Junagadh dispute & Kashmir

[third eye]

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.

Isn't the spell check option available to all ?

 

[jakiconf]

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

the dipsute is two things.
1) why should a ruler decide the future fate of his peope when he is a tyrant, who fled his epople and did not represent them? jsut ebucae ther is a law does not make it fair. russia never signed the rome stateu on war conventions beofre ww2 so germans abused russians (becuase after all russian never signe dcovnetions of war at that time) but at nurmebrg tirals it was decided that german's abuse of russians though not illegal was unfair and germanys till stried for war crimes.

apartheid was legal. it didnt become a crme agaisnt humanit till the 70's and EVEN THEN apartheid never fell till 90's.

first rememerb disticntion between legal and valid and fair. a law may be valid but if it contravenes a superior body of laws its deemed invalid. for exmaple if idnia passes alw but it is foudn to be unconstitutional the ocnsituion (which is a high body of law) wins out.
the isntrument of accesion did not give authority to epople only to ruler so it contravenes human rights law (article 20 of the UNHRD).

valid is not the same as fair. whether he alw was valid or not it was extremely unfair. and people have aright to stand up to unfair laws. if we didnt wd sitll have segreagation, lack of womens rights, apartheid all these things were lawful yet epople had the guts to stand up to this injustice.

also the isntrumetn of accesion contained a sublacse in it that clealry called for a plebisiticite - goo loook up the roginal isnturemtn of accesion of you dont believe me. the terms of the isntruemnt were never completed therefore hwo cna kahsmir belong to india if the accesion rpocess was not completed?

secondly the dispute is that in the case of juangarh the isntruemnt of accesion was given to paksitan; yet india military forced that out.
so india is a hypcyte becuase in the case of kashmir it aaccepts the instrument; but not in case of junagarh.


so the dispute is three fold
1) the instrument of aceison was not valid becuase it contraven uman righs law. even if found VALID. tis defintely not FAIR to call on some tyrant to decide the future of his epople and then flee wihtout aksing them or anyything.
2) the isntrument itself contained a clause ofr plebisticite - so the terms of accesion and the rpocess of accesion was enevr even completed.

3) in junagrh the isnturment was signed over to paksitan but india reneged it - so why not the same wiht kashmir (renege the accesion isntrument)

 

[Pagla Dashu]

1) why should a ruler decide the future fate of his peope when he is a tyrant, who fled his epople and did not represent them?

So why did Jinnah accept The Nawab of Junagadh's IoA?

2) the isntrument itself contained a clause ofr plebisticite - so the terms of accesion and the rpocess of accesion was enevr even completed.

Nope.

3) in junagrh the isnturment was signed over to paksitan but india reneged it - so why not the same wiht kashmir (renege the accesion isntrument)

Nope.

 

[Samlee]

IMO India and Pakistan should jointly hold a referendum in Kashmir and let the people decide on whether they want to be part of India or Pakistan or be independent. In all probabilities they would seek independence. India and Pakistan should jointly agree to never interfere with the independence of Kashmir in that case and that would put an end to the most of the bitterness between India and Pakistan. They should promise to jointly rebuild Kashmir and who knows but Kashmir may become the umbilical cord which reunites the brotherhood of Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. That will make them a financial powerhouse globally and their people will enjoy one of the best standards of living since the military spending will be greatly reduced and the need for nuclear arms will fall away. With independent flourishing rich Kashmir as a seperating neighbour the trade between the countries will be huge

But to tell an Indian politician the above is like suggesting to the Pope that he converts to Islam. Hopefully sense will overcome pride and ego someday

Finally Thank God It's Nice To Know That Indians Are Inhabited By Reasonable People Not Just Trolls

 

[asad71]

1.Today in 1947 Junagadh was annexed by India. Before that it was treated as a territory of Pakistan, even being shown so in the initial postage stamps. Pakistan gave up the state too easily emboldening India to annex Hyderabad. J&K was a different issue as the Maharaja and PM Abdullah till that time wanted to remain free.

2.Pakistani rulers / bureaucrats of the time also ignored the desire of the Maharaja of Tripura to opt for Pakistan. People even forgot about the Muslim majority and Arabic / Urdu speaking Andaman - Nicobar. The fate of India's NE peoples and the situation of the eastern wing of Pakistan and now BD, would have been far favorable/comfortable.

 

[mark_t]

1.Today in 1947 Junagadh was annexed by India. Before that it was treated as a territory of Pakistan, even being shown so in the initial postage stamps. Pakistan gave up the state too easily emboldening India to annex Hyderabad. J&K was a different issue as the Maharaja and PM Abdullah till that time wanted to remain free.

2.Pakistani rulers / bureaucrats of the time also ignored the desire of the Maharaja of Tripura to opt for Pakistan. People even forgot about the Muslim majority and Arabic / Urdu speaking Andaman - Nicobar. The fate of India's NE peoples and the situation of the eastern wing of Pakistan and now BD, would have been far favorable/comfortable.

Even history could not teach you anything. BD was never better with Pak. They were tortured, raped and treated as slaves. Pak is mainly ruled my Punjab only as Punjab is among the most rich provinces in SE asia and the Punjabis consider themselves better than others. Even now Baloch's are facing the ire of Pak and so does the Shia's in karachi who are regularly killed in violence. The pashtuns are being used for their warring qualities by Pak to achieve strategic goals in SE asia.

 

[INDIC]

How could an Islamic state claim a Hindu majority territory even without sharing a border

 

[asad71]

Even history could not teach you anything. BD was never better with Pak. They were tortured, raped and treated as slaves. Pak is mainly ruled my Punjab only as Punjab is among the most rich provinces in SE asia and the Punjabis consider themselves better than others. Even now Baloch's are facing the ire of Pak and so does the Shia's in karachi who are regularly killed in violence. The pashtuns are being used for their warring qualities by Pak to achieve strategic goals in SE asia.

1. We know by now some paid posters veer away from the topic following given agenda.

2. BD is an island of peace. Pakistan is under attack by NATO-Indian covert elements. But have you heard what your PM MMS says about India? The Brahmonic oligarchy enthroned in Delhi has writ over only one-third of the Republic.

 

[INDIC]

1.Today in 1947 Junagadh was annexed by India. Before that it was treated as a territory of Pakistan, even being shown so in the initial postage stamps. Pakistan gave up the state too easily emboldening India to annex Hyderabad. J&K was a different issue as the Maharaja and PM Abdullah till that time wanted to remain free.

Junagarh belongs to India. Since Pakistan gave up the claim on Junagarh, what is the necessity of complaining

2.Pakistani rulers / bureaucrats of the time also ignored the desire of the Maharaja of Tripura to opt for Pakistan. People even forgot about the Muslim majority and Arabic / Urdu speaking Andaman - Nicobar. The fate of India's NE peoples and the situation of the eastern wing of Pakistan and now BD, would have been far favorable/comfortable.

Neither Tripura wanted to merge with Pakistan nor Andaman and Nicobar Islands were Urdu-Persian or martian land.

 

[INDIC]

1. We know by now some paid posters veer away from the topic following given agenda.

2. BD is an island of peace. Pakistan is under attack by NATO-Indian covert elements. But have you heard what your PM MMS says about India? The Brahmonic oligarchy enthroned in Delhi has writ over only one-third of the Republic.

Our Prime Minister never said such word. Stop poonting.

 

[Iggy]

When it comes to Mythical statements and comments, no one can beat Bangladeshi's They have perfected this art that even our Ministers will think they might actually said that comments

 

[scorpionx]

@Asad: Before 1947 there was no pakistan. So how do you consider Junagad as part of pakistan before 1947. Man,even trolling demands some brain.Use it.

 

[third eye]

2010 to 2012..

Are we running out of subjects ?

 

[ajtr]

How could an Islamic state claim a Hindu majority territory even without sharing a border

by conversion............

 

[Tshering22]

by conversion............

The same logic is applicable for you as well. Muslims all converted back.