, thereby creating precedence for India’s claim on Kashmir by virtue of a similar Instrument and by disputing India’s claim, Pakistan took an entirely contradictory stance on Kashmir, vis-à-vis Junagadh. In other words, equating Junagadh with Kashmir, will result in circular logic for Pakistan (and India as well).

Singling out India as ‘hypocrite’ is just what it is, an ill-informed emotional outburst.

Please see the UNSC resolutions sticky.

I have seen it, but found no answer to my query. Anyway, I will give it a rest here, for now.

Thanks for the correction.

No problem.

 

[toxic_pus]

Do you have any reference to the written rules laid out for partition. I want to find out how dispute would play role as per written rules. I know people might not be happy and what not but, what I am trying to figure out is legally by rules (partition rules) will it be called dispute.

Google Mountbatten Plan and Indian Independence Act 1947.

You will be disappointed to know that most of the rules, like 'principle of contiguity' or 'plebiscite in case of dispute' etc. were not part of the original plan. These were ad hoc or post facta solutions to the exigencies, that arose as the process of partition went along.

It is really sad, how such an important event in history was conducted in such a slipshod manner.

 

[brahmastra]

Pakistan's lies on Junagadh and Hyderabad


rediff.com: Arvind Lavakare nails Pakistan's lies on Junagadh and Hyderabad

 

[veritbo]

Pakistan insisted that Junagadh belonged to it, because the Nawab had chosen to accede to Pakistan. Plebiscite meant nothing. In respect of Kashmir, Pakistan simply reversed its position to deny India’s right to Kashmir by virtue of the ruler choosing to accede to India and demanded plebiscite.

Before accusing India to be hypocrite, it would be better if you get off that high horse.

Regarding the manner of withdrawal, time of withdrawal and what constituted minimal Indian force in Kashmir, the ‘negotiations’ were justified. But, what could possibly be the reason or terms of ‘negotiation’ for complete withdrawal of ‘Pakistani citizens and tribals’ from the P0K? What prevented Pakistan from doing that?.

you must be unable to read becuase its very hypcritical. the first un resoltion was for india to retain minimum force and pakistan tow ithdraw. pakistan dissagreed becuase it was unfait HOW WAS IT JUSTIFIED. when in junadagh the indian armed forces had blcokaded occupied it? are u blind to double standards? what prevented paksitan from withdrawing? why shud pakistan withdraw and not india from kashmir and why should pakistan withdraw form kashmir and idnia not form junagadh? justified means fair to both sides. the first resoltion was NOT FAIR. the revised reosultin called for idnia and pak to both withdraw and hold referendum on 11 terms. pak accepted all. india none. are you blind? in junadagh on the other hand pak offered a referendum on terms that idnia withdraw. india refused AGAIn.the referendum was only held after newab being attaked by prov governemnt desperate asked for help form india.


so lets look over this again. it was ok for idnian army to occupy junadagh but not for pakis in kashmir. OH NO GOD FORBID WE APPLY THE SAME STANDARD TO OTHERS THEN WE DO TO US.

the first un reusltion was not justified at all, because it called for idnian presence and **** withdrawal. the revised resoltion was perfectly jstuified, and india refused to it! so its ok for idnia to keep military presence in kashmir bt not pak.; its ok for idnia to keep military presence in a state that acceded to pak; bt not ok for pak to keep military presence in a state that acceded to india?

whos high horse are you on. im indian and if you cant see it objectively dont see it at all.

if its fine for idnia to ignore, condemn and question junadagh accesiion than by logic it is fine for pak to ignore, question and condemn kashmir's accesion.

if its fine for idnia to keep military force in juandagh though it was acceded to pakistan, then by logic its fine for pakisan to keep military force in kashmir though it was acceded to india.

idnia retaining a minimm military presence wasnt fair or jsutified, the fair thing would ahve been BOTH SIDES withdraw simult. paksitan agreed and india refused. tehre was no referendum.

how is it fair for idnia to retain a min military presence and for Pak to withdraw? why ebcause its 'indian territory'. then wtf was india doing in **** territory junadagh?

and again india refused both times to withdraw military once when pak agreed to referndum if idnia removed military in junadagh.
and seocnd time when the revised resolution unsc passed idnia AGAIN refused to withdraw troops and let the kashmiris decide.

and u dont call this hypocrysy? oh we can take a mlsim maj state acceded by a hindu pricne to us. but we wont allow pak to take a mslim maj state acceded by a muslim leader to pak

india can retain milittary presence in kashmir and pak cant becase its idnian territory (as per accesion it was indian)
but its ok to have indian military presence in **** territory (as per accesion it was ****).


Btw, which ‘subsequent resolutions completely debunked the irrational Indian demand of a complete unilateral Pakistani withdrawal’?

The plebiscite was not a free lunch. It not only came with a pre-condition that Pakistan must fulfill its half of the responsibility, it also came with UN assurance that unless Pakistan fulfilled its conditions, plebiscite will not be binding on India.


so? pak said there could be a referndum in junadagh if idnia withdraw BUT THEY DIDNT. why shud pak agree to withdraw from kashmir to hold refernudm when idnia refused to withdraw from junadagh to hold a referndum? free lucnh for idnians bnut not for pakis.

so india wont withdraw out of **** territory to hold referundum (junadagh) but pak must withdraw out of indian terriotry to hold a referendum? lol you i died of laughter reading your arguments, yo sound like a parent of a hypocritical kid who refused to see your kids hsypocrysy. thats what brainwashed patiriots all look like cant see what their country has done wrong. yo dont think i know what kind of **** pak has plled? but truth is in kahsmir and jnadagh idnia has played doble standards! so get over yorsellf.

alsoyour missing the OTHER point that UNSC REVISED THE RESOLTUion. to this one pak agreed and INDIA REFUSED. what is wrong wiht you? so why did india rfse to withddraw all troops along wiht pak? hmm?


india has been playing double standards, jundagh should be in india if aprtiton was fiar but then kashmir hsud have been in pakistan.
its not ok for idnia to ocucpy hindu maj state acceded to paksitan if its ALSO not ok for pak to ocucpy muslim maj state acceded to india.

its not ok for idnia to expect pak army to withdraw out of kashmir, to hold referendum if idnians army wont get out of jundagh to hold referendum. the fair thing was both sides get ouot of kashmir, and to this end idnia ******* refused!

the partiton wasnt fair, on top of that india played doble standards nehru should be ashamed.
also i dont agre with a prince being allowed to accede his state to a nation without approval of thsoe people. he was not elected to rep them (both in kashmir and junadgah's case). referundum was fair. unfortuanly there was none in kashmir AND THAT WAS INDIA'S FAULT.

 

[American Pakistani]

lot of Indian states want to join Pakistan even today
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3F5dd5KKs

 

[ardent]

Hindus and muslims being seperate nations is pakistani logic ,not indian logic.

india is a secular nation ,not a hindu nation.

therefore ,muslims can stay in this nation.

of course ,hindu majority areas like hyderabad and junagadh cannot stay in pak because pakistan is an avowedly islamic republic.

on its creation ,the hindus all were forced to flee away from pak.

from 15 percent of west pakistan's population ,the hindu population fell down to 2 percent just after its creation.

so did the sikh population fall.

obviously ,the creators of pakistan had no place for these minorities in mind while creating pakistan.

on the other hand in india, most muslims ,except in punjab and some areas of bihar were allowed to stay.

the muslim population has grown from 10.6 percent according to the 1961 census to 13.4 percent according to the 2001 census ,in india.

so muslims of kashmir can stay in india....nothing wrong with that.

if pakistan wanted junagadh or hyderabad ,it should have been a secular republic like turkey , but it is not......in fact it is an islamic republic .......so how can hindus stay there??

but india ,which is secular republic , can keep kashmir ,as it is not a hindu nation.

 

[ajay26]

In 1375 A.D., the temple was once again destroyed by Muzaffar Shah I, the Sultan of Gujarat

In 1451 A.D., the temple was once again destroyed by Mahmud Begda, the Sultan of Gujarat

In 1701 A.D., the temple was once again destroyed by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb built a mosque on the site of the Somnath temple, using some columns from the temple, whose Hindu sculptural motifs remained visible.


3 x Somnath in Junagadh was razed one of the holiest temples in Hinduism for it to rise again.

 

[jakiconf]

all of u epople (idnians) going on hwo about how pakistan never withrew her troops therefore india enver had to compeltle the plebisticite
ILL REMIND YOU THA TPAKISTAN DEMANDED THAT INDIA WITHDREW HER TROOPS IN ORDER TO HOLD THE PLEBISTICITE IN JUNAGADH amd inda reufed and forced the plebisticite anyway.
so by that logic its hypocritical not to hold the plebisiticte in kashmir JUST because pak never wihtdrew form kashmir; because a referneudum was held in junagarh even though india never withdrew from junagarh.

oh its ok for the indian military to occupy a state acceded to paksitan, but not the **** military to occupy a state acceded to inida.
its ok for india to force a referndum in a **** acceded state; but its not ok for pakistan to force a refernedum in an inidan acceded state.

india maintains it had the right no to hold a plebistice in kashmir based on the fact that pakistan never compelted her terms of negotiation; but india forgets that a plebistice in junagarh was held even though india never completed the terms of agreement for it.
indians position is that the isntrument of accesion is final and irrevocable. except in the case on junagarh (coughs**)

also
two things you might not know
the UN REVISED the reosltion passed in 49 (that called for the withdrawal of pak troops and a referendum in kashmir) to withdrawal of INDIAN AND PAKISTANI TROOPs and then a referendum. guess waht. pakistan agreed on all seven points. india refused.
why did india refuse?
and the toher thing ou mgiht not know is that the isntrument of accession conatined a subclause - which called for a referendum. seeing as the referndum was never carried out; the accession process was neevr completed.

 

[jakiconf]

"Hindus and muslims being seperate nations is pakistani logic ,not indian logic."

actually no its not. INC kicked jinnah out of congress. if theyd just let hinm stay no partition nonsense. also, jinnah was LIBERal. HIS WIFE WAS A CHRISTIAN and he was edcuated in the west. hes not some radical crazy islamist.

i"ndia is a secular nation ,not a hindu nation.

therefore ,muslims can stay in this nation"

yeah the UAE is a muslim nation yet the majority of people there are not muslims- theyre not even arab.

"of course ,hindu majority areas like hyderabad and junagadh cannot stay in pak because pakistan is an avowedly islamic republic."

it can stay. theres no law agaisnt it. and tehre are plenty of islamic nations that have populations of other religions.


"on its creation ,the hindus all were forced to flee away from pak."

yeah and all msulims had to flee too.
ever heard of the gurdasupur train incident?
clearly not.
read 'cracking india'
i hoenslty dont know where u get your one sided view or not but more msulims were forced to cross the partition border lines than hindus and sikhs put together.

"from 15 percent of west pakistan's population ,the hindu population fell down to 2 percent just after its creation.

so did the sikh population fall.

obviously ,the creators of pakistan had no place for these minorities in mind while creating pakistan."

again thats not what happened. they decided to make areas that were already maj. muslim paksitan and other areas india. so all the msulims staying in areas given to india were afraid; and had evry realistic right to be; conversely all hindus/sikhs were scared of living in an area given to pakistan (and had every realsitic right to be) so they all fled cross border.

on the other hand in india, most muslims ,except in punjab and some areas of bihar were allowed to stay.
"except in punjab" wat about bengal? did it ever occur to youthat muslims fled punjab and bengal becase those were the regions that bordered the msulims states? as if muslims from the middle of the country would flee.


"the muslim population has grown from 10.6 percent according to the 1961 census to 13.4 percent according to the 2001 census ,in india"

um yes. ever heard of giivng birth to people? of course its grown.

"so muslims of kashmir can stay in india....nothing wrong with that.

if pakistan wanted junagadh or hyderabad ,it should have been a secular republic like turkey , but it is not......in fact it is an islamic republic .......so how can hindus stay there??"

saudi arabia, uae is full of foreigners and those are all isamic states FAR MORE STRICT AND CONSERVATIVE than pakistan was ever meant to be (keeping in mind jinnah wasnt religious or conservative). in dubai you have to get a liquor licence before touching a drop of alcohol. yet oddly enough people have no problem living and moving to uae.

also idnia denied kashmiris the right to self determination twice - at the ebginngin, and at the time when teh revised reosltuon was passed. on top of that india rigged their elections and has had a brutal military opertaion there for 20 years.
yeah well done.

but india ,which is secular republic , can keep kashmir ,as it is not a hindu nation.

maybe if india was itnerested in kashmiris welfare. but theyre not.

 

[jakiconf]

My point is not about subscribing to both positions, my point is that you should challenge the wrong position if any. If by agreement accession of Kashmir was right then why Pakistan is fighting on Kashmir.
We should fight on what is wrong and not what is right. So your stand on Kashmir is completely invalid.""
um the acccesion of akshmir to india was NOT RIGHT beause it was based on a decision made by a tyrant king and not based on the will of his people. MY stand on akshmir is self determination. god knwos what yours is. as far as im cocnerned ther shudnt be insturment of accesions - idnia AND paksitna should have asked the PEOPLE about what THEY wanted. and in msoet cases paopel did not rebel to the decisions made by thier leaders, but the in junagarh and kashmir people did oppose thier leaders position so referndms should have been held.

'we should fight on what is wrong not waht is right'
wat on erth does that mean. we are simply poitning out idnia's hypocrysy the right thing to do wa to hold plebisticites - that happend in junagarh but was never applied in kashmir.



"Now about princely states in case they were forcibly annexed their ruler of their people can challenge India. I do not see anyone challenging us on that, not that I heard of. "
1. the rulers of junagarh AND hyderband challenged india.
the rason the ruler of junagarh neevr challended idnia afterword is ebcause he ran away and fled JSUT LIKE MAHRAJA HARI SINGH.
2. the ruler of junagarh DID CHALLENGE INDIA duh, he said his accession was final but india didnt care. lol. soemone never read hisotry properly.


Also Pakistan has never objected to it, I do not know why"
pakistan never objected to what? they did object to jungarh being forcibly integrated into india.


t seem Pakistan was not interested in those states instead they were interested in Kashmir, so even if Kashmir was correctly annexed you are still fighting on it and care less about Junagarh or Hydrabad.

i have no clue why on earth u think pakistan didnt say anything about junagarh. it did. as for hdyerbad hyderbad's case was differnt the ruler watned to be INDEPENDENT lol.

as alwasy self determiantion should rule. a tyrant ruler shoudl not be able to bind his people to a decision in which they have no input in the deicision making process; especcially seeing as netiher ruler represented his people; and more importantly neither ruler stayed back and therefore shudnt have really had any say in future politics of thier state. the deciisons of a tyrant fleeing are never upheld by people who sicnerley believe in jsutice, freedom and truth.

the truth is junagarh whud have been part of india whereas kashmir shud have been part of paksitan (htough now it shud be idnpednedne given the way pakis are treating kahsmir) THATS why pakistan is fighitng for it and paksitan. make sense?
we are simply pointing out idnaisn mass hypocrysy in the case of junagarh and kashmir.
it was a good thing for a referndum to be held in junagarh - but then the same pricniple shoudl be applied to kashmir.

eithe you hold the instrument of acceson final; or yu hold a plebsiticite.
YOU SHOULD HOLD A REFERENDUM.
paksitan is fighitng for kashmiri self determination (or so it claims) - applying that pricnple they dont care about junagrh andmore beucas eth epople of junagrh were given a chance to self determine.

we are not saying that there shud have neevr been a referndum in jungarh we are saying that there should have been one in kashmir and india is a hypcoryte for not having the referndum becuase she had one in junagarh (muslim nruler hindu populations) but NOT in tthe case of kashmir (hindu ruler muslim population). and dont start with ' pakstan never fulfilled her obligations to hold a referndum in kashmir' becase a)
india never fulfilled her oblgiations to hold a referendum in junagarh but she forced one anyway; by that logic there shud ahve been a referendum in kashmir because even though pak broke rules; india did so too in the exact same scenario different state.
and
b) the resolution was reformed to call on a whitdrawal of both **** and inain troops. pak AGREED. indai refused.

and if india really cared about self detemriantion wat does it MATTER if **** troops are in an indian acceded state? they ddint have a problem wiht idnian troops being in a **** acceded state for a referndum.

hypcorysy at its paramount.
also if i remmerb correclt because the results of the **** elections were tainted in 71; pak sent army to supressing dissenting benglaisand imm. india cries outfor help becuas eof human rights abuses and gives bangaldesh indep. but when results were taitned in kashmiri elecitosn (thanks to idnira ghadnis rigging) and akshmiris dissent, idnia sends her army to supress dissent and could are less about the mass human rights abuse and civilain death toll in kashmir.

so when peopel are orpessed by pakistan india champions them and gives them idnpednence but whe n people are opressed by india she shuts them up and tells the world to butt out.

.

i have a probelm wiht hypocrys especially when it coem a t the expense of human rights.
kashmiris deserve the recognition they shud have recied in the 40's. independe, pakistan or india its thier choie adn theirs alone.