javaman
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2010
- Messages
- 371
- Reaction score
- 0
You first.
problem aap ko hai bhai jaan, y shud i.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You first.
Still a policy, not a rule. Or are you now saying that policy and rule are same. The accession of Princely states happened in accordance to Sec 6(1) of India Act, 1935, which reads:Mountbatten (Meeting of Defence committee October 27):
In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government[that is a reference to India] have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently with their policy[i.e. India's policy] that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, [and this exactly what I had referred to as 'India's own policy that people of the state should vet any accession decided by the Ruler, in case where there was an apparent conflict of interest'] it is my wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people.
Referendum was not necessary, as clarified above. It was entirely a brainchild of Nehru. Jinnah was very much opposed to any sort of referendum.Whatever additional motivations India had in conducting a referendum in Junagadh after invading and occupying it, under the rules of partition and accession of States a referendum was necessary, as highlighted above.
True, according to law Junagadh belonged to Pakistan once the IoA was accepted by Pakistan. But, Pakistan was incapable of intervening and ensure security within and of the state. That is why India was asked to intervene. So responding to a crisis situation, on request, no less, was not against International Law. Far from being an 'invasion'.The Nawab of Junagadh had already signed the instrument of accession to Pakistan and the instrument was in Pakistan's possession - no one other than the State of Pakistan had the authority after that to 'invite' anyone into the State, unless delegated that authority by the State of Pakistan. Dissemble as much as you want, but legally India invaded and occupied territory that had legally acceded to Pakistan.
The IoA, the signed one, is in public domain. Why do you expect others to drip feed you? Anyway there it is:For one it would be nice to validate the authenticity of the instrument of accession India claims to have, secondly, the rules agreed to between the British, ML and Congress on the accession of States clearly point out the need to resort to the wishes of the people in case of disputed accessions, as referred to by Mountbatten in his comments at the beginning of the post.
problem aap ko hai bhai jaan, y shud i.
Pls... atleast pakistan should not lecture us on "moral bakruptcy" and "tyranny"....how many of its own country men did it kill in Operaion searchlight in 1971.
Thats never gonna happen and you know it.Therefore forget it, sort out the issues in your own country and lets live peacefully unless your nation has a surefire action plan to get Kashmir
The difference is that most Pakistanis today are not justifying the atrocities that were committed in 1971, but Indians continue to not only defend atrocities committed in Kashmir, but continue to advocate a perpetuation of Indian policies of occupation, subjugation and tyranny of the people of Kashmir under the guise of 'nationalism'.
India rejected UNSC resolution after 1965. Nothing stopped Pakistan from fulfilling its own responsibility before that.Pakistan cannot fulfill any responsibilities when India rejects the UNSC resolutions to begin with.
You and other Indians are also facing difficulty in believing that news or crap or whatever it is. So start it with your self.
tells it all.
The difference is that most Pakistanis today are not justifying the atrocities that were committed in 1971,
but Indians continue to not only defend atrocities committed in Kashmir, but continue to advocate a perpetuation of Indian policies of occupation, subjugation and tyranny of the people of Kashmir under the guise of 'nationalism'.
whole world knows ,who is having problem.
chalo koi baat ni ,akeley mein kha lo,sharmao mat.whole world knows.
Again . This news is unreliable for sure.
This news is about Indian land by Indian newspaper so will be believed by Indians. If you don't believe it, too bad, we can't help it. BTW its's India's Internal matter so don't worry
You can believe in crap. You are an Indian after all.
frm now on i will believe in rupee news,pak ideology,u know u badly need pudin hara
At least you are open about supporting occupation and tyranny by the State of India, and the violation of its commitment to the people of Kashmir and the international community.