Tarek Fatak from Canada posted a video about Azad Kashmiri complaining

[Donald Trump]

First of all its called Azad Kashmir and dunghole PmLn is involved in rigging all over Pakistan its their modus operandi

And you guys are doing absolutely nothing about it? Why are you guys taking it lying down?

 

[Zibago]

And you guys are doing absolutely nothing about it? Why are you guys taking it lying down?

People have such short memory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadi_March
Opposition parties are not united in an anti rigging campaign after AJK election despite there being blantant rigging by noon league PTI is targetting the Panama issue more and PPP is flip flopping on everything while local political parties like JK PP and Muslim Conference have seperate agenda a campaign will work if opposition parties put aside their differences for a common goal of taking riggers to the cleaners

 

[dadeechi]

People have such short memory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadi_March
Opposition parties are not united in an anti rigging campaign after AJK election despite there being blantant rigging by noon league PTI is targetting the Panama issue more and PPP is flip flopping on everything while local political parties like JK PP and Muslim Conference have seperate agenda a campaign will work if opposition parties put aside their differences for a common goal of taking riggers to the cleaners

In the history of Pakistan, was ever AJK headed by a party other than the one leading the country simultaneously?

Who does AJK PM report to?

 

[Zibago]

In the history of Pakistan, was ever AJK headed by a party other than the one leading the country simultaneously?

Who does AJK PM report to?

Yes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Azad_Jammu_and_Kashmir[URL]http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Countries/Azad_Kashmir.htm[/URL]
His party head

 

[dadeechi]

Yes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Azad_Jammu_and_Kashmir[URL]http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Countries/Azad_Kashmir.htm[/URL]
His party head

So why is it called AJK?

 

[Zibago]

So why is it called AJK?

It was the part that was liberated from racist dogra ruler the word Azad is a rminder of the sacrifices our elders made to rid our lands from a tyrant

 

[dadeechi]

It was the part that was liberated from racist dogra ruler the word Azad is a rminder of the sacrifices our elders made to rid our lands from a tyrant

But the same can be applied to any part of Pakistan or Pakistan itself.

You did not call Sindh as Azad Sindh or Punjab as Azad Punjab or Pakistan as Azad India or Azad Hind.

 

[Zibago]

But the same can be applied to any part of Pakistan or Pakistan itself.

You did not call Sindh as Azad Sindh or Punjab as Azad Punjab or Pakistan as Azad India or Azad Hind.

There wasnt an armed struggle against any anti Muslim leader in these parts
http://m.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/poonch-rebellion/141309.html
http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/opin...yum-khan-a-golden-chapter-of-kashmir-history/

We had to fight for every inch of the land it wasnt handed to us on a silver plate in some cases even farmwrs attacked the Dogra soldiers with nothing but axes and sticks

 

[dadeechi]

There wasnt an armed struggle against any anti Muslim leader in these parts
http://m.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/poonch-rebellion/141309.html
http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/opin...yum-khan-a-golden-chapter-of-kashmir-history/

We had to fight for every inch of the land it wasnt handed to us on a silver plate in some cases even farmwrs attacked the Dogra soldiers with nothing but axes and sticks

Both Sheikh Abdullah & Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas were part of the same All Jammu and Kashmir Conference ( National Conference) prior to the Independence from the British. The fight with the Dogra rule was prior to the Independence. The National Conference itself got split during the partition of British India when Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas parted ways from the National Conference and created his own organization called Muslim Conference to strive to merge J&K with Pakistan instead of India.

So when was the word AJK coined? Was it coined around 1910 when National Conference demonstrated against the Dogra rule or around 1947 when British India was split to create Pakistan?

There wasnt an armed struggle against any anti Muslim leader in these parts

Glad to hear that as I have read people claiming that Pakistan was created to get freedom from India (with Hindu majority) and People converted to Islam to get freedom from tyrannical dharmic religions like Zoroastrianism, Buddhism & Hinduism.

 

[Neutron]

These elections were free and fair as per popular belief of people of Azad Kashmir. If you know the history of Azad kashmir, especially political history , you can easily comprehend why majority in Azad Kashmir vote for the political party controlling federal government.

Political leaders of PTI , PPP and Muslim Conference accepted these election and protested in low tone as they know that no one will buy this idea of rigging.

In my Constituency I can count votes of each party and everyone know that how many voted for them on each polling station. Data is also available on website of AJK election commission.

So this is not a good political move for any major party to protest on the pretext of rigging in AJK election.
And this is enough circumstantial evidence for people not residing in AJK to believe that these elections were not rigged.

I support PTI stance on National issues and readers can check my old posts I never supported PMLN nor I will but I quoted above mentioned reality irrespective of my political views.

 

[Samlee]

In the history of Pakistan, was ever AJK headed by a party other than the one leading the country simultaneously?

Who does AJK PM report to?

AJK PM Reports To No One His Is An Autonomous Position Normally The People in AJK Vote For The Ruling Party In Islambad Because It Would Help in Gaining Development Projects

Glad to hear that as I have read people claiming that Pakistan was created to get freedom from India (with Hindu majority) and People converted to Islam to get freedom from tyrannical dharmic religions like Zoroastrianism, Buddhism & Hinduism.

There Was No Armed Struggle Like That In Kashmir,There Was A Political Struggle Under Muslim League

 

[dadeechi]

AJK PM Reports To No One His Is An Autonomous Position Normally The People in AJK Vote For The Ruling Party In Islambad Because It Would Help in Gaining Development Projects

Why cannot the AJK PM collect taxes directly from the citizens of AJK and use those taxes for the development projects of AJK. Why does AJK PM needs to be aligned to The Ruling Party in Islambad ?

There Was No Armed Struggle Like That In Kashmir,There Was A Political Struggle Under Muslim League

Both Sheikh Abdullah & Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas were part of the same All Jammu and Kashmir Conference ( National Conference) prior to the Independence from the British. The fight with the Dogra rule was prior to the Independence. The National Conference itself got split during the partition of British India when Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas parted ways from the National Conference and created his own organization called Muslim Conference to strive to merge J&K with Pakistan instead of India.

So when was the word AJK coined? Was it coined around 1910 when National Conference demonstrated against the Dogra rule or around 1947 when British India was split to create Pakistan?


Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tarek-fatak-from-canada-posted-a-video-about-azad-kashmiri-complaining.441990/page-3#ixzz4G0Pt8JkN

 

[Zibago]

Why cannot the AJK PM collect taxes directly from the citizens of AJK and use those taxes for the development projects of AJK. Why does AJK PM needs to be aligned to The Ruling Party in Islambad ?




Both Sheikh Abdullah & Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas were part of the same All Jammu and Kashmir Conference ( National Conference) prior to the Independence from the British. The fight with the Dogra rule was prior to the Independence. The National Conference itself got split during the partition of British India when Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas parted ways from the National Conference and created his own organization called Muslim Conference to strive to merge J&K with Pakistan instead of India.

So when was the word AJK coined? Was it coined around 1910 when National Conference demonstrated against the Dogra rule or around 1947 when British India was split to create Pakistan?


Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tarek-fatak-from-canada-posted-a-video-about-azad-kashmiri-complaining.441990/page-3#ixzz4G0Pt8JkN

One was pro India other was pro Pakistan
I must say present Muslim Conference is a shadow of its glorious past
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/ajkmc.htm
And the term Azad Kashmir was coined in October 47 if iam not mistaking
@Jonah Arthur

 

[dadeechi]

One was pro India other was pro Pakistan
I must say present Muslim Conference is a shadow of its glorious past
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/ajkmc.htm
And the term Azad Kashmir was coined in October 47 if iam not mistaking
@Jonah Arthur

True. There were leaders like Sheikh Abdullah and Abul Kalam Azad who favored India (or did not favor the partition) and there were leaders like Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas and Jinnah who favored partition.

But my point was that the Princely states were never part of the democratic process in British India.

The policy of annexation was formally renounced by the government of British India after the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

So any demonstrations against the princely stated should be looked at in that perspective as British assumed suzerainty over the princely states.

Who Voted For Partition?

The 1946 Assembly elections were extremely important in deciding India’s future. As Ram Guha writes in India After Gandhi.

The world over, modern democratic politics has been marked by two rather rhetorical styles. The first appeals to hope, to popular aspirations for economic prosperity and social peace. The second appeals to fear, to sectional worries about being worsted or swamped by one’s historic enemies. In the elections of 1946, the Congress relied on the rhetoric of hope. It had a strongly positive programme, promising land reforms, workers’ rights, and the like. The Muslim League, on the other hand, relied on the rhetoric of fear. If Muslims did not get a separate homeland, the League told the voters, then they would be crushed by the more numerous Hindus in a united India. The League, sought in effect, a referendum on the question of Pakistan. As Jinnah put it in a campaign speech, ‘’elections are beginning of the end. If the Muslims decide to stand for Pakistan in the coming elections half the battle would have been won. If we fail to win the first phase of outr war, we shall be finished. ‘’

The leader’s message was energetically carried by the cadres. In Bihar, the provincial Muslim League asked the voters to ‘’judge whether the bricks of votes should be used in the preparation of a fort of ‘Ram Raj’ or for the construction of a building for the independence of Muslims and Islam.” A League election poster in Punjab offered some meaningful contrasts: din (the faith) versus dunya (the world); zamir (conscience) versus jagir (property) haqq-koshi (righteousness) versus sufedposhi (office). In each case, the first term stood for Pakistan, the second for Hindustan.

League propaganda also urged voters to overcome sectarian divisions of caste and clan. ‘’Unite on Islam-Become one, declared one poster. The Muslims were asked to act and vote as a single quam, or community. A vital role was played by student volunteers, who traversed the country-side, canvassing voters from house to house.

The election results were a striking vindication of the Leagues’ campaign. As Table 1 shows, across India, in province after province, the Congress did exceedingly well in the general category. But the Muslims were swept by the League fighting on the single issue of a separate state for Muslims. In the general constituencies, the Congress won 80.9% of the voters, whereas in the seats reserved for Muslims, the League garnered 74.75 of the votes.

As it is clear from the figures above, Muslims across the country voted overwhelmingly for Pakistan with Congress doing well only in N.W.F.P. (Probably due to the influence of Frontier Gandhi.) Does this belie the oft-repeated claim that Muslims who stayed back in India actually rejected the two-nation theory and ”chose” India over Pakistan?

It is difficult to say. First, the elections were fought in an environment of violence and fear. Second, since voting was restricted only to land-owners and the educated, only 28% of Indian were eligible to vote. The movement for Pakistan was led largely by upper-class Muslims, it is hardly surprising that they had support in the Muslim elite. It won’t be fair to speculate how rest of the Muslims would have voted if they were eligible. Having said that, one thing is clear: A vast majority of Muslim voters in undivided India supported the creation of Pakistan.

What lessons one may draw from it? Apart from the obvious one that communal politics is dangerous, communal quotas are doubly so. Those who advocate religious quotas should remember that the concept of separate electorates played an important role in dividing India.

http://retributions.nationalinterest.in/weekend-reading-who-voted-for-partition/

 

[LA se Karachi]

True. There were leaders like Sheikh Abdullah and Abul Kalam Azad who favored India (or did not favor the partition) and there were leaders like Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas and Jinnah who favored partition.

But my point was that the Princely states were never part of the democratic process in British India.

The policy of annexation was formally renounced by the government of British India after the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

So any demonstrations against the princely stated should be looked at in that perspective as British assumed suzerainty over the princely states.

Who Voted For Partition?

The 1946 Assembly elections were extremely important in deciding India’s future. As Ram Guha writes in India After Gandhi.

The world over, modern democratic politics has been marked by two rather rhetorical styles. The first appeals to hope, to popular aspirations for economic prosperity and social peace. The second appeals to fear, to sectional worries about being worsted or swamped by one’s historic enemies. In the elections of 1946, the Congress relied on the rhetoric of hope. It had a strongly positive programme, promising land reforms, workers’ rights, and the like. The Muslim League, on the other hand, relied on the rhetoric of fear. If Muslims did not get a separate homeland, the League told the voters, then they would be crushed by the more numerous Hindus in a united India. The League, sought in effect, a referendum on the question of Pakistan. As Jinnah put it in a campaign speech, ‘’elections are beginning of the end. If the Muslims decide to stand for Pakistan in the coming elections half the battle would have been won. If we fail to win the first phase of outr war, we shall be finished. ‘’

The leader’s message was energetically carried by the cadres. In Bihar, the provincial Muslim League asked the voters to ‘’judge whether the bricks of votes should be used in the preparation of a fort of ‘Ram Raj’ or for the construction of a building for the independence of Muslims and Islam.” A League election poster in Punjab offered some meaningful contrasts: din (the faith) versus dunya (the world); zamir (conscience) versus jagir (property) haqq-koshi (righteousness) versus sufedposhi (office). In each case, the first term stood for Pakistan, the second for Hindustan.

League propaganda also urged voters to overcome sectarian divisions of caste and clan. ‘’Unite on Islam-Become one, declared one poster. The Muslims were asked to act and vote as a single quam, or community. A vital role was played by student volunteers, who traversed the country-side, canvassing voters from house to house.

The election results were a striking vindication of the Leagues’ campaign. As Table 1 shows, across India, in province after province, the Congress did exceedingly well in the general category. But the Muslims were swept by the League fighting on the single issue of a separate state for Muslims. In the general constituencies, the Congress won 80.9% of the voters, whereas in the seats reserved for Muslims, the League garnered 74.75 of the votes.


View attachment 322234


As it is clear from the figures above, Muslims across the country voted overwhelmingly for Pakistan with Congress doing well only in N.W.F.P. (Probably due to the influence of Frontier Gandhi.) Does this belie the oft-repeated claim that Muslims who stayed back in India actually rejected the two-nation theory and ”chose” India over Pakistan?

It is difficult to say. First, the elections were fought in an environment of violence and fear. Second, since voting was restricted only to land-owners and the educated, only 28% of Indian were eligible to vote. The movement for Pakistan was led largely by upper-class Muslims, it is hardly surprising that they had support in the Muslim elite. It won’t be fair to speculate how rest of the Muslims would have voted if they were eligible. Having said that, one thing is clear: A vast majority of Muslim voters in undivided India supported the creation of Pakistan.

What lessons one may draw from it? Apart from the obvious one that communal politics is dangerous, communal quotas are doubly so. Those who advocate religious quotas should remember that the concept of separate electorates played an important role in dividing India.

http://retributions.nationalinterest.in/weekend-reading-who-voted-for-partition/

You people keep calling it "partition". There was no partition. Only independence and the creations of two new nations. Nor did anyone "divide India". The very concept of "India" was created and propagated by the British. Even the term itself has Middle Eastern origins.

There were only states. And throughout the history of the subcontinent, control of these states and provinces changed. For only brief periods of history were they all under the control of one regime (often against their will).

Only one state was "partitioned" (Punjab). And only one was later divided (Kashmir). Although, I believe it prefers to be united in Pakistan. Hold a plebiscite and we'll find out.

Also, Pakistan is not solely an Indo-Aryan country. It's also Indo-Iranian in its western half. They would feel very out of place in India. "India" too has a Dravidan south. It also has Sino-Tibetan populations near its borders that probably make more sense in bordering countries.

Religion aside, we are not the same and never really were. Pakistan is the land of the Indus, and the meeting point of an Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian culture with a unique history (Mohenjo-Daro, Caliphates, and Mughals - who we celebrate). We have no interest in India and never will. Take it from someone whose entire family left everything behind in Delhi and Agra after residing there for centuries to start anew.