Chak Bamu
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 5,361
- Reaction score
- 69
- Country
- Location
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?
While there were some excesses, I am surprised that you see this as the contribution of the Lashkars. For someone seemingly over-obsessive about 'facts', is that the right attitude? I see that you are interested only in facts that suit you.
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.
This is your opinion of course. Do you have anything to substantiate your claims here? Facts? Where are they? If anything you have just confirmed my assertions. There WAS division in the ranks, and those who were useful to the Indians were co-opted and declared to be the 'legitimate' representatives. That is just what I had said. Thanks for confirming my position.
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.
I am well-aware of the lack of support from some vocal Kashmiris towards Quaid-e-Azam and Muslim League. It was a similar picture in Punjab. But the elections of 1946 completely reversed the picture. People forced the Unionist party to merge into Muslim League. Did we ever have that in Kashmir? Was there ever an election that allowed people to chose? Was there ever a referendum, or a plebiscite?
That is why I say that Raja of Kashmir thought of his subjects as Cattle which was just convenient for Indians. Do you know how Muslims were treated in the Dogra raj? Do you know what indignities they suffered? There were taxes on # of hearths, on houses, on marriage, Dogra army men would extort money as and when they liked. The Hatus of Kashmir were cattle in their eyes. Like I said, this was what Indians wanted and got: cattle they could count on their side without giving so much as a chance for the people to express their opinions. You build up your case on this situation. You think that a piece of paper can be used to decide the fate of millions without asking them for their opinion. Do you hail from a democracy. Based on the above, I think not.
Sadly, you are letting your emotions overcome you. Instead, you should find out the facts. They are on record.
Sadly, you are letting nationalism speak in riddle-legalese devoid of Humanism for you. Instead you should see the facts as they are. Raja and India treated people like cattle and you seem to see no problem with that. The piece of paper with Raja's signature is somewhere in your archives. That is a fact for you. A piece of paper with forced signature handing away people, their property, their rights, their state as though they were not people but cattle. And you support that? A bit of introspection is called for here.
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.
See how one person is built up as the spoke-person and representative for millions of people, even though he was controversial in and outside of Kashmir. I would posit that Ch. Abbas was more popular and a more true representative of Kashmiris. After the Indian take over, Kashmiris voted with their feet. Do you have any idea, how many Kashmiris migrated to Pakistan? It was easy enough though, all the rivers and their valleys point to Pakistan. When you dismiss these linkages, you are ignoring facts. Why are Kashmiris so close to Punjabis of Pakistan? They share cultural, economic, & religious practices. If given a choice Kashmiris of yesterday and today would doubtless side with Pakistan. They voted with their feet, they would vote with their hands, minds, and souls. That is the confidence that Pakistanis have in them. Even if we have to accept an independent Kashmir, we would do so, because in the end Kashmiris would decide in our favor.
You may dismiss my opinion (and it is an opinion based on facts), but yours is no better than mine.
It is surprising that you are building such an edifice of supposed purpose and counter-purpose without knowledge of the base facts.
What base facts? You mean a piece of paper signed by an un-elected piece of **** who condoned violence against his own people because they differed in religion from him?
What base facts? You mean an Indian stooge who declared himself to be the representative of people and JLN gleefully put him on pedestal. The same Sh. Abdullah was thrown in jail, once his purpose was served, by the same JLN. Lessons from history are more pertinent than assumed facts. Kashmiris never had a choice. Indians never gave them a choice. They still want to be independent of India.
Go and read up on anti-Muslim pogroms in Poonch aided and abetted by Dogra soldiers. I have read eye-witness accounts from the refugees. I hope you do the same. The first state secretary of Azad Jammu & Kashmir was an ethnic Punjabi who grew up in Poonch, Kashmir - where his father was a retired state official. He chronicles the detail of how and how many Muslims were killed in each district of Kashmir. The Muslims of Bagh, Muzaffarabad, and Mirpur had served in British army and thus put up resistance and repelled the state troops. It was they who called upon the tribals to help them. If you can read Urdu, you may try to find a copy of 'Shahabnama'. That would turn you to many facts that you presently find convenient to ignore.
Generations of Pakistanis have been brainwashed into believing these urban legends. You really should find out more.
Like wise, generations of Indians 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.
So you do concur that Nawab of Junagadh declared for Pakistan. I hope you see the circular logic at work here. I could substitute names here are your would find that this is almost a mirror case of Kashmir. The only difference being that Lashkars stopped 30 miles short of Srinagar of Kashmir, and Indian army invaded and occupied. I suppose the Nawab of Junagadh fled for no reason, no threats were made, no show of force was on display. Nothing extra-ordinary at all. Something just caught his fancy and he just strolled out with his dogs (are they relevant?). Hypocrisy, anyone?
I wish you would get your facts together before putting together opinions as sweeping as you have expressed.
I suggest the you do the same. Most of your facts are mere spiderwebs. And your opinions are just as fragile.
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.
Nizam of Hyderabad was a ruler in his own right. He had representation at the UN. I would like to know how India made a case for the naked aggression that was comically labelled 'police action', as though police carry heavy weapons, tanks, and other such stuff. Funny people these Indians. They establish 'facts' using force and then hop around making noise just so no one would notice. I am reminded of how a case of Satti was recorded by a traveller (Ibn-e-Batuta?) The widow was placed on the pyre. When the flames reached her and she started to cry and yell and struggle, the priests just pitched up the volume of 'music' Cymbals, conches, and such - so that her screams were drowned out.
Your case of impossible defense of Indian aggression on Hyderabad brings the above incident to mind. Just make noise, make a pseudo-legal argument and cry facts, facts...
Do get your facts straight.
Have you?
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.
In that case the aggression carries a halo of holiness? It was not a mission to occupy territory using threat, force, violence? For Kashmir you have a piece of paper, for whatever it is worth as a fig leaf, for Junagadh and Manadvar you may claim a fig leaf of whatever you say. For Hyderabad, there is no fig leaf, but you may imagine that you have something (much like an establish 'fact' on groud a-la-Israel), but what do you have to say about Goa, Diu? No fig leaf here, no instrument, no person you could thrust forward as being a purported 'representative'. What can you say apart from the fact that India got what it wanted by force, like in all other previous cases? Might is right, Right?
No facts, just an acknowledgement of more of 'might is right'. Why bother with facts when India has plenty of guns, soldiers, tanks, planes, and a misleading fig leaf of democracy? If you are sincere, then call for a plebiscite in Kashmir.The facts, please.
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?
Sardar AbdulQayyum. He was one of the first Kashmiris to wage Jihad against Dogra raj. There is your single (and perhaps first) Kashmiri along with thousands of others. Need more? There is a fact for you. Now are you going to argue that these people either did not exist, or that they are not 'true' Kashmiris?
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.
May I remind you that the recent confrontation on the LOC was sparked by a Granny who fled India Occupied Kashmir to join members of her family on the other side? There are a number of Kashmiris who left Indian occupied territory. Many of them live in Pakistan, some of them relocated to UK and other countries of Europe. I would encourage you to do some research and unearth some inconvenient facts. You may not like them, but they are there. But I would not waste my time establishing the obvious for you.
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?
Nope actually I have not provided you with a narrative of support. I have not touched on a number of things, you are just seeing what you want to see. Let me see: did I provide you with an argument legitimizing Sh. Abdullah? No. Did I say that Kashmiris had nothing to do with Pakistan? No. I quoted Mr. Ghulam Nabi as saying that Kashmiris did not do enough. Big difference. Need more? He mentioned his conversation in Indian soldiers who garrisoned Srinagar. Do you want snippets like "Hamary Naitaon nai inn logon sey kuch wa'day kiyai thay. Woh pooray nahi huay tou yeh log Alaihda hona chahtai hain". I hope you found that instructive. After all you probably have never had much of a conversation with a Kashmiri who had something to do with cause of Independence from India? I have talked to several.
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.
Wanderings of a misinformed mind. One word: 1946 elections (and referendum in erstwhile NWFP and Jirga in Balochistan for state of Qalat). I can guess there is something seriously wrong with how you gather facts. How can you make unfounded assertions above? Pakistan came into being by the power of vote preceded by a spirited campaign that ran for a decade or so. My grand father was a worker in Pakistan movement in Punjab. We made the political elements take notice and change course. We made history. Why would we allow you to twist it? Unbelievable.
Do get your facts straight.
Have you got your's straight? You are shooting opinions left and right and calling them facts.
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?
I do have some idea of the resolutions. Enough that any Indian who calls Kashmir a part of India can be pointed to these very resolutions and be reminded that Kashmir in fact is a disputed territory.
In case India is sincere, a plebiscite can be held as it is, under UN auspices. But for the last 60 years, there is no hint of sincere action from India to any resolution at all.
They were legally under the Maharaja of Kashmir. Again, look it up. Not under the influence. Under the state.
Pointless. Why would the British then build forts in Chitral if indeed Chitral was under Kashmir? What did the Raja of Kashmir do when a local civil war of sorts was going on in Swat? He had no influence there, legal or otherwise. Anyone can claim anything. These are your facts? Unbelievable.
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.
As far as I am concerned, any Indian who claims that Kashmir is a part of India is trolling here. After all India and Pakistan have precious little to quarrel over except Kashmir which is a disputed territory.
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.
Bhai, pls go on tilling the soil on this website. But do not claim that you have any special rights. Just look at the hour and a half you made me waste on a set of posts that precious few are going to read. I have a plot too and I intend to do my bit here. No special rights claimed or recognized, apart from the fact that this is Defence.pk...