Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Apart from hyderabad & Junagarh there were also two districts namely Ferozpur and Gurdaspur. As per partition rules these states should have joined Pakistan because these were Muslim majority districts. However since these two districts bordered Kashmir and without them India would not have gained access to Kashmir these were given to India by the border commission formed to oversee the partition. How they managed it I am not sure but this did happened.
Venkat,
The point is not that whether Hyderabad would have remained third Pakistan or not. The point is that Nawab of Hyderabad declared independence and was also given some sort of representation at UN. Therefore India attacked an independent country and forced it to join.
Gurdaspur is India's only link to Kashmir AND it is a Muslim majority province so both Kashmir and Gurdaspur should have been Pakistan's/ What about Gujarat?
We are not talking about todays population but the population as it was in 1947.In 1947 according to the best information I have Ferozpur, Gurdaspur and Junagarh had muslim majority population and should have joined Pakistan. They were located with Punjab and there was no issue of land access to them from Pakistan. However just to provide land route for India to Kashmir these areas were given to India.
As for Hyderabad its nawab declared independence and was annexed by India using force.
should have? now here is the thing..
the maps and boundary if I remember correctly were made arbitrarily by some bloke in England who had never been to India.. to be fair to the brits they didn't know which way Kashmir would swing therefore I think letting India have a non mountainous route to Kashmir is quite pragmatic and wise on their part....
before the borders of Pakistan were drawn, the relation between Pakistan and India would not have been envisaged at being this bad (I mean these people had lived together had culutral contacts and lived in harmony for milleniums for all practical purposes they were treated as a singular entity) . so I don't think it would have mattered if one or two districts went here and there keeping in mind the "happiness" or will of Kashmiris (it is another matter that plebiscite or elections are yet to be held) and also the fact that Muslims were getting there state...
as for Hyderabad even under the British it was not an independent monarchy per se..(I am not sure but British had suzerainity over Hyderabad) another contention is that Free "India" had overwhelming decided to have the govt of the Demos and not monarchs.. hence it was imperative for Monarchs to honour the will of the people..
Nizam of Hyderabad (though I don't if he was entitled to enforce his will on the subjects but he) ought to have honoured the will of the people.. which could have been judged by the public mood, statisitics, demographics and to be sure by means of an election
as for the Kashmiri King his indecision like his barbaric rule led to the ruin of Kashmir... his PM had made it clear that it would not be a monarchy as the King would've had a (secret?) desire of... the two choices were Pakistan and India... and the rest of the story is now coloured b/w India and Pakistan...
should have? now here is the thing..
the maps and boundary if I remember correctly were made arbitrarily by some bloke in England who had never been to India.. to be fair to the brits they didn't know which way Kashmir would swing therefore I think letting India have a non mountainous route to Kashmir is quite pragmatic and wise on their part....
before the borders of Pakistan were drawn, the relation between Pakistan and India would not have been envisaged at being this bad (I mean these people had lived together had culutral contacts and lived in harmony for milleniums for all practical purposes they were treated as a singular entity) . so I don't think it would have mattered if one or two districts went here and there keeping in mind the "happiness" or will of Kashmiris (it is another matter that plebiscite or elections are yet to be held) and also the fact that Muslims were getting there state...
We are not talking about todays population but the population as it was in 1947.In 1947 according to the best information I have Ferozpur, Gurdaspur and Junagarh had muslim majority population and should have joined Pakistan. They were located with Punjab and there was no issue of land access to them from Pakistan. However just to provide land route for India to Kashmir these areas were given to India.
As for Hyderabad its nawab declared independence and was annexed by India using force.
Your analysis are no doubt correct in some aspects. Like the one you gave of hyderabad it was a Hindu majority state and I think if an election was held Hyderabad would of gone to India, but the fact is this election was never allowed to be held because India invaded before such a step could be taken. I think they should of waited for the election because this would of given them legal control of that area and other statea such as Jundagh, Kashmir and others.
Now this is just one view, the other view or the legal view which was agreed to by both sides was that all Princely states were to e given three choices. They were either join India, join Pakistan or declare independence and then move from their.
Now Jundagh had acceded to Pakistan Hyderabad had declared independence and I know for a fact that as soon as India's blockade of that state began the government of Hyderabad had formally signed the accession papers for the state to acced to Pakistan.
As far as Kashmir goes India is right when it says Kashmir acced to India and thus belongs to India and it is Pakistan that is the occupying force.
But then again Hyderabad and Jundagh had also acceded to Pakistan and India is the occupying force. Now if India has occupied Jundagh, Hyderabad and other states on the basis that they were majority Hindu states then they must give Kashmir to Pakistan on the basis that it is a majority muslim state.
That is a flawed assertion, because Pakistan was expected to survive and "retain contact" with two wings separated by a much greater distance, so why extend "special favors" for India by putting Muslim majority districts on its side?
Now you are totally right India needed a land route to Kashmir and the Viceroy was well aware of that and he and Nehru drew up this boundary because of this excuse. It must also be noted Nehru had a personal connection to Kashmir, because his family came from their and he wanted to retain Kashmir at all costs.
If the relationship had been "harmonious for millennium" (PS: The subcontinent was considered a single entity only when subjugated by a colonial power and governed as a colony - other than that it has always existed as hodgepodge of sovereign empires, kingdoms, princely states etc. - never a "single entity") and given that Pakistan was divided into two wings, there was no reason to not expect India to deal with Kashmir, in case of accession to it, the same way West Pakistan and East Pakistan were to deal with each other.
Mujahideen:
what you say could be correct.. but if Nehru had good terms with the British he would have got more territory for India... but I think Jinnah had far better relations with British than Nehru's with them... which went a long way in creation of Pakistan.. my 2 cents...QUOTE]
The fact is the Quaid-I-Azam was one person no one wanted to do business with. He was well focused on his goal and it was hard to change his mind. As far as relationships go Nehru was very close to Viceroy's wife and we cant forget that while the boundary line was being created Nehru was at the table and influenced Riducliff. Now as far as getting more territory is concerned India got was more territory then it deserved, the main reason why Pakistan was cheated was because the Quaid-I-Azam refused to give Mountbatten the job of the Governor-General of Pakistan. He wanted to be the Governor General of both countries and when the Quaid-I-Azam refused to give him the post his self-esteem was hurt and he became more hostile towards Pakistan. This is another reason why Pakistan didn't even get its rightful share of assets.