1. The incursion by the tribals was not merely a squatting operation. If you dig into the history of the whole issue, you would find a program of ethnic cleansing by Dogra Raj that motivated people who formed Lashkars.
Thank you for the education. So the response to ethnic cleansing by the Dogra Raj was the loot, rape and murder of Muslims by the Lashkars? Would you not say that it was a peculiar reaction?
2. National Congress was not the name of just Sheikh Abdullah. There were others who differed with him and went to Pakistan. This faction was led by Mr. Abbas. It would be a stretch to claim that Sheikh Abdullah alone represented Kashmiris. He was given undue importance just for the sake of him being pliable. There were other worthwhile leaders. Sheikh Abdullah having been used was then put in jail by Nehru. Just reward, I should say.
Again, not entirely unknown, not entirely unrecorded. A small minority, with NO representation from the Vale in general, consisting of people from Poonch exclusively, at one stage objected to the secular policy of the National Conference, and reverted to the older name of the Muslim Conference, and went to join Pakistan.
You may or may not be aware that when Mr. Jinnah visited the Valley himself, before 1947, the leaders of the pro-Muslim League elements, mainly the then Mirwaiz and a handful of others, bitterly disappointed him. He went on record to say that nothing was to be hoped from them.
There was no support for Pakistan in the Vale, only in the Muzaffarabad area, a handful from Poonch, the Mirwaiz and his followers, and the princely states of Swat and Chitral. I have already mentioned this.
3. The Maharaja treated his people like cattle much to the liking of Indian government. Claiming that Kashmiris had no say in who they joined might have worked for USSR, but not purpotedly 'democratic' India.
Sadly, you are letting your emotions overcome you. Instead, you should find out the facts. They are on record.
The Maharaja bitterly opposed the democratization sought by the National Conference. He imprisoned Sheikh Abdullah and many of the leaders of the National Conference. It was the Indian National Congress-led Government of India that insisted, as a condition of accepting the Maharaja's accession, that Abdullah should be released and should be allowed to form a government. Contrary to what you say, the Government of India was aligned with Abdullah and the National Conference and against the Maharaja and his line of thought.
It is surprising that you are building such an edifice of supposed purpose and counter-purpose without knowledge of the base facts.
Let us suppose that the Raja of Kashmir had the right to treat his subjects as cattle and freely sign them away to India, what would you make of Junagadh and Manadavar, whose rulers acceded to Pakistan. If India had a strong case because of an instrument of accession, then why not accord sanctity to the wishes of the rulers of Junagadh and Manadavar?
Generations of Pakistanis have been brainwashed into believing these urban legends. You really should find out more.
The Nawab of Junagadh declared for Pakistan. Two subsidiary principalities objected, and declared for India. The Nawab sent in the State forces to coerce them into submission. They then appealed to India, and Indian troops moved into these subsidiary states only, not into Junagadh proper.
By then, the Nawab had fled with his kennels of dogs. Only the Diwan, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, was left, alone and isolated. He contacted the nearest officer of the Government of India, situated outside Junagadh, and asked him to take over the administration. Subsequently, he actuated his own request by proceeding to Karachi. The officer concerned moved into a vacuum in Junagadh, with no treasury, no prince and no diwan, and informed the Government of India, who moved in troops, maintained law and order, and
ran a plebiscite, overseen by the British.
I wish you would get your facts together before putting together opinions as sweeping as you have expressed.
Nizam of Hyderabad suffered an invasion of his territory. He did not see have been given the opportunity to join India or Pakistan.
And this happened when? In 1947? Sometime between August and December? The Nizam had ample opportunity, chose not to take it, and instead allowed groups of armed thugs called Razakars to go on the rampage. There were widespread communal massacres, aided and abetted by state troops.
Do get your facts straight.
Goa was snatched from Portugal. I suppose they had no rights as recognized in the person of Raja of Kashmir. Why?
Because Goa was not part of the British Crown Colony of India, nor was it one of the subsidiary states over which the British Crown wielded suzerain (not sovereign) power. That's why.
The facts, please.
Does it matter that Raja had a full time insurrection on his hands because of the excesses of his troops? His hand over of territory was thus forced.
An external invasion by Masud and Waziri tribals from the NWFP, and an armed attack by the State troops of Chitral is what you are pleased to call a full-time insurrection? Can you point to a single Kashmiri involved in any resistance to the Kashmir state troops, in your supposed 'full-time' insurrection?
I would like to challenge your assertion of that only a small Islamist minority wished to join Pakistan. How would you know? How can you say that? What evidence do you have? Why would we still have net immigration of Kashmiris to Pakistan?
You have the facts above. You have Mr. Jinnah's own assessment of the prospects of the Muslim League in J&K.
As for the net immigration of Kashmiris to Pakistan, that is an unsubstantiated claim by you. The only people to travel to Pakistan were those who were taken across and trained in irregular warfare for several years from 1984 onwards.
I spoke to a Kashmiri Human Rights activist who left Kashmir in 1994. He had campaigned against Indian excesses at Geneva and thus after the conference was over, could not go back. He was an elderly lawyer by the name of Ghulam Nabi. I had detailed discussions with him over a couple of days. He was angry at Sheikh Abdullah because of his pro-India role. He was also upset about Kashmiris not having done enough to support Pakistan in their bid for being free from India.
And are you not substantiating everything I have said through this conversation? The pro-India role of Sheikh Abdullah? The fact that Kashmiris had nothing to do with Pakistan? What else do you want to hear? Or is it that what stares you in the face is not what you want to hear?
And how should Kashmir have supported Pakistan in a so-called bid for being free from India? Pakistan did not win this freedom through popular support; she won it through negotiation. None of the constituent elements of Pakistan, ironically, not the Punjab, not Sindh, not Baluchistan, emphatically not the NWFP political elements, were pro-Pakistan. It was the Muslims of the UP and Bombay who voted for the Muslim League. It was only after the Unionists in the Punjab realized that the British were intent on gifting the Punjab in partitioned form to the Muslim League to form Pakistan that they came across to support the League.
Do get your facts straight.
4. India itself took the case to UN. How can anyone claim that Kashmir is NOT disputed. It is arrogant "might is right" thinking and nothing else.
Do look up the reference, and the consequent Resolutions of the UN. You seem to have not even an elementary idea of what happened.
The UN ruled that
Pakistan would have to vacate its aggressions, and
then the UN would hold a plebiscite. Indian troops were specifically allowed to stay on in Kashmir. Pakistan refused to meet these demands of the UN. That caused the matter to become a dispute. If Pakistan had obeyed the UN, there would have been no dispute today.
The Resolutions are on public record. The proceedings of the UN team are on public record. Is that a sufficient hint?
5. I would like to know how you can claim that Swat and Chitral fell under the influence of the Raja of Kashmir?
They were legally under the Maharaja of Kashmir. Again, look it up. Not under the influence. Under the state.
6. You are not a troll, and I fail to understand why you would defend trolls just because they are Indians? My association with this site has nothing to do with Indians trolling here. Why bring it up even?
I am NOT defending trolls, Indians or Pakistani. I am contesting your sweeping claim that all Pakistanis carry a halo around, and that all Indians have a set of horns and a tail. As for your association with this site, I am sure you have nothing to do with Indians or Pakistanis trolling here. What did I bring up that forms an association with you and trolls? Do elaborate, so that I can put whatever gives you that impression in better form.
7. I used to visit this forum for content relating to military news & analysis with particular emphasis on Military aircraft. I have not come across any of your posts earlier. It does not quite matter.
My point was that I was, and am, a contributor, when you were a ghostly presence. Those who participate actively surely have more right to be heard than those who by accident of citizenship have a claim on being natives to this forum, without doing anything to justify their claim other than that ephemery.
It does matter. Just as absentee landlords have less claim to the land than the tiller of the soil.
.
