How Kashmir was stolen from Pakistan by Mountbatten

[SamantK]

On the contrary the TNT theory never asserted anything of the sort ! What you're talking about are extrapolations from the TNT. If you read Jinnah's 11th August Speech he talks of, in a nut-shell 'freedom and equality for all in the eyes of the State'. And yet one would find ample mention of words like 'Islamic Socialism' (Dhaka Broadcast of '48) and 'a system of economics inline with Islamic Principles' (At the inauguration of the SBP), in Jinnah's speeches. What he was talking about, essentially, was 'a democratic state' and for religion that extends beyond 'spirituality' and adds these 'socio, political, economic and legal, dimensions to it' be treated as a viable alternative to 'the isms' out there. For every Socialism and Capitalism let there be 'Islamic Finance', for every 'English Civil Law' or 'US Judicial System' let there be a 'Shariah' and for every 'Secularism and Confessionalism let there be an Islamic Polity'; in essence don't treat Islam as something thats between you and your maker alone and should, as such be practiced in the privacy of one's home, but treat it as something that provides models (economic, social, political or legal) that have a deep...deep history of their own and hence can be used as an ideology and a model put forth by the People to choose or refuse. The religious minorities will cease to be minorities because of the strong constitutional guarantees his 11th August Speech entailed which, by the way, is a mirror image of the 'Constitution of Median written on the behest of the Prophet (PBUH)' !

Unfortunately what was once a dream...a beautiful dream, remains just a dream till this day !

Ok, you say they are extrapolations, but how in a democracy you include the Islamic way and expect a religious population in minority accepting that? Both the concepts are conflicting my dear friend. Is it not why your Qaid wanted Pakistan in the first place, that Muslims will be oppressed by the Hindu raj and wanted a state with minority Hindu and other religions. Then he goes on to subject the minorities to the same fate as he envisaged under an unified India?

Something is wrong right? Am I the only one who sees it here?

 

[Pakistanisage]

You see you want me to admit that Kashmiris of the Kashmir valley want freedom form India but you don't want to admit that most Kashmiris of the valley also don't wish to join you even though this has been found in various Indian and international opinion pool result . They want an indipendent country . you want me to be honest while being completely dishonest yourself.

Even if some in the srinagar valley want independence, they will still have a closer relationship with Pakistan and Azad Kashmir then they would with India. India knows this and this is also the reason why India never agreed to a Plebiscite in Kashmir.

 

[KRAIT]

Even if some in the srinagar valley want independence, they will still have a closer relationship with Pakistan and Azad Kashmir then they would with India. India knows this and this is also the reason why India never agreed to a Plebiscite in Kashmir.

Where do you get these news.....kindly tell us the source to us please so that we can believe you...

 

[Pakistanisage]

3000 muslims ?
Modi's orders ?

Ayodhya massacre ?

Stop pulling numbers and facts out of your a$$ then we can probably have a discussion.Till then

Is'nt it funny when someone losing an argument turns to abusive language to compensate for the weakness of their argument.

 

[Armstrong]

Ok, you say they are extrapolations, but how in a democracy you include the Islamic way and expect a religious population in minority accepting that? Both the concepts are conflicting my dear friend. Is it not why your Qaid wanted Pakistan in the first place, that Muslims will be oppressed by the Hindu raj and wanted a state with minority Hindu and other religions. Then he goes on to subject the minorities to the same fate as he envisaged under an unified India?

Something is wrong right? Am I the only one who sees it here?

Oh laalay when you look it you think 'oh they're going to shove religion down our throats', when we see it we ask ourselves 'if one were to assume that either, English Civil Law and Shariah, were completely man-made, then what, principally, makes one shudder at the prospect of the imposition of the Shariah and not in case of English Civil Law ?'.

Consequently let person A present 'Islamic Finance' to the People, let person B present 'Capitalism' and let person C present 'Socialism', and let the People decide from themselves. This is what the whole Pakistan movement was ! Don't think of Islam as something that is restricted to the 'spiritual plane' only...its much more ! Let us present it to the People...if they accept it - good, if they reject it - fine...its their call, we'd just have to make a better sales pitch the next time. The reason why we separated was because : 1) Secularism effectively rules out there ever being anything called 'Islamic Polity', 'Islamic Finance' etc. that can be tabled as a resolution in the Parliament. And 2) Because of the bad-blood between Hindus and Muslims and consequently because of the acrimony that had developed over the years....any chance of a party that would espouse these, being elected, would be next to impossible and because it couldn't be elected at the Centre it couldn't bring about a 'Constitutional Change' to let us, in the Muslim majority provinces, make laws as per our own belief system without it being struck down as being un-constitutional.

P.S Which aspect of the Islamic Way would be unacceptable for the Non-Muslims when they are guaranteed their own laws, the right to educate their children as they see fit and the same rights and privileges that everyone else enjoys ! Though in practice this got hijacked right after Jinnah's death !

 

[Joe Shearer]

Kashmir was not stolen from Pakistan, Infact Raja Harisingh was thinking to join Pakistan. but Pakistan Army showed impateince and attacked it. Harisingh did what any king will do for saving his kingdom he approached to Indian government & signed papers of accession in return of security assurance. No body stoled Kashmir its Pakistan's lust & impateince which cost them the loss.

About Gurdaaspur given to India & Why was Mountbatten not made governor of Pakistan you can check following link and find some answers yourself.

https://sites.google.com/site/cabin...en-and-jinnah-negotiations-on-pakistan-april-

This is the notorious Sadna Gupta site.

Use it at your own peril.

Indian and Pakistani liberals are advised to look up the proceedings in PTH between Yasser Latif Hamdani and Sadna Gupta's brother, on many related topics. The website is slanted; the documents are selected to expose an evil conspiracy to create a Pakistan at any cost: in effect, a contradiction of the Ayesha Jalal thesis.

in the papers Harisingh signed where the hell did he give the IA to rape, plunder and loot his people in the way the IA is doing right now and has been doing since the dawn of partition, what concerns Pakistanis is not that you took Kashmir but that after taking it looted and plundered the innocent and unarmed civilians as if trying to get the last laugh on the matter, the day you stop this devil fest is the day the ''Kashmir dispute'' end and until then the resistance will continue, the hatred will continue and the resentment will only multiply and till then i say ''Vive la resistance'' Allah ho Akbar

This thread is a regrettable error, as it inspires this kind of regrettable idiot's eye view of things.

Every sentence here is wrong, mostly deliberately so.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Is'nt it funny when someone losing an argument turns to abusive language to compensate for the weakness of their argument.

I would counter your argument right when you start being able to make one . And there is nothing abusive about that post . Pulling numbers out of one's a$$ is not abusive . What are you from disneyland ?

also isn't it funny when you try to hide blatant lies and pass them off as facts . Actually no , it's not only funny , it is also disgusting .

firstly 3000 muslims did not die in Gujarat . The lowest estimate i.e by the Indian govt. is of 900 people whereas the highest estimate of 2000 people was given by some shady NGO .

Secondly , Modi has never been accused of giving orders of killing people. The accusation on him is of not doing enough to protect people due to ulterior motives which also have not been proved yet .

Thirdly , Massacres in Ayodhya , now that is something that never even happened.

so yes , you pulled those numbers and facts right out of your a$$.

The strength or weakness of an argument can be gaged if you are able to make a proper argument in the first place which you have failed to do throughout the 13 pages of this thread .

 

[Joe Shearer]

Kashmir is the only state in India who have a large majority of muslims ( also lakshwadeep isles )
It should belong to pakistan just because of that
Kashmir valley belongs to a muslim country, hindus killed so many Kashmiris

Again, a completely uneducated post.

Please check the basis on which the Radcliffe Award was made, and what it applied to.

It was made on the basis of religious affiliation, but it applied ONLY to British India!

Now please check what was the status of the Princes. It was not Kashmir, but the Maharaja of Kashmir who was an actor.

Try to be clear on these elementary aspects before commenting, please.

 

[BATMAN]

^^On what grounds India is occupying Hyderabad?

 

[DRaisinHerald]

^^On what grounds India is occupying Hyderabad?

Greed for more land. Also, Hyderabad had plenty of riches; it was apparently the richest unit of British India and it's king the richest man in the world at one point.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So why don't you let them have a referendum ?
Kashmiris don't want your india !! Let's do a referendum
But you fear....

Why don't you do your homework, for a change?

If you ever bothered to read the actual text of the UN Resolution, you would find that it calls for the removal of all armed Pakistani elements from Jammu and Kashmir BEFORE a plebiscite was to be called.

Want the document to read? Try

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/047/72/IMG/NR004772.pdf?OpenElement

Why do you say " bring modi " ?
Do you want a war with pakistan ?

On this point as well, although I stand for the prosecution of Modi, your statement about war being a result compels me to point out that Pakistan started every major war in the past.

 

[SamantK]

Oh laalay when you look it you think 'oh they're going to shove religion down our throats', when we see it we ask ourselves 'if one were to assume that either, English Civil Law and Shariah, were completely man-made, then what, principally, makes one shudder at the prospect of the imposition of the Shariah and not in case of English Civil Law ?'.

Laalay, English Civil law was based on logic which prevailed at that time and favored logic we modified it to make it more logical in our context.

Consequently let person A present 'Islamic Finance' to the People, let person B present 'Capitalism' and let person C present 'Socialism', and let the People decide from themselves.

Right, so A will always have the highest chance of putting the bill through, nice representation I say when the law is Islam based rather than logic based. The exact reason why your Country was termed an Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Read this link

The Speech of Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhya (Opposition to Objectives Resolution, Constitutent Assembly of Pak, 12 March 1949) - All My Posts governance History India-Pakistan History Islam On Pakistan Pakistan - 'Objectives Resolution' Bengal Bhupen

The first term itself was contested by a Hindu representative from East Pakistan and what happened, you became an Islamic Republic of Pakistan. What the theory states is theory but not how people think and react. So much room to twist the rules to appease the religious majority here, the logic will win or not cannot be guaranteed.

This is what the whole Pakistan movement was ! Don't think of Islam as something that is restricted to the 'spiritual plane' only...its much more ! Let us present it to the People...if they accept it - good, if they reject it - fine...its their call, we'd just have to make a better sales pitch the next time. The reason why we separated was because : 1) Secularism effectively rules out there ever being anything called 'Islamic Polity', 'Islamic Finance' etc. that can be tabled as a resolution in the Parliament. And 2) Because of the bad-blood between Hindus and Muslims and consequently because of the acrimony that had developed over the years....any chance of a party that would espouse these, being elected, would be next to impossible and because it couldn't be elected at the Centre it couldn't bring about a 'Constitutional Change' to let us, in the Muslim majority provinces, make laws as per our own belief system without it being struck down as being un-constitutional.

Yes Islamic polity in state matters is something which should not be allowed because of the reason I stated before, if religion is introduced in the state affairs it so happens that it can be twisted to any extent just because the Majority religious fanatics thought that it was only natural!

P.S Which aspect of the Islamic Way would be unacceptable for the Non-Muslims when they are guaranteed their own laws, the right to educate their children as they see fit and the same rights and privileges that everyone else enjoys ! Though in practice this got hijacked right after Jinnah's death !

laws change over time my dear, nothing can trump sound logic and it constantly evolves, but when the basis is a belief then who decides what is correct and what is not, isn't Islam being so twisted to suit the jihadi's who can guarantee that a religious Zealot cannot shadow over a majority Muslims in a TNT based country say 20 years or 100 years afterwards? How did they twist it so when many here say it is all about peace?

A simple example I have given above. So, here the A will always be in majority hence the law will become Islamic whether B or C like it or not. English Civil law is not based on religion not in the form presented to us hence acceptable, whereas Islamic laws are based on their beliefs rather than reason (like not taking interest which is illogical to the state )

I hope you understand that on paper it is beautiful and rosy for you but does not follow the representation of people in their natural form. Jinaah himself was seen not to follow logic sometimes and was the 'only' stumbling block to keep India unified as said by Lord Mountbatten.

 

[BATMAN]

Dr.AsianHerald,,,^^ Hyderabad was independent state and not part of British India.

After partition hateful bunch attacked every place populated with Muslims. that was 1948 both Kashmir and Hyderabad were invaded by Indian forces.

Kashmir being shared border with Pakistan, Indians tried to steal border villages of Pakistani territory, which naturally lead to resistance to occupation, villagers retaliated and they fought well with armed troops of Indian army. same with Hyderabad, they also putup great fight but the Muslim genocide was of mamoth magnitude.

Later, Hyderabad lands and business, was awarded to hindus.

 

[Joe Shearer]

My goal is to make everyone aware of the circumstances regarding the status of Gurdaspur District and how it impacted the Kashmir Status later on.

This was a downright mischievous post.

The Radcliffe Commission made many compromises, on both sides. You have quoted one, although there were decisions made in favour of Pakistan (some already pointed out).

I am hoping to have a respectful and respectable discussion as Academics.

It could have been done if the initial post had not been worded as it was. If you want a discussion on facts, and on issues, you have the duty of defining the topic rather more completely than we got. As it stands, it is an open invitation to riot.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, the manipulations of Mountbatten preceeded the Lashkar attack by at least a year. Infact, had Mountbatten not manipulated the partition results against the unbiased logic and decision of Radcliffe, the Raja of Kashmir would not have gone to India as it would have made it difficult for India to attack. The attack came about because of the Injustice of the situation in 1948, more than a year later than the manipulations of Mountbatten.

There is no connection between Mountbatten's alleged interference with the Radcliffe Award, and the events in Kashmir. Gurdaspur did not influence the Maharaja; he was not looking at lines of communication, he was looking at dynastic and administrative issues. The decision to send in armed tribals was entirely independent of the Gurdaspur matter.

You mention that the Maharaja would not have chosen India if Gurdaspur had gone to Pakistan, because then there would have been no scope for India to attack.

Nonsense.

The Maharaja's choice was not dependent on logistics whatsoever.

His choice was made against the background of an invasion; the tribals attacked. Not India. Get your dates in order please.

Lastly, this thread is such a piece of armchair theory. Indian troops flew into Kashmir, they did not use the land routes for the initial deployment. If necessary, every scrap of equipment could have been flown in.

Gurdaspur made no difference to the situation.

Let us just say, Pakistani leaders were Gentlemen and not as devious and immoral as the Indian ones.

Everybody knows about the affair Nehru was having with Mrs. Mountbatten ( a married woman).

Why are you bringing in irrelevancies? Do you realize what can follow if people were to retaliate? Have you any idea, or are you irresponsible enough to start a mud-slinging match about the leadership, one which you might not win as you seem to assume.