Coexistence with India -II

[DESERT FIGHTER]

You better watch your back!

Or what u gonna kill me with ur funny warnings? huh chap!

Pakistan army had invaded KALAT state ( major part of present Balochistan) in 1948 and forced Khan of Kalat to sign accession treaty on Gun Point.

Listen son... im a baluch and i know abt it more than you..... makran and other states joined Pak and so did kalat but the brother of khan of kalat was greedy and wanted power... he was later arrested while the khan went to karachi and met with Jinnah and merged kalat with Pakistan retaining some autonomous rights which were not quiet met by later rulers...which is another issue.... and than the final bomb was the 2 unit crap coz of which there was a small armed resistance....which was not supported by majority of the baluch people hence it dead a natural death.

Same thing was executed for Jammu & Kashmir ,however, under more sophisticated and disguised form i.e Tribal Invasion and under pressure Maharaja signed accession treaty with India. If your then Government took use of cool head and given persuasion and diplomacy a chance, then who knows Kashmir might be part of Pakistan today.

Yes its well documented how dogra forces started a genocide against Kashmiris and at one place killing 250k kashmiris and burning and looting villages which could bee seen from murree... and how refugees started pouring in from IOK into jehlum valley...... it was later when kashmiri vetrans of ww2 asked GOP for assistance and the govt sent them condemned weapons which didnt exceed a 100 or 2..... it was later tht tribals and volunteers from as far as Afghanistan came in to save their kashmir muslim brethern..... and the govt didnt even support them wholeheartedly............... read a book.

If anything can be called Hypocracy then you should call two nation theory , a Hypocracy. Pakistan was built for land of muslims then still had hawk-eye over Hindu dominated areas ,why ?

Okay give us assam,calcutta,jalandhar etc.

Its not ur fault, its fault of Pakistani education system...

Go find a good husband instead of ranting ... be a good gal!

 

[Bang Galore]

Wrong sir.

When Pakistanis say Kashmir should have been a part of the dominion of Pakistan, they get a reply that since the dogras signed an agreement to unite with India, Pakistan has no basis of such a claim.

Pakistan then says, taking this logic what about the state of Hyderabad ? Hyderabad rulers wanted to be with Pakistan and then independent, but then they got operation polo. Same with Junagadh.

And I don't know about goa, but may be some like for its beaches.

Still lacks logic. Pakistan was created for Muslims, what would you do with Hindu majority areas. Indian leadership refuted the 2NT, therefore the claims for Kashmir, Nagaland, Punjab (Indian punjab-Sikh majority), Arunachal etc makes sense.

 

[Silverblaze]

Look dear , Pakistan was itself created by a 'great' theory called Two nation theory , Now explain on basis of this why Hydrabad and Junagarh should be part of Pakistan as both being Hindu dominated (equal or more than 90% Hindu population ) ?

Either say Your two-nation theory was wrong and Jinnah 'saab' had territorial ambitions over Hindu Majority areas OR be happy with what you got.

If you do not want to understand a point of view, it your choice. I wont waste my time as well as yours. However I will make a last effort.

Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan as it was a muslim majority state. India says No, as the dogras agreed to join India. If the decision of a ruler is to be taken as a rule, Hyderabad, Junagadh should have gone to Pakistan or should have been accepted as sovereign states.

I dont comment on theories, but the point is that India changed the rule itself and according to those new rules, Pakistan used to demand hyderabad and junagadh.

In principle, Princely states had to choose their future. India says Kashmiri dogras sided with her, but when it comes to hyderabad and junagadh, India does not accept the choices of these rulers.

 

[Yaduveer]

..... brother of khan of kalat was greedy and wanted power...

So was Nawabs of Hydrabad and Junagarh, Now you happy ?

Okay give us assam,calcutta,jalandhar etc.

Why don't look at facts before throwing your prejudices here and there ?

Assam has 82% population of non-muslims. That too after ultra-fertility rate of Muslims in that state and exodus from Bangladesh in 1971 and onwards,well that is different topic altogether.

 

[kurup]

When Pakistanis say Kashmir should have been a part of the dominion of Pakistan, they get a reply that since the dogras signed an agreement to unite with India, Pakistan has no basis of such a claim.

You are right .The maharaja acceded J&K to India . So pakistan has no claims on J&K

Pakistan then says, taking this logic what about the state of Hyderabad ? Hyderabad rulers wanted to be with Pakistan and then independent, but then they got operation polo. Same with Junagadh.

Kashmir happened before Hyderabad and Junaghad.

If pakistan had agreed to give J&K to India in 48 , your claims would have any validity.You didnot accept J&K accession to India , send an army to annex it.So what moral ground does your country have to question India's stand on H'bad and Junagad.

You started this game , we played it good . You lost half in kashmir but we gained fully in Hyderabad and junaghad.

And I don't know about goa, but may be some like for its beaches.

Yes , Goa has some beautiful beaches.

 

[kurup]

Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan as it was a muslim majority state. India says No, as the dogras agreed to join India. If the decision of a ruler is to be taken as a rule, Hyderabad, Junagadh should have gone to Pakistan or should have been accepted as sovereign states.

Kashmir was an independent state not part of British India . So two nation theory was not applicable.

The decision that mattered was that of Maharaja who wanted to join India.

Has pakistan agreed to that ??No they send an army to capture it.

So you were not ready to accept the decision of Maharaja of J&K , tries to capture a country that joined India violating the rule and still expect India not to adopt same method in Hyd'bd and junaghad.

I dont comment on theories, but the point is that India changed the rule itself and according to those new rules, Pakistan used to demand hyderabad and junagadh.

In principle, Princely states had to choose their future. India says Kashmiri dogras sided with her, but when it comes to hyderabad and junagadh, India does not accept the choices of these rulers.

Nope , you changed the rule by not accepting the decision of Maharaja of J&K but you expect India to work in favour of you.

Remember kashmir happened much before both junagad and hyderabad.

 

[Ayush]

nice article. but india didn't conquer any of the above stated countries.

 

[Yaduveer]

Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan as it was a muslim majority state. India says No, as the dogras agreed to join India. If the decision of a ruler is to be taken as a rule, Hyderabad, Junagadh should have gone to Pakistan or should have been accepted as sovereign states.

I dont comment on theories, but the point is that India changed the rule itself and according to those new rules, Pakistan used to demand hyderabad and junagadh.

In principle, Princely states had to choose their future. India says Kashmiri dogras sided with her, but when it comes to hyderabad and junagadh, India does not accept the choices of these rulers.

You are still to answer my last question?

Two nation theory was official policy of Jinnah who was on mission to create a land for 'pure'. Indian leaders never believed in such theory because India was and is land of 'mixture' here all sorts of hindu,muslims,sikh,black or white choose to live under model of liberty,fraternity,equality.

Is our model a complete success ? NO , we still have illiteracy, ignorance and poverty left which have fuelled movements like Khalistan,Nagalim,Babri Masjid and gujrat riots etc.

Good part is as India grows these weakness (Illiteracy etc. ) will go away and our Union will become more strong and integrated and you know India is a second-fasted growing major economy.

On the other hand , in your model of land of pure, 'purer' faction come up and try remove 'impure' element from the 'scene' , so there goes Ahmadies,Shia,Hindu , Christian etc .

As M J Akbar has stated , making land of pure was a medieval idea which do not suits well with liberty,fraternity,equality.

Now on this fresh light you answer same question why should Junagarh and Hydrabad be part of Pakistan ? you want territory right na not Population territorial ambition is a medieval idea.

 

[Farhad Hassan]

I remember reading this one of my Pakistan studies books some 8 years ago.

There was one topic which said that Kashmir should have been part of Pakistan because majority of population was Muslims.
And right below it was the topic saying Hyderabad should been part of Pakistan because its ruler was a Muslim.

And I was like WTH?

But it is clear that both India and Pakistan violated the rules.

The rule as far as I know was that rulers of independent states would decide the fate of the states. Going by that Kashmir should have been annexed with India while Hyderabad should have gone to Pakistan.

Though democratically it would have been better if Kashmir would have been annexed to Pakistan and Hyderabad to India.

However, in the end it all came down to 'Might is right' and India took both Kashmir and Hyderabad. And I don't exactly blame them for doing this since Pakistan would have done the same if it had the power. But that also proves neither side was righteous as they pretend to be. So please cut the cr@p about innocence of your countries.

 

[Yaduveer]

I remember reading this one of my Pakistan studies books some 8 years ago.

There was one topic which said that Kashmir should have been part of Pakistan because majority of population was Muslims.
And right below it was the topic saying Hyderabad should been part of Pakistan because its ruler was a Muslim.

And I was like WTH?
........

At least one saner and objective voice from other side of border !

But my experience says that whenever Sanity and objectivity comes into picture it kills the thread because sanity attacks glamour of the thread and it's s*xyness !

Personal advice to you: Come with objectivity and sanity to PDF is one thing and maintaining it is quite another.

 

[Yogi]

Good points made, but does not a bigger and more powerful country have more responsibility in developing coexistence?

To solely blame Pakistan is unfair. Pakistan needs serious introspection and more than others on some aspects, but so does India.

Brother just like every man every country also first look after its own interest than others so ur bigger country argument doesn't hold true, u have the example of Afghanistan in front of u did Pak first looked for its own interest or Afghans???
However, i would say that a peaceful neighbourhood should be welcomed by all.

For the second part i certainly agree with u that mistakes have been committed on both sides n Pak alone should not be blamed for everything n Pak seriously needs self introspection as it has created more problems for itself then for others..

 

[Farhad Hassan]

Personal advice to you: Come with objectivity and sanity to PDF is one thing and maintaining it is quite another.

thanks for the advice. Lets see how long I can maintain it. Either ways I am going to get what I want. Knowledge. I don't care about winning some arguments. If someone would give me a better logic. I will take it and mix and mingle it with my own views. Making myself better. Why I would spend my time getting knowledge here instead of getting it from books is because even though I like reading books, they mostly give only one side of the story. Here, I can get both sides.

 

[Manas]

Like most Pakistanis even this enlightened author too believes his ancestors were foreign to the Indian sub cont. This is the biggest problem or the root cause of all problems Pakistan faces today.

 

[Roybot]

I hear even Lahore and Karachi weren't Muslim majority cities. In that case, can we has them? Minus the crazy gun totting population of course!

Excellent article though.

Junagarh,goa,mavadar,hyderabad etc........gimme a break.

In this day and age would you want to live under a King? I know I wouldn't.

All the kingdoms had to go, and they did. Both Hindu and Muslim Kingdoms, the day of Kings and Nawabs ended with the advent of democracy.

 

[Gentelman]

such threads are waste of time and mind...
and just distributes hate and fight...
so I will start discussiin here??
no way..
well people cool down..
discuss something good which distribute love...