What's new

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • I see that DesiMan has answered your question in pretty detail. I agree with most of what he said. Will only add that its all about winning and losing and the way you fight your war. The moment you start targeting civilians, you have lost half your war. Thats why MB won Bangladesh and LTTE lost Sri Lanka.

    The story of Kashmir is incomplete as of now. Pakistan tried the LTTE way earlier in Kashmir and Punjab but lost. Now it seems its trying a different tactic. But unlike 1971 where Pakistan did not have a counter Punch to India, we have one at this time in the form of downtrodden condition of Pakistani economy and its image in the world plus the growing clout of India. The one thing India needs to ensure to keep winning is to keep the economic gap between India and Pakistan on an ever increasing trajectory. Keep that going for another decade or 2, Pakistan will become irrelevant in the over all scheme of things.
    Thanx for the reply..but sorry to trouble you again.

    I agree with you that a divided Kashmir and war like situation stopped the plebiscite.

    my question is...isn’t it then unfair to deny plebiscite on 1953 by Nehru with out a valid reason ??

    our govt says Kashmir is an integral part of India(i wish the same)but shouldn’t the govt say “we will keep our promise of plebiscite to the kashmiri people and to the world... if Pakistan withdraws all non kashmiri civilians and starts withdrawing its force from kashmir and takes back the land gifted to china then indian govt will start withdrawing Indian army also and conduct plebiscite(under UN)".
    My understanding of your message is that you feel that not holding plebiscite in Kashmir is a 'double standard' since India had held a plebiscite in Junagadh, a similar Princely State ? If that’s what you are saying, then my reply is, no, India played no ‘double standard’ by not holding plebiscite in Kashmir, because the situations in both the cases were not identical, legally or otherwise.

    Plebiscite in Kashmir circa ‘47-‘48, in a war like situation, was practically impossible. Accordingly, it was promised, that plebiscite would be held once law and order situation came under control. Given that plebiscite was to be held through out the whole of Kashmir, a part of which was occupied by Pak, it became necessary that Pak withdrew for the process of plebiscite to begin. UN recognized this fact in the resolution of 13th Aug, 1948, where plebiscite was made conditional to demilitarization of Kashmir. So effectively, the plebiscite in Kashmir became conditional to Pak withdrawal and subsequent ‘bulk’ withdrawal by Indian troops. None of which happened. So no plebiscite was held.

    In case of Junagadh, no such problem arose. There was no Pakistan within the territory of Junagadh and there was no UN to meddle (Pak did try to use Junagadh as bargaining chip at the UN meetings, but it was already too late for them) and plebiscite could be held smoothly.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…

Top Bottom