Junagadh dispute & Kashmir

Discussion in 'Military History & Strategy' started by ice_man, Oct 24, 2009.

Share This Page

  1. ice_man

    ice_man SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,502
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,842 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Junagadh is one of the modern districts of Saurastra,Gujarat

    Junagadh was a state on the southwestern end of Gujarat, with the principalities of Manavadar, Mangrol and Babriawad. The Arabian Sea stood between it and Pakistan. The state had an overwhelming Hindu population who consituted more than 80% of it's citizens, whilst the ruler of the state was a Muslim. On August 15 1947 the ruler of the state Nawab of Junagarh Manabhar Khanji acceded to Pakistan. Pakistan confirmed the acceptance of the accession in September 1947. India did not accept the accession as legitimate.

    The Indian point of view was that since Junagarh was a state with a predominantly Hindu population it should be a part of India. Additionally, since the state was encircled by Indian territory it should have been a part of India. Indian politicians also stated that by giving Pakistan a predominantly Hindu region to govern the basis of the two nation theory was contradicted.

    The Pakistani point of view was that since Junagarh had a ruler who chose to accede to Pakistan he should be allowed to do so. Junagarh, having a coastline could have maintained maritime links with Pakistan. Additionally, Pakistani politicians stated that the two nation theory did not necessarily mean a clear division of land and absolute transfer of populations as the sheer magnitude of such a proceeding would wreack havoc upon countless millions.

    Needless to say, neither of the two states were able to resolve this issue amicably and it only added fuel to an already charged environment.

    Sardar Patel, India's then Defence Minister, felt that if Junagadh was permitted to go to Pakistan, it would create communal unrest across Gujarat. The government of India gave Pakistan time to void the accession and hold a plebiscite in Junagadh to pre empt any violence in Gujarat. Samaldas Gandhi formed a government-in-exile, the Arzi Hukumat (in Urdu: Arzi: Transitional, Hukumat: Government) of the people of Junagarh. Patel ordered the annexation of Junagarh's three principalities. Junagarh, facing financial collapse, first invited the Arzi Hukumat, and later the Government of India to accept the reins of power.

    Kashmir dispute

    Kashmir was Muslim-majority princely state, ruled by a Hindu, Hari Singh. The Maharaja of Kashmir was equally hesitant to join either India — he felt his mostly Muslim subjects would not like joining a Hindu-majority nation — or Pakistan — which as a Hindu he was personally averse to. Pakistan coveted the Himalayan kingdom, while Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi and Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru hoped that the kingdom would join India. Hari Singh signed a Standstill Agreement (preserving status quo) with Pakistan, but did not make his decision by August 15, 1947.

    Rumours spread in Pakistan that Hari Singh was trying to accede Kashmir to India. Eager to bring Kashmir under its control, Pakistan decided to take Kashmir by force. Backed by Pakistani paramilitary forces, Pashtun tribal warlords invaded Kashmir in September 1947. Kashmir's security forces were ill-equipped to fight against Pakistan. Troubled by the deteriorating law and order situation in Kashmir, the Maharaja Hari Singh asked for India's help. However, the Constitution of India barred the Indian Armed Forces intervention since Kashmir did not come under India's jurisdiction. Desperate to get India's help, the Maharaja acceded Kashmir to India and signed the Instrument of Accession. [1] By this time the raiders were close to the capital, Srinagar. On October 27, 1947, the Indian Air Force airlifted Indian troops into Srinagar. Indian troops secured Jammu, Srinagar and the Kashmir valley itself, but the intense fighting flagged with the onset of winter, which made much of the state impassable. After weeks of intense fighting between India and Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister Nehru declared a ceasefire and sought U.N. arbitration with the promise of a plebiscite. Sardar Patel had argued against both, describing Kashmir as a bilateral dispute and its accession as justified by international law.In 1957, Kashmir was fully integrated into the Union of India and the state of Jammu and Kashmir was created. The northwestern portion that remained under control of the Pakistan army is today Pakistan-administered Kashmir. In 1962, China occupied Aksai Chin, the northeastern region bordering Ladakh. In 1984, India launched Operation Meghdoot and captured more than 80% of the Siachen Glacier.

    India maintains that the Maharaja's decision, which was the norm for every other princely state at the time of independence, and subsequent elections, for over 40 years, in Kashmir have made it an integral part of India. Pakistan asserts Kashmiris' rights to self-determination through a plebiscite in accordance with an earlier Indian statement and a UN resolution. Pakistan also maintains that by India's own logic regarding Junagadh (that the Hindu majority state should have gone to India even though it had a Muslim ruler), that Kashmir should rightfully have become part of Pakistan or at the very least the promised plebiscite should be allowed to decide the fate of the Kashmiri people. India however points to Pakistan's failure to comply to the preconditions of the plebiscite including a complete pullout of Pakistani troops from the area first. This dispute triggered wars between the two countries in 1947 and 1965, and a limited conflict in 1999. The state remains divided between the two countries by the Line of Control (LoC), which demarcates the ceasefire line agreed upon in the 1947 conflict.


    Now my question is how can JUNGARADH annexation be considered correct & why is our stand on kashmir considered incorrect???
    both had rulers that ruled subjects of a different religious background!!!
  2. Kashmiri Nationalist

    Kashmiri Nationalist FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    800
    Ratings:
    +0 / 487 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Thing is, Pakistan does not commit atrocities on the population of Junagdh does it? No, it does not (I should think so). But India Kills, tortures and rapes the people of Kashmir and does it only to the Muslim Majority population and not the Hindu minority. How can India claim Kashmir as its own when it does such things? I am a Kashmiri and I feel Pakistani, India should not even control or call one inch of Kashmir as its own. But it does then things like the Mumbai Terror attacks happen and the Indian media misses the point of why it happened.
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2009
  3. AgNoStiC MuSliM

    AgNoStiC MuSliM PDF Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    17,890
    Ratings:
    +10 / 16,371 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Is Junagadh annexed to Pakistan?

    The people got a chance to decide eventually did they not?

    So what is the comparison with Pakistan's position on Kashmir about?

    What Junagadh does do is debunk the Indian criticizm about a 'Pakistani invasion of Kashmir' since they did much the same in Junagadh and Hyderabad.

    What is hypocritical here are the views and attitudes of the Indian leadership and State, such as this one:

    "Sardar Patel, India's then Defence Minister, felt that if Junagadh was permitted to go to Pakistan, it would create communal unrest across Gujarat."

    And why not apply the same in Kashmir then - it should have acceded to Pakistan based on patel's communal argument.

    "Sardar Patel had argued against both, describing Kashmir as a bilateral dispute and its accession as justified by international law."

    Yet in Junagadh he was arguing against 'accession justified by international law' on the basis of 'communal harmony'.
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  4. ice_man

    ice_man SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,502
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,842 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    thank you this is exactly what i wanted to arrive at....!!
  5. PlanetWarrior

    PlanetWarrior SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,924
    Ratings:
    +4 / 6,655 / -2
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Zimbabwe
    IMO India and Pakistan should jointly hold a referendum in Kashmir and let the people decide on whether they want to be part of India or Pakistan or be independent. In all probabilities they would seek independence. India and Pakistan should jointly agree to never interfere with the independence of Kashmir in that case and that would put an end to the most of the bitterness between India and Pakistan. They should promise to jointly rebuild Kashmir and who knows but Kashmir may become the umbilical cord which reunites the brotherhood of Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. That will make them a financial powerhouse globally and their people will enjoy one of the best standards of living since the military spending will be greatly reduced and the need for nuclear arms will fall away. With independent flourishing rich Kashmir as a seperating neighbour the trade between the countries will be huge

    But to tell an Indian politician the above is like suggesting to the Pope that he converts to Islam. Hopefully sense will overcome pride and ego someday
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  6. abbasniazi

    abbasniazi SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Messages:
    958
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,739 / -0
    Very honest assesment and analysis, hats off for you brother...:tup:
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  7. Goodperson

    Goodperson SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,860
    Ratings:
    +0 / 470 / -0
    Please read the conditions required for plebicite and Indias position -:

    The Jammu and Kashmir Issue
  8. PlanetWarrior

    PlanetWarrior SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,924
    Ratings:
    +4 / 6,655 / -2
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Zimbabwe
    Indian politcians will stir up emotions and nationalism by claiming Kashmir as an integral part of India. Pakistani politicians do likewise by stirring up revolt in Kashmir. All this is done to win votes and support in their country and the people of Kashmir are forgotten. If India and Pakistan is sincere about the fate of Kashmir then let the people of Kashmir decide what they want and respect that decision. Hold a referendum in Kashmir. It may sound like a wish in utopia but if Kashmir is resolved then I am certain that everything else which divides the peace and prosperity of India and Pakistan will fall away. More money to spend on its people and not for its army will cause most of the internal problems within India and Pakistan to fall away. India, Pakistan and Kashmir working together with Bangladesh and China could become the economic powerhouse of the world in time to come.
  9. Goodperson

    Goodperson SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,860
    Ratings:
    +0 / 470 / -0
    This has nothing to do with politics read the source patiently its not too long.
  10. R.A.W.

    R.A.W. BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Ratings:
    +0 / 382 / -0
    I was reading about Hafeez Muhammad Saeed sometime back. he also has the junagarh and hyderabad in his agenda along with kashmir. the primary theory is start with kashmir and once you get it start for junagarh and then for hyderabad.

    But for now he enjoys the protection from the Pakistan as an innocent clean civilian though being accused of many charges.

    Is the same reason that Pakistan is protecting him?

    Will it be really feasible to achieve aims of Junagarh liberation and Hyderabad liberation by such means,
  11. AgNoStiC MuSliM

    AgNoStiC MuSliM PDF Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    17,890
    Ratings:
    +10 / 16,371 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    The 'conditions' have been discussed on this thread, specifically in an exchange towards the end between bandit and myself.

    http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

    Raising the issue of conditions is disingenuous, since India first has to re-commit to the UNSC resolutions.

    You cannot reject an agreement (UNSC resolutions) and then pontificate about the conditions in the agreement.

    India must first re-accept the principle of the plebiscite as a solution and re-commit to the UNSC resolutions and then we can talk about 'conditions' of the UNSC resolutions.
  12. AgNoStiC MuSliM

    AgNoStiC MuSliM PDF Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    17,890
    Ratings:
    +10 / 16,371 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    I am not familiar with Hafiz Saeed's agenda or beliefs - but he was primarily used in Kashmir.

    His freedom as of right now is because of a lack of evidence implicating him in the Mumbai attacks, not his personal views on Junagadh and Hyderabad - who cares about J&H anymore, not the GoP nor most Pakistanis.

    They primarily have an academic value in terms of discussing partition, the accession of states and Kashmir.
  13. R.A.W.

    R.A.W. BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Ratings:
    +0 / 382 / -0
    In 1987 Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, along with Abdullah Azzam, founded Markaz Dawa-Wal-Irshad, a group with roots in the Jamait Ahl-e-Hadis.[2][5]

    This organization spawned the jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba in 1990[5], with the help of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence officers.[7]

    It was based in Pakistan before 9/11 and was transferred to Kashmir after.[citation needed] Lashkar's primary target is the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir although Saeed has spoken of "liberating" Hyderabad State and Junagadh from Indian rule as well.


    Same evidence is sufficient for everyone apart from pakistan.

    Does discussion also includes killing of innocent civilians as well as meetings with generals within the army when the same person is accused of terrorism within India. Pakistani army and senior officials do not refrain from having word with him though he is been accused in 2001, 2006 and 2008 for terrorism in India.
  14. Goodperson

    Goodperson SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,860
    Ratings:
    +0 / 470 / -0
    The reply was for PlanetWarrior .

    FYI

    Non-implementation of UN Resolutions by Pakistan

    6. Despite India's completely legal and valid position on Jammu & Kashmir, in order to find a solution to the situation created by Pakistan's aggression, India had accepted the option of holding a plebiscite in J&K. It had, however, been made clear by the Indian leaders that holding of such a plebiscite would be conditional upon Pakistan fulfilling Parts (I) & (II) of the UNCIP resolutions of 13 August, 1948, which inter alia, required that all forces regular and irregular under the control of both sides shall cease fire; Pakistan would withdraw its troops, it would endeavour to secure withdrawal of tribesmen and Pak nationals and India will withdraw bulk of its forces once the UNCIP confirms that the tribesmen and Pak nationals have withdrawn and Pak troops are being withdrawn. India was also to ensure that the state government takes various measures to preserve peace, law and order. Indian acceptance of these UNCIP resolutions was also subject to several conditions and assurances given by UNCIP including that Pakistan would be excluded from all affairs of Jammu & Kashmir, "Azad J & K Government" would not be recognized, sovereignty of J & K government over the entire territory of the state shall not be brought into question, territory occupied by Pakistan shall not be consolidated, and Pakistani troops would be withdrawn completely. Pakistan never fulfilled these assurances.
  15. PlanetWarrior

    PlanetWarrior SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,924
    Ratings:
    +4 / 6,655 / -2
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Zimbabwe


    Read that and understood it bhai. My earlier point that the politicians are playing politics still holds force. Pakistan will not remove their nationals and adhere to a ceasefire and India will not remove their troops and hold a plebiscite until Pakistan does so while Pakistan changes the goalpost and tells India "no you go first" is all fair and well for the Indians and the Pakistanis and even better for their politicians who stand on soapboxes telling their masses "now look how we will teach the other side a lesson." But the important point being missed out here is that the catch 22 situation only has one victim which is the people of Kashmir. They were an independent nation at the time of partition and their independence has been spat on by both India and Pakistan. No need to remind me that their king ceded his territory to India. Important thing is that a nation says give us the right to decide our destiny. Why can't India and Pakistan be magnaminous enough to say "we will jointly help you in deciding your destiny by giving you the chance to vote on it." From there the prospects for both India and Pakistan as allies will be breathtaking. An independent stable and wealthy Kashmir as a trade route between India , Pakistan and China can only benefit everybody. No huge armies facing each other between India and Pakistan and the emphasis is on trade and social upliftment. Sounds like utopia but we can dream :cheers: