NYT story Aug. 15, 1947 "Pak recognized Independence of Kalat" (now Baloch)

[Jackdaws]

India's Annexation since independence
Diu
Daman
Goa
Sikkim
Pondycherry
Hydrabad
Mizoram (forced to join)
Andaman and nicobar (later added)
no offence hehe
and rest I have no idea

Annexation?

Pondicherry was handed to India after negotiations with the French. The residents of Pondicherry were given an option to remain French citizens or become Indian citizens.

Andaman and Nicobar Islands? They were part of India right away.

Sikkim - was a buffer state like Nepal and Bhutan but it expressed a desire to join India in 1975 through its Chogyal

Goa, Daman and Diu - yes, they were liberated in 1961 from a colonial master - would hardly call it annexation.

 

[Nelson]

yup just like you did in 1971! or in 1947 regarding the kashmir annexation

Yes. We were successfull both the times. While some people trying from decades and nothing's happening.

 

[lynx]

Hyderabad was given every opportunity to remain independent - even a standstill agreement was signed between State of Hyderabad and Govt. of India. Nehru did not want to send forces in but it was when Nehru was out of the country that Sardar Patel sent in troops under the Operation Polo and the Razakars surrendered.

And thank God we had a home minister like Patel. Otherwise Nehru would also have messed up Hyderabad just like what he did to Kashmir. Patel should have been the PM of India.

 

[saiyan0321]

We also did it in Goa because the local people wanted to be the part of India. We'll do it again if the situation arises.

the local people fought against the dogra rule in kashmir buddy itwasnt goa the gilgit scouts that freed entire northern areas and took a part of ladakh too...... anyway in only your wet dreams will balochistan be seperated its not and i repeat not east pakistan... let me tell you couple of days ago there was interview where some of the sardars were present and they were saying they want independent balochistan the anchor asked what do the people want he said the people dont want independence but what we want should be good enough for them... we used to give money to sardars for development and they didnt do squat in there now the army is building colleges schools roads and hospitals and even inducting over 5000 balochi soldiers and more to come the bla which is largely subsided was created by the sardars to give them majority powers when this sardar system was challenged in around 2008 when the bla went out of control and started killing the balochi people too it lost support and thus has become extremely weak the people only want one thing and thats development and its not the armies job its the civilian government job to make gawader port fast and cities roads and schools

---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

Yes. We were successfull both the times. While some people trying from decades and nothing's happening.

yeah bcz its not like we took about 96000 km of kashmir right and theres no loc or anything right well i am gone this is becoming a troll fest and a dick measuring contest plus indians dont like to believe they r wrong in anythingP

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

Hyderabad was given every opportunity to remain independent - even a standstill agreement was signed between State of Hyderabad and Govt. of India. Nehru did not want to send forces in but it was when Nehru was out of the country that Sardar Patel sent in troops under the Operation Polo and the Razakars surrendered

but it was nehru,s statement hyderabad would be like an ulcer in india and if pakistan and india ever fight a war it would betray india it was majority this insecurity that allowed an annexation to happen

 

[Jackdaws]

And thank God we had a home minister like Patel. Otherwise Nehru would also have messed up Hyderabad just like what he did to Kashmir. Patel should have been the PM of India.

Yes - infact most Congressmen voted for Patel to be PM but Patel withdrew his name after Gandhi asked him to. In a way it was ok, mainly because Gandhi wanted someone younger who would be PM for a reasonably high amount of time - remember Patel passed away in 1950.

 

[roshangjha]

No, it wouldn't have happened.

The East Pakistan issue happened because West Pakistan didn't give Bengalis their right of forming the government and started killing and raping them instead.

Indian government don't do it.

Yes dude.. but it is really very difficult to SECURELY maintain a landmass that is not connected to mainland India.

There would be many Strategic problems..

In fact, even when we are properly connected to the North East, many people want it to be free just because the connection is small.

 

[Nelson]

the local people fought against the dogra rule in kashmir buddy itwasnt goa the gilgit scouts that freed entire northern areas and took a part of ladakh too.....

Freed?
You mean India was already present there and you "freed" that land from India? WOW

anyway in only your wet dreams will balochistan be seperated its not and i repeat not east pakistan...

I don't see the difference. You carried the same atrocities in Bengal which you are doing in Baluchistan.

but it was nehru,s statement hyderabad would be like an ulcer in india and if pakistan and india ever fight a war it would betray india it was majority this insecurity that allowed an annexation to happen

He was right. That was the possibility. He did the right thing. Moreover, the people of Hyderabad wanted to become a part of India.

 

[Black Widow]

He was right. That was the possibility. He did the right thing. Moreover, the people of Hyderabad wanted to become a part of India.

That time was full of confusion, ppl were confused. India had openly said " Either with us, or Pakistan, under no circumstances you gonna stay independent". I never knew if Nehru gave exception to Nizam. AFAIK the home minister was clear, Hyderabad has to merge with Indian dominion.

I don't know why Pakistani ever raise voice over Hyderabad?? They have no right to speak of it. They should stick to the topic and the topic is \

Aug. 15, 1947 "Pak recognized Independence of Kalat"

 

[SQ8]

Drawing conclusions from a story from 1947 is . well.. stupid.
The Khan of Kalat wanted greater concessions.. for himself.
When those went nowhere.. and it was plain to see that his people were not interested.
His authority was removed.. and the state took over.
Also.. what of the Areas other than Kalat?
They were pretty much part of Pakistan since inception..
if this is the logic Indian members wish to go by..
its time we open a new thread on Hyderabad ad jUnagarh as well.
After all.. cheap shots should be taken by us as well on old articles and pictures.

 

[Nelson]

That time was full of confusion, ppl were confused. India had openly said " Either with us, or Pakistan, under no circumstances you gonna stay independent". I never knew if Nehru gave exception to Nizam. AFAIK the home minister was clear, Hyderabad has to merge with Indian dominion.

I don't know why Pakistani ever raise voice over Hyderabad?? They have no right to speak of it. They should stick to the topic and the topic is \

Aug. 15, 1947 "Pak recognized Independence of Kalat"

Pakistan gave the blank paper to Nizam to write his demands in return of accession to Pakistan. Pakistan was so desperate to get Hyderabad.

Anyways, the topic is why Pakistan gave the consideration to Kalat or present day Baluchistan.

 

[Black Widow]

Drawing conclusions from a story from 1947 is . well.. stupid.
The Khan of Kalat wanted greater concessions.. for himself.
When those went nowhere.. and it was plain to see that his people were not interested.
His authority was removed.. and the state took over.
Also.. what of the Areas other than Kalat?
They were pretty much part of Pakistan since inception..
if this is the logic Indian members wish to go by..
its time we open a new thread on Hyderabad ad jUnagarh as well.
After all.. cheap shots should be taken by us as well on old articles and pictures.

Lol! Mango is mango and orange is orange... Aug. 15, 1947 "Pak recognized Independence of Kalat" Where as India never recognized Independence for any part. And Hyderabad was deep Inside India, pakistan had no problem with it for 5 decades, I don know who told this generation that India did something wrong....


Wait a minute.. Is it "Red cap monkey"

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

Pakistan gave the blank paper to Nizam to write his demands in return of accession to Pakistan. Pakistan was so desperate to get Hyderabad.

Anyways, the topic is why Pakistan gave the consideration to Kalat or present day Baluchistan.

may be you are true, but never heard of it...

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

moral

M- money
O-orders
R- ration pani
A- amunation and guns
L- La Résistance

Looking at the map... id say it would be more effective if Pak started giving MORAL support to IOK,Khalistan,Mezoram,Nagas etc... wont u agree?

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

joke of the century............ indians the most competent liars and propagandist, once again showing their evil face. another thing facts are facts balochs are part of Pakistan and they willfully decided it , khan of kalat turned away from his early statement just for the sake of power, he wasn,t.supported by the mass. there is no resolution regarding balochistan, unlike kashmir.
other thing it is pity of so called pakistan defence forum that it is allowing indians to spit their venom. it should have banned these rascals . for u poor indians this is not 71 , if u tried to cross limits u will surely find urselves in hot waters.
once again shame on the forum. for not checking these.......... thanks in advance for issuing warning or banning me in case...... PAKISTAN is for us and we know how to protect our sovereignty. people of balochistan except few infidels are patriot Pakistani.
they don,t need so called indian sympathy. if indians are so kind hearted and principled then free kashmir , asam , junagarh, ..............

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Drawing conclusions from a story from 1947 is . well.. stupid.
The Khan of Kalat wanted greater concessions.. for himself.
When those went nowhere.. and it was plain to see that his people were not interested.
His authority was removed.. and the state took over.
Also.. what of the Areas other than Kalat?
They were pretty much part of Pakistan since inception..
if this is the logic Indian members wish to go by..
its time we open a new thread on Hyderabad ad jUnagarh as well.
After all.. cheap shots should be taken by us as well on old articles and pictures.

You also forgot Mavadar n IOK.....Not to forget assam?

 

[CarbonD]

Annexation?

Pondicherry was handed to India after negotiations with the French. The residents of Pondicherry were given an option to remain French citizens or become Indian citizens.

Andaman and Nicobar Islands? They were part of India right away.

Sikkim - was a buffer state like Nepal and Bhutan but it expressed a desire to join India in 1975 through its Chogyal

Goa, Daman and Diu - yes, they were liberated in 1961 from a colonial master - would hardly call it annexation.

Liberated is overly rated isnt it view it as Tibet