Agnostic_Indian
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2010
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
The early history of British expansion in India was characterised by the co-existence of two approaches towards the existing princely states. The first was a policy of annexation, where the British sought to forcibly absorb the Indian princely states into the provinces which constituted their Empire in India . The second was a policy of indirect rule, where the British assumed suzerainty and paramountcy over princely states, but conceded some degree of sovereignty to them.
Accession of princely states.
After British leave India princely states will become independent.This was the legal statues of Indian states but like always practice because of political realities were different than theory.
Mountbattens instructions on practice.
Even though princely states are theoretically free to choose independence mountbatten insisted that princely states should join either India or Pakistan to maintain unity, while doing so geographical continuity should be considered.This instructions were non binding as a rule but it was suggested, pressed and practiced by mountbatten for many practical reasons such as geography, peoples aspirations, lack of resources, administrative ability etc.
Congress's position
congress maintained that princely states should join India or Pakistan according to the geographical continuity and wishes of the people.when ever a dispute come on this matter a plebiscite should be held.
Jinnaha's position
jinaha did not think people have any say in it and maintained that ruler of the state can decide whether to remain interdependent or to choose India or Pakistan.He also rejected the role of geographic realities.
kashmir, junagadh, hydrabad and kalat
kashmir.
kashmir had a Hindu ruler who preferred independence and had a dominant Muslim population(75%). he made standstill agreement with Pakistan but but couldn't reach one with India.
Nehru was intrusted in accession of Kashmir to India, but when the issue of the accession of junagadh come up Nehru told liaqat ali khan on Sept 30 1947 that while
India objected to the Nawabs accession, it would always be willing to abide by the verdict of a plebiscite. Mountbatten played his role by adding that if need arose Nehru would apply the same principle to other States too , whereupon, in Mountbattens words Nehru nodded his head sadly. Mr Laiqat eyes sparkled. There is no doubt that both of them were thinking of Kashmir. SP (patel)made it clear that a plebiscite in Kashmir would be conditional on one in Hyderabad. Not prepared for the latter, Jinnah offered no plebiscite in Junagagadh.
Indian Army had already landed in Kashmir. Mountbattens proposal was wherever rulers religion differed from that of the majority of people, plebiscite should be held. But Jinnah urged for excluding Hyderabad from the plan, Noorani revealed.
Jinnah s refusal jinxed Kashmir Noorani Lastupdate:- Thu, 16 May 2013 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com
Patel didn't mind Kashmir joining Pakistan if the raja decides so. Visiting Kashmir between 18 and 23/6/47 Mountbatten had told Maharaja Singh that if Kashmir joined Pakistan this would not be considered an unfriendly act by the Govt of India. According to Menon, Mountbatten said, he had a firm assurance from Patel himself. But patel was angered by Pakistan's acceptance of accession junagadh on Sept 16, 1947 and thereafter he started to work for the accession of Kashmir to India.
Pakistan was already pressuring the raja through border raids and by blocking supplies . On Oct 22, 5000-armed tribesmen from Pakistan entered Kashmir. maharajd requested Indian help, on 26 October 1947 maharaja signed instrument of accession.on 27th it was accepted by Mountbatten.
Life Of Sardar Patel ::Great Indian Leaders
The number one argument in the case of Kashmir vs other princely states which was forcefully accessed by Pakistan is that, UN recognised it as a disputed land and it's an international dispute.
1)In domestic law, if A questions B's title to his bungalow and files a lis pendens (pending litigation) notice, it ceases to have a marketable title. Internationally, however, the
existence of a political dispute does not becloud legal sovereignty. Ireland seeks reunion with Northern Ireland but meanwhile the U.K.'s sovereignty over it is not affected. Even the U.N.'s plebiscite resolutions did not contest India's legal sovereignty over the State
Navigation News | Frontline
2.) To people who ask for plebiscite - UN plebiscite is not legally enforceable with out both parties agreement, when India was ready Pakistan refused act on UN instructions.
Thus Pakistan is responsible for the situation in Kashmir,
1.by not agreeing for plebiscite in Hydrabad as demanded by India for accepting the plebiscite demand by Pakistan in Kashmir which was in return of Pakistan's demand for agreeing for a plebiscite in junagadh. India was for plebiscite in all three princely states but Pakistan's non cooperation in case of Hydrabad has become a stumbling block in reaching an agreement in other two states too.
2. by initiating an attack on princely state Kashmir without respecting the standstill agreement and there by starting the whole chain of military actions.
3. By not by withdrawing it's troops as demanded by UN for the requirement of a plebiscite.
junagadh and hydrabad
junagadh & hydrabad
Hydrabad 's ruler choose to remain independent with the support of jinaha. .There was a standstill agreement on agreement that Hydrabad will not join Pakistan.
The Nizam of Hyderabad initially approached the British government with a request to take on the status of an independent constitutional monarchy under the British Commonwealth of Nations . This request was however rejected.
India didn't like the idea of a independent state inside India, which even threatened to side with Pakistan in case of any India pak war , nizam rejected even to surrender defence, communication and external affairs and to conduct a plebiscite to decide the matter of accession with India,
Patel warned Nizam that India would never agree to Hyderabads independence. Instead he offered to hold plebiscite in Hyderabad to determine the will of the people on the issue of accession. Nizam first rejected the idea but pursuant to hard negotiations later accepted it and issued a firman (Rulers order)
on April 23rd 1948 specifically stating that a plebiscite will be taken on the basis of adult franchise. But this agreement fell apart on issues like disbanding of Razakars, Stationing of Indian army on peripheries & installation of responsible Govt. with the result that plebiscite could not be held.
Hyderabad and Kashmir some parallels Lastupdate:- Sat, 2 Jul 2011 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com
so finally India had to overthrew the nizam by a military action called operation polo on Sept 1948 , and subsequently conducted a plebiscite to secure Hydrabad.
Ruler of junagadh acceded to Pakistan on sept 15, 1947 (Pakistan accepted it on16th in line with it's view that rulers has all the freedom to take decision regardless of peoples opinion, completely ignoring it's earlier claim that Hindus and Muslims could not live together ), against the instructions of mountbatten that only those princely states which share a boundary should accede to Pakistan, by sighting possibility of sea link with Pakistan.it was against the wishes of the people who were 80% Hindu. India tried to negotiate by sending menon on Sept 19 , but both nawab and bhutto were evasive, India surrounded the state (on Sept 24) and asked Pakistan to take back the acceptance of accession and invited to conduct a plebiscite, India waited for four weeks however Pakistan refused this offer(Pakistan was ready for a plebiscite if India agree to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir India in turn said it would agree if Pakistan willing to accept a plebiscite in Hydrabad ) saying that the accession was in accordance with the Scheme of Independence announced by the outgoing British and that Junagadh was now part of Pakistan. Indian cabinet aapproved the take over of junagadhs three feudatories on Oct 21st and completed by Nov 1. As invited by the diwan of junagadh who took charge when nawab and bhuto escaped to Pakistan, India conducted plebiscite to secure the state.
Both this actions were in line with the congress view that princely states should join India Pakistan according to geography and wishes of the people not buy the decision of the ruler alone.technically incorrect yet ethnically and morally correct actions.This situation could have been avoided if jinaha agreed to the mountbatten proposal on Nov 1 1947 to conduct plebiscite in al three states
Accession of kalat
British considered kalat to be a India princely state, just like many other princely states which were free to stay independent by rule but not allowed to do so in practice for already explained reasons.how ever only mountbatten and India shared this view,( jinaha being a lawyer have took a legaly correct but often politically and practically impossible or incorrect decision).jinaha recognised kalat as an independent state different than other Indian princely states because
1) jinaha calculated that by doing so Pakistan will become successor of British in terms of treaty relations with kalat.
2) Pakistan would get direct control of leased areas given by khan to British.
3) Pakistan's official position was that princely states are free to become independent so jinaha feared if India enters into an agreement with kalat as a counter strategy against Pakistan's support for Hydrabad and accession of junagadh it will be a difficult situation, so if Pakistan gain the trust of kalat by accepting it as a sovereign state then Pakistan has a better chance to reach an agreement with khan of kalat.
khan opted for such a agreement because
1) it will allow him the freedom to stay independent(except for defence, communications and foreign affairs, Since British were not ready to accept kalath any different than Indian princely state and in practice none of them were allowed to stay independent . Pakistan's acceptance of kalat's soverginity will allow them to stay independent. 2) khan considerd jinaha to be a friend so he trusted him to protect kalath's internal freedom 3) khan was of the impression that leased areas also will return to him, he failed to see legal complexity.
On 12 th August 1947 the Khan of Kalat proclaimed independence and the flag of Kalat was hoisted.
at a round table conference held in Delhi on August 4, 1947, and attended by Lord Mountbatten, the Khan of Kalat, chief minister of Kalat and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, in his capacity as the legal advisor of Kalat State, it was decided that Kalat State would become independent on August 5, 1947. Subsequently, the rulers of Kharan and Lesbela were informed by the British that control of their regions had been transferred to Kalat State and the Marri and Bugti tribal regions which were under the British control were also returned into the Kalat fold, thereby bringing the whole of Balochistanunder the suzerainty of the Khan of Kalat .
A meeting of the Kalat National Assembly (elections for which had been held a few weeks earlier) held on August 15, 1947 as well as subsequent meetings of the Assembly, decided not to join Pakistan and Affirmed the position that Kalat was an independent
state and would only enter into friendly treaty relations with Pakistan.
What was the position of the Muslim League on this issue? The League had, in fact, signed a joint statement with Kalat and repeated the declaration two or three times
that the League recognized that Kalat was not an Indian state and constituted an independent entity and the League would recognize and respect this independence. In
fact, as late as August 11, 1947 a joint statement was signed in which the League leaders, now as the government of Pakistan,again recognize the independence of Kalat. The operative portions of the communiqué dated August 11, 1947 is worth quoting from:
"As a result of a meeting held between a delegation from Kalat and officials of the Pakistan States Department, presided over by the Crown Representative, and a series of meetings between the Crown Representative, HH the Khan of Kalat, and Mr Jinnah, the following
was the situation:
1. The Government of Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state; in treaty relations with British government, with a status different from that of Indian
states.
2. Legal opinion will be sought as to whether or not agreements of leases made between the British government and Kalat will be inherited by the Pakistan
government.
3. Meanwhile, a Standstill Agreement has been made between the Government of
Pakistan and the Khan of Kalat.
4. Discussions will take place between Pakistan and Kalat at Karachi at an early date with a view to reaching decisions on Defence, External Affairs and Communications (currency was not mentioned as it was understood that the Pakistani Rupee was to be used in Kalat, as a successor to its previouscurrency, the British Indian Rupee). [3]
By October 1947, Muhammad Ali Jinnah had a change of heart on the recognition of Kalat as an Independent and a Sovereign State, and wanted the Khan to sign the same form of instrument of accession as the other states, which had joined Pakistan. The Khan was unwilling to abandon the nominally achieved independent status but ready to concede on Defense, Foreign Affairs and Communications.
However, he was unwilling to sign either a treaty or an Instrument, until and unless he had got a satisfactory agreement on the leased areas.
As negotiations were not reaching anywhere, The Khan summoned both the houses of the legislative and a joint session was held on 14 th December 1947 in Dhadar. The issue of accession to Pakistan was presented before the lower house (Dar-ul_
Awam) by Mr. Douglas Y. Fell, the foreign minister of Kalat. Mr. Fell told
the house that the Government of Pakistan wanted the state of Kalat to announce accession with Pakistan and subsequent to this the fate of leased areas, Kharan and Lasbela would be decided. He further told that the Khan categorically told Jinnah that Kalat was not prepared for accession with Pakistan.
Bizenjos speech of December 14, 1947, in the Kalat Assembly is noteworthy for the ample warnings that it conveyed to the Pakistani state:
"Pakistans unpleasant and loathsome desire that our national homeland, Balochistan should merge with it is impossible to consider. We are ready to have friendship with that
country on the basis of sovereign equality but by no means ready to merge with Pakistan. We can survive without Pakistan. But the question is what Pakistan would be without us? I do not propose to create hurdles for the newly created Pakistan in the matters of defense and external communication. But we want an honorable relationship not a humiliating one. "
When the Dar-ul-Awam met on February 21, 1948, it decided not to accede, but to negotiate a treaty to determine Kalats future relations with Pakistan.
The Khan of Kalat also called a meeting of the Dar-ul-Umara to consider Quaids request for Kalat to accede to Pakistan. An intelligence report on the proceedings of the meetings reported that the Kalat State National Party was propagating that accession meant restriction on their forces and armament, undesired freedom for their women and
migration of Muslim refuges into the State which will weaken the voice of the original residents. The Khan of Kalat, the report said, made a brief speech before the Dar-ul Awam, in which he emphasized the need to have friendly relations with Pakistan, and also said that the intentions of the Quaid towards Kalat were good. The Prime Minister of Kalat spoke next, and said that since this House had voted for Kalats independence,
he went to see the Quaid in January and had a two-and-a-half hour meeting. He said the Quaid was prepared to help the State in every way, and while independence of the State would remain intact, the only way forward for Kalat was to accede to Pakistan in the matters of Defence, Communications and Foreign Affairs.41 The Prime Minister argued
that with accession in respect of the three subjects, the internal independence of Kalat would not be affected. But Mir Ghaus Baksh Bizanjo spoke against accession to Pakistan, and he argued that if Pakistan wanted friendship with Kalat, it should restore its leased territories as well as Kharan and Las Bela. The House dispersed without any intention of meeting again. Dar- ul-Umara asked for three months to study the terms of accession in order to understand its implications.
The Khan then sent the unanimous decision of both the houses to Pakistans Foreign Office through Prime Minister of Kalat that both houses rejected to accede to Pakistan and will only enter with treaty relations with Pakistan.he also.asked three months time to study the implications of accession.apparently Pakistan's claims on kharan lasbela and leased territories were the reasons which provoked leaders of kalat.
On 17 th March 1948 the Government of Pakistan announced accession of Kharan and Lasbela. Similarly Makran which was part of Kalat for 300 years was declared a separate state and annexed.
The Khan of Kalat objected to their accession, arguing that it was a violation of Kalats Standstill Agreement with Pakistan. He also said that while Kharan and Las Bela were its feudatories, Mekran was a district of Kalat. The British Government had placed the control of the foreign policy of the two feudatories under Kalat in July 1947, prior to
partition.
All these actions generated unrest and strong negative sentiments among the people of Balochistan. On 27 March 1948, Lt.Colonel Gulzar of the 7 th Baluch Regiment under GOC Major General Mohammad Akbar Khan invaded the Khanate of Kalat. General Akbar escorted the Khan of Kalat to Karachi and forced him to sign on the instrument of accession, as reported by Selig Harrison in his book On the Shadows of
Afghanistan, while Pakistan Navys destroyers reached Pasni and Jiwani.
The Khan of Kalat signed the accession papers on 28 th March 1948. Mr. Jinnah signed them on 31st March 1948.The Khan was then detained, his cabinet dissolved, a large number of Baloch dissidents arrested and the army assumed full control of the state.
let's see some counter arguments.
1) British didn't recognise kalat as independent state but as a Indian princely state by including it in 1935 govt of India act.
when khan of kalat contested the inclusion of kalat as Indian state , mountbatten in his personal letter assured him that his excellency recognised the treaty of 1876 and it would henceforth form the basis of relation between British govt and kalath state.despite of personal assurance it seems mountbatten was reluctant to recognise kalat as an independent state because, it was obvious that khan if khan is allowed to stay independent his position will make the position of nizam of Hydrabad adamant and it will create trouble for unification of India.
As the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, sought to settle the question of accession of all princely states, Kalat was the subject of a meeting on July 19, 1947. At this meeting Lord Mountbatten, the Crown Representative, said that those districts which all acknowledged to be administered by Kalat were Mekran, Jhalawan, Sarawan, Kachhi, Dombki and Kaheri. He also said that Las Bela and Kharan were disputed, as their rulers claimed not to be under the suzerainty of the Khan of.Kalat.
At this meeting, the Prime Minister of Kalat, Nawabzada Aslam Khan, claimed that the relationship of Kalat with the British Government was defined in the Treaty of 1876 as one of an independent, sovereign state. While the Viceroy said he would accept this for the purposes of negotiations, Nishtar, the Pakistan government representative said thathe would not contest this claim.
so you can see that even though kalat was deserving to be independent mountbatten didn't allow its claim of independence option, to force the khan to come to an agreement with Pakistan. If mountbatten did not followed that policy then kalat as an Indian state had full right to stay independent, kalat wouldn't have to claim to be different than India states, it didn't have to enter into a agreement with Pakistan to be recognised as a sovereign state in order to retain it's soverginity, the leased ares would have come back to kalat instead of Pakistan, it was same the mountbatten practice which Pakistan used to oppose benefited Pakistan. Pakistan initially recognised kalaths independence status, of kalat but later back tracked and forced the merger.
2 . khan was not forced but he willingly signed accession document.
A) khan of kalat didn't have the authority to sign accession without the agreement of upper and lower house of parliament, and it's clear that they rejected the proposal of accession.khan himself acknowleged this fact later.
B). khan himself many times declared his wish to stay independent when he was not under the control of Pakistan,(he was only ready to surrender defence, communication and foreign affairs, when he get a satisfactory agreement on leased areas) what he spoke under the control of Pakistan is just like someone's statements recorded under police custody, can't be trusted to be true because he was under Pakistani pressure. even under such pressure he and his brother who finished jail term once again agitated against Pakistan govt in 1958, although not successful it will give an idea of what he really wanted.
3. makren, lasbela and kharan were independent princely states.
lord mountbatten, the crown's representatives only acknowledged(on July meeting ) that kharan and lasbela are ' disputed ' because the there rulers contested the claim of kalat's control over them.makren was always under the control of kalath,dipute calls for a stand still and settlement as per legal decision not one sided action of accepting their accession. British never recognise makren as separate state.After the meeting on August 4 ,the British themselves informed kharan and lasbela that the control of their territories is given back to kalat state.
For argument sake let's assume that these states were not part of kalath and they had the right to decide for themselves,even then kalath's situation becomes same as " Hydrabad " was, or even better because there was no conflict of interest between ruler and his subjects unlike Hydrabad, where he ruler was a Muslim and population was Hindu,Pakistan already agreed that kalat is not mearlly a Indian princely state but it's even above that.
This will now show jinaha's hypocrisy, in Hydrabad he supported independent state even when he knew that it was completely surrounded by India, but he didn't allow kalath to stay independent, he merged it by pressure and force so Pakistani who shout about Kashmir plebiscite should think about that first before giving long passionate speeches about self determination and plebiscite in Kashmir.
4) Kashmir is international dispute kalat is not
Any dispute when two countries are involved is a international dispute, not because the merit or validity of the claims but simply because two countries are involved.In kalat's case it was recognised as a independent state, so technically it becomes a international issue , but it's not considered as such only because kalath as a country didn't exist today, it lost it's existence to Pakistan,so Pakistan is ble to contain it as a domestic issue.Regardless of whether today it's an international issue or not we have the right to talk about and draw comparisons , to the actions of both countries in accessing the princely states
especially when Pakistan is alleging that India is illegally occupying Kashmir, against the will of the people.so it's only fair to look at the policys and actions of India and Pakistan regarding the accession of princely states to know who is what?
The argument of "you shouldn't talk about kalat because we don't talk about khalistan,maoists ,goa, etc is just a escapist strategy to prevent Indians from questioning the hypocrisy in Pakistan's arguments and a strategy to keep Indian arguments always in defensive position so Pakistan can pretend to be the champions of self determination, once the whole history of ' kalat's accession comes into the picture, hypocrisy in Pakistani argument will be exposed.
Finally Pakistan in the beginning stood with the ruler's supremacy and freedom of choice regardless of peoples aspirations, congress and mountbatten stood for peoples choice over rulers's decision if there is a conflict, but of course byconsidering geographical realities also.
Pakistan accepted junagadh's choice /India opposed it - consistently with their policy
Pakistan accepted Hydrabads choice/India objected - consistently with their policy
Pakistan accepted kalats independence/India rejected it, nor did India wanted to accede it - again both nations are consistent in their approach
But hypocrisy is started by Pakistan
1)By not respecting the free choice of Kashmir maharaja and standstill agreement when it attacked Kashmir.
2) Again another hypocrisy by forcing the kan of kalat to sign a instrument of accession on terms which were against his wishes as well as against both house of parliament of kalat.
where is Indian hypocrisy ?? as accused by Pakistan ?? only thing Pakistan can show as a hypocrisy is India's withdrawal of plebiscite offer. Pakistan is in no position to expect India to continue with the offer of plebiscite after it rejected the plebiscite offer twice
1)Initial offer by Indian leaders and mountbatten to conduct plebiscite in all three states
2) Rejection of UN plebiscite offer by not agreeing to withdraw it's troops as requested by UN as a pre condition for conducting a plebiscite.
referencee
Balochistan conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Balochistan in history: BALOCH INSURGENCIES 1948-1977
Balochistan in history: PAKISTAN ABSORBS THE KHANATE
The Accession of Kalat: Myth and Reality - Crisis Balochistan
http://www.bso-na.org/files/The_Illegal_Annexati_478B7B.pdf
Jinnah, Muslim League and Accession of Princely States - wiki
Accession of princely states.
After British leave India princely states will become independent.This was the legal statues of Indian states but like always practice because of political realities were different than theory.
Mountbattens instructions on practice.
Even though princely states are theoretically free to choose independence mountbatten insisted that princely states should join either India or Pakistan to maintain unity, while doing so geographical continuity should be considered.This instructions were non binding as a rule but it was suggested, pressed and practiced by mountbatten for many practical reasons such as geography, peoples aspirations, lack of resources, administrative ability etc.
Congress's position
congress maintained that princely states should join India or Pakistan according to the geographical continuity and wishes of the people.when ever a dispute come on this matter a plebiscite should be held.
Jinnaha's position
jinaha did not think people have any say in it and maintained that ruler of the state can decide whether to remain interdependent or to choose India or Pakistan.He also rejected the role of geographic realities.
kashmir, junagadh, hydrabad and kalat
kashmir.
kashmir had a Hindu ruler who preferred independence and had a dominant Muslim population(75%). he made standstill agreement with Pakistan but but couldn't reach one with India.
Nehru was intrusted in accession of Kashmir to India, but when the issue of the accession of junagadh come up Nehru told liaqat ali khan on Sept 30 1947 that while
India objected to the Nawabs accession, it would always be willing to abide by the verdict of a plebiscite. Mountbatten played his role by adding that if need arose Nehru would apply the same principle to other States too , whereupon, in Mountbattens words Nehru nodded his head sadly. Mr Laiqat eyes sparkled. There is no doubt that both of them were thinking of Kashmir. SP (patel)made it clear that a plebiscite in Kashmir would be conditional on one in Hyderabad. Not prepared for the latter, Jinnah offered no plebiscite in Junagagadh.
Indian Army had already landed in Kashmir. Mountbattens proposal was wherever rulers religion differed from that of the majority of people, plebiscite should be held. But Jinnah urged for excluding Hyderabad from the plan, Noorani revealed.
Jinnah s refusal jinxed Kashmir Noorani Lastupdate:- Thu, 16 May 2013 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com
Patel didn't mind Kashmir joining Pakistan if the raja decides so. Visiting Kashmir between 18 and 23/6/47 Mountbatten had told Maharaja Singh that if Kashmir joined Pakistan this would not be considered an unfriendly act by the Govt of India. According to Menon, Mountbatten said, he had a firm assurance from Patel himself. But patel was angered by Pakistan's acceptance of accession junagadh on Sept 16, 1947 and thereafter he started to work for the accession of Kashmir to India.
Pakistan was already pressuring the raja through border raids and by blocking supplies . On Oct 22, 5000-armed tribesmen from Pakistan entered Kashmir. maharajd requested Indian help, on 26 October 1947 maharaja signed instrument of accession.on 27th it was accepted by Mountbatten.
Life Of Sardar Patel ::Great Indian Leaders
The number one argument in the case of Kashmir vs other princely states which was forcefully accessed by Pakistan is that, UN recognised it as a disputed land and it's an international dispute.
1)In domestic law, if A questions B's title to his bungalow and files a lis pendens (pending litigation) notice, it ceases to have a marketable title. Internationally, however, the
existence of a political dispute does not becloud legal sovereignty. Ireland seeks reunion with Northern Ireland but meanwhile the U.K.'s sovereignty over it is not affected. Even the U.N.'s plebiscite resolutions did not contest India's legal sovereignty over the State
Navigation News | Frontline
2.) To people who ask for plebiscite - UN plebiscite is not legally enforceable with out both parties agreement, when India was ready Pakistan refused act on UN instructions.
Thus Pakistan is responsible for the situation in Kashmir,
1.by not agreeing for plebiscite in Hydrabad as demanded by India for accepting the plebiscite demand by Pakistan in Kashmir which was in return of Pakistan's demand for agreeing for a plebiscite in junagadh. India was for plebiscite in all three princely states but Pakistan's non cooperation in case of Hydrabad has become a stumbling block in reaching an agreement in other two states too.
2. by initiating an attack on princely state Kashmir without respecting the standstill agreement and there by starting the whole chain of military actions.
3. By not by withdrawing it's troops as demanded by UN for the requirement of a plebiscite.
junagadh and hydrabad
junagadh & hydrabad
Hydrabad 's ruler choose to remain independent with the support of jinaha. .There was a standstill agreement on agreement that Hydrabad will not join Pakistan.
The Nizam of Hyderabad initially approached the British government with a request to take on the status of an independent constitutional monarchy under the British Commonwealth of Nations . This request was however rejected.
India didn't like the idea of a independent state inside India, which even threatened to side with Pakistan in case of any India pak war , nizam rejected even to surrender defence, communication and external affairs and to conduct a plebiscite to decide the matter of accession with India,
Patel warned Nizam that India would never agree to Hyderabads independence. Instead he offered to hold plebiscite in Hyderabad to determine the will of the people on the issue of accession. Nizam first rejected the idea but pursuant to hard negotiations later accepted it and issued a firman (Rulers order)
on April 23rd 1948 specifically stating that a plebiscite will be taken on the basis of adult franchise. But this agreement fell apart on issues like disbanding of Razakars, Stationing of Indian army on peripheries & installation of responsible Govt. with the result that plebiscite could not be held.
Hyderabad and Kashmir some parallels Lastupdate:- Sat, 2 Jul 2011 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com
so finally India had to overthrew the nizam by a military action called operation polo on Sept 1948 , and subsequently conducted a plebiscite to secure Hydrabad.
Ruler of junagadh acceded to Pakistan on sept 15, 1947 (Pakistan accepted it on16th in line with it's view that rulers has all the freedom to take decision regardless of peoples opinion, completely ignoring it's earlier claim that Hindus and Muslims could not live together ), against the instructions of mountbatten that only those princely states which share a boundary should accede to Pakistan, by sighting possibility of sea link with Pakistan.it was against the wishes of the people who were 80% Hindu. India tried to negotiate by sending menon on Sept 19 , but both nawab and bhutto were evasive, India surrounded the state (on Sept 24) and asked Pakistan to take back the acceptance of accession and invited to conduct a plebiscite, India waited for four weeks however Pakistan refused this offer(Pakistan was ready for a plebiscite if India agree to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir India in turn said it would agree if Pakistan willing to accept a plebiscite in Hydrabad ) saying that the accession was in accordance with the Scheme of Independence announced by the outgoing British and that Junagadh was now part of Pakistan. Indian cabinet aapproved the take over of junagadhs three feudatories on Oct 21st and completed by Nov 1. As invited by the diwan of junagadh who took charge when nawab and bhuto escaped to Pakistan, India conducted plebiscite to secure the state.
Both this actions were in line with the congress view that princely states should join India Pakistan according to geography and wishes of the people not buy the decision of the ruler alone.technically incorrect yet ethnically and morally correct actions.This situation could have been avoided if jinaha agreed to the mountbatten proposal on Nov 1 1947 to conduct plebiscite in al three states
Accession of kalat
British considered kalat to be a India princely state, just like many other princely states which were free to stay independent by rule but not allowed to do so in practice for already explained reasons.how ever only mountbatten and India shared this view,( jinaha being a lawyer have took a legaly correct but often politically and practically impossible or incorrect decision).jinaha recognised kalat as an independent state different than other Indian princely states because
1) jinaha calculated that by doing so Pakistan will become successor of British in terms of treaty relations with kalat.
2) Pakistan would get direct control of leased areas given by khan to British.
3) Pakistan's official position was that princely states are free to become independent so jinaha feared if India enters into an agreement with kalat as a counter strategy against Pakistan's support for Hydrabad and accession of junagadh it will be a difficult situation, so if Pakistan gain the trust of kalat by accepting it as a sovereign state then Pakistan has a better chance to reach an agreement with khan of kalat.
khan opted for such a agreement because
1) it will allow him the freedom to stay independent(except for defence, communications and foreign affairs, Since British were not ready to accept kalath any different than Indian princely state and in practice none of them were allowed to stay independent . Pakistan's acceptance of kalat's soverginity will allow them to stay independent. 2) khan considerd jinaha to be a friend so he trusted him to protect kalath's internal freedom 3) khan was of the impression that leased areas also will return to him, he failed to see legal complexity.
On 12 th August 1947 the Khan of Kalat proclaimed independence and the flag of Kalat was hoisted.
at a round table conference held in Delhi on August 4, 1947, and attended by Lord Mountbatten, the Khan of Kalat, chief minister of Kalat and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, in his capacity as the legal advisor of Kalat State, it was decided that Kalat State would become independent on August 5, 1947. Subsequently, the rulers of Kharan and Lesbela were informed by the British that control of their regions had been transferred to Kalat State and the Marri and Bugti tribal regions which were under the British control were also returned into the Kalat fold, thereby bringing the whole of Balochistanunder the suzerainty of the Khan of Kalat .
A meeting of the Kalat National Assembly (elections for which had been held a few weeks earlier) held on August 15, 1947 as well as subsequent meetings of the Assembly, decided not to join Pakistan and Affirmed the position that Kalat was an independent
state and would only enter into friendly treaty relations with Pakistan.
What was the position of the Muslim League on this issue? The League had, in fact, signed a joint statement with Kalat and repeated the declaration two or three times
that the League recognized that Kalat was not an Indian state and constituted an independent entity and the League would recognize and respect this independence. In
fact, as late as August 11, 1947 a joint statement was signed in which the League leaders, now as the government of Pakistan,again recognize the independence of Kalat. The operative portions of the communiqué dated August 11, 1947 is worth quoting from:
"As a result of a meeting held between a delegation from Kalat and officials of the Pakistan States Department, presided over by the Crown Representative, and a series of meetings between the Crown Representative, HH the Khan of Kalat, and Mr Jinnah, the following
was the situation:
1. The Government of Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state; in treaty relations with British government, with a status different from that of Indian
states.
2. Legal opinion will be sought as to whether or not agreements of leases made between the British government and Kalat will be inherited by the Pakistan
government.
3. Meanwhile, a Standstill Agreement has been made between the Government of
Pakistan and the Khan of Kalat.
4. Discussions will take place between Pakistan and Kalat at Karachi at an early date with a view to reaching decisions on Defence, External Affairs and Communications (currency was not mentioned as it was understood that the Pakistani Rupee was to be used in Kalat, as a successor to its previouscurrency, the British Indian Rupee). [3]
By October 1947, Muhammad Ali Jinnah had a change of heart on the recognition of Kalat as an Independent and a Sovereign State, and wanted the Khan to sign the same form of instrument of accession as the other states, which had joined Pakistan. The Khan was unwilling to abandon the nominally achieved independent status but ready to concede on Defense, Foreign Affairs and Communications.
However, he was unwilling to sign either a treaty or an Instrument, until and unless he had got a satisfactory agreement on the leased areas.
As negotiations were not reaching anywhere, The Khan summoned both the houses of the legislative and a joint session was held on 14 th December 1947 in Dhadar. The issue of accession to Pakistan was presented before the lower house (Dar-ul_
Awam) by Mr. Douglas Y. Fell, the foreign minister of Kalat. Mr. Fell told
the house that the Government of Pakistan wanted the state of Kalat to announce accession with Pakistan and subsequent to this the fate of leased areas, Kharan and Lasbela would be decided. He further told that the Khan categorically told Jinnah that Kalat was not prepared for accession with Pakistan.
Bizenjos speech of December 14, 1947, in the Kalat Assembly is noteworthy for the ample warnings that it conveyed to the Pakistani state:
"Pakistans unpleasant and loathsome desire that our national homeland, Balochistan should merge with it is impossible to consider. We are ready to have friendship with that
country on the basis of sovereign equality but by no means ready to merge with Pakistan. We can survive without Pakistan. But the question is what Pakistan would be without us? I do not propose to create hurdles for the newly created Pakistan in the matters of defense and external communication. But we want an honorable relationship not a humiliating one. "
When the Dar-ul-Awam met on February 21, 1948, it decided not to accede, but to negotiate a treaty to determine Kalats future relations with Pakistan.
The Khan of Kalat also called a meeting of the Dar-ul-Umara to consider Quaids request for Kalat to accede to Pakistan. An intelligence report on the proceedings of the meetings reported that the Kalat State National Party was propagating that accession meant restriction on their forces and armament, undesired freedom for their women and
migration of Muslim refuges into the State which will weaken the voice of the original residents. The Khan of Kalat, the report said, made a brief speech before the Dar-ul Awam, in which he emphasized the need to have friendly relations with Pakistan, and also said that the intentions of the Quaid towards Kalat were good. The Prime Minister of Kalat spoke next, and said that since this House had voted for Kalats independence,
he went to see the Quaid in January and had a two-and-a-half hour meeting. He said the Quaid was prepared to help the State in every way, and while independence of the State would remain intact, the only way forward for Kalat was to accede to Pakistan in the matters of Defence, Communications and Foreign Affairs.41 The Prime Minister argued
that with accession in respect of the three subjects, the internal independence of Kalat would not be affected. But Mir Ghaus Baksh Bizanjo spoke against accession to Pakistan, and he argued that if Pakistan wanted friendship with Kalat, it should restore its leased territories as well as Kharan and Las Bela. The House dispersed without any intention of meeting again. Dar- ul-Umara asked for three months to study the terms of accession in order to understand its implications.
The Khan then sent the unanimous decision of both the houses to Pakistans Foreign Office through Prime Minister of Kalat that both houses rejected to accede to Pakistan and will only enter with treaty relations with Pakistan.he also.asked three months time to study the implications of accession.apparently Pakistan's claims on kharan lasbela and leased territories were the reasons which provoked leaders of kalat.
On 17 th March 1948 the Government of Pakistan announced accession of Kharan and Lasbela. Similarly Makran which was part of Kalat for 300 years was declared a separate state and annexed.
The Khan of Kalat objected to their accession, arguing that it was a violation of Kalats Standstill Agreement with Pakistan. He also said that while Kharan and Las Bela were its feudatories, Mekran was a district of Kalat. The British Government had placed the control of the foreign policy of the two feudatories under Kalat in July 1947, prior to
partition.
All these actions generated unrest and strong negative sentiments among the people of Balochistan. On 27 March 1948, Lt.Colonel Gulzar of the 7 th Baluch Regiment under GOC Major General Mohammad Akbar Khan invaded the Khanate of Kalat. General Akbar escorted the Khan of Kalat to Karachi and forced him to sign on the instrument of accession, as reported by Selig Harrison in his book On the Shadows of
Afghanistan, while Pakistan Navys destroyers reached Pasni and Jiwani.
The Khan of Kalat signed the accession papers on 28 th March 1948. Mr. Jinnah signed them on 31st March 1948.The Khan was then detained, his cabinet dissolved, a large number of Baloch dissidents arrested and the army assumed full control of the state.
let's see some counter arguments.
1) British didn't recognise kalat as independent state but as a Indian princely state by including it in 1935 govt of India act.
when khan of kalat contested the inclusion of kalat as Indian state , mountbatten in his personal letter assured him that his excellency recognised the treaty of 1876 and it would henceforth form the basis of relation between British govt and kalath state.despite of personal assurance it seems mountbatten was reluctant to recognise kalat as an independent state because, it was obvious that khan if khan is allowed to stay independent his position will make the position of nizam of Hydrabad adamant and it will create trouble for unification of India.
As the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, sought to settle the question of accession of all princely states, Kalat was the subject of a meeting on July 19, 1947. At this meeting Lord Mountbatten, the Crown Representative, said that those districts which all acknowledged to be administered by Kalat were Mekran, Jhalawan, Sarawan, Kachhi, Dombki and Kaheri. He also said that Las Bela and Kharan were disputed, as their rulers claimed not to be under the suzerainty of the Khan of.Kalat.
At this meeting, the Prime Minister of Kalat, Nawabzada Aslam Khan, claimed that the relationship of Kalat with the British Government was defined in the Treaty of 1876 as one of an independent, sovereign state. While the Viceroy said he would accept this for the purposes of negotiations, Nishtar, the Pakistan government representative said thathe would not contest this claim.
so you can see that even though kalat was deserving to be independent mountbatten didn't allow its claim of independence option, to force the khan to come to an agreement with Pakistan. If mountbatten did not followed that policy then kalat as an Indian state had full right to stay independent, kalat wouldn't have to claim to be different than India states, it didn't have to enter into a agreement with Pakistan to be recognised as a sovereign state in order to retain it's soverginity, the leased ares would have come back to kalat instead of Pakistan, it was same the mountbatten practice which Pakistan used to oppose benefited Pakistan. Pakistan initially recognised kalaths independence status, of kalat but later back tracked and forced the merger.
2 . khan was not forced but he willingly signed accession document.
A) khan of kalat didn't have the authority to sign accession without the agreement of upper and lower house of parliament, and it's clear that they rejected the proposal of accession.khan himself acknowleged this fact later.
B). khan himself many times declared his wish to stay independent when he was not under the control of Pakistan,(he was only ready to surrender defence, communication and foreign affairs, when he get a satisfactory agreement on leased areas) what he spoke under the control of Pakistan is just like someone's statements recorded under police custody, can't be trusted to be true because he was under Pakistani pressure. even under such pressure he and his brother who finished jail term once again agitated against Pakistan govt in 1958, although not successful it will give an idea of what he really wanted.
3. makren, lasbela and kharan were independent princely states.
lord mountbatten, the crown's representatives only acknowledged(on July meeting ) that kharan and lasbela are ' disputed ' because the there rulers contested the claim of kalat's control over them.makren was always under the control of kalath,dipute calls for a stand still and settlement as per legal decision not one sided action of accepting their accession. British never recognise makren as separate state.After the meeting on August 4 ,the British themselves informed kharan and lasbela that the control of their territories is given back to kalat state.
For argument sake let's assume that these states were not part of kalath and they had the right to decide for themselves,even then kalath's situation becomes same as " Hydrabad " was, or even better because there was no conflict of interest between ruler and his subjects unlike Hydrabad, where he ruler was a Muslim and population was Hindu,Pakistan already agreed that kalat is not mearlly a Indian princely state but it's even above that.
This will now show jinaha's hypocrisy, in Hydrabad he supported independent state even when he knew that it was completely surrounded by India, but he didn't allow kalath to stay independent, he merged it by pressure and force so Pakistani who shout about Kashmir plebiscite should think about that first before giving long passionate speeches about self determination and plebiscite in Kashmir.
4) Kashmir is international dispute kalat is not
Any dispute when two countries are involved is a international dispute, not because the merit or validity of the claims but simply because two countries are involved.In kalat's case it was recognised as a independent state, so technically it becomes a international issue , but it's not considered as such only because kalath as a country didn't exist today, it lost it's existence to Pakistan,so Pakistan is ble to contain it as a domestic issue.Regardless of whether today it's an international issue or not we have the right to talk about and draw comparisons , to the actions of both countries in accessing the princely states
especially when Pakistan is alleging that India is illegally occupying Kashmir, against the will of the people.so it's only fair to look at the policys and actions of India and Pakistan regarding the accession of princely states to know who is what?
The argument of "you shouldn't talk about kalat because we don't talk about khalistan,maoists ,goa, etc is just a escapist strategy to prevent Indians from questioning the hypocrisy in Pakistan's arguments and a strategy to keep Indian arguments always in defensive position so Pakistan can pretend to be the champions of self determination, once the whole history of ' kalat's accession comes into the picture, hypocrisy in Pakistani argument will be exposed.
Finally Pakistan in the beginning stood with the ruler's supremacy and freedom of choice regardless of peoples aspirations, congress and mountbatten stood for peoples choice over rulers's decision if there is a conflict, but of course byconsidering geographical realities also.
Pakistan accepted junagadh's choice /India opposed it - consistently with their policy
Pakistan accepted Hydrabads choice/India objected - consistently with their policy
Pakistan accepted kalats independence/India rejected it, nor did India wanted to accede it - again both nations are consistent in their approach
But hypocrisy is started by Pakistan
1)By not respecting the free choice of Kashmir maharaja and standstill agreement when it attacked Kashmir.
2) Again another hypocrisy by forcing the kan of kalat to sign a instrument of accession on terms which were against his wishes as well as against both house of parliament of kalat.
where is Indian hypocrisy ?? as accused by Pakistan ?? only thing Pakistan can show as a hypocrisy is India's withdrawal of plebiscite offer. Pakistan is in no position to expect India to continue with the offer of plebiscite after it rejected the plebiscite offer twice
1)Initial offer by Indian leaders and mountbatten to conduct plebiscite in all three states
2) Rejection of UN plebiscite offer by not agreeing to withdraw it's troops as requested by UN as a pre condition for conducting a plebiscite.
referencee
Balochistan conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Balochistan in history: BALOCH INSURGENCIES 1948-1977
Balochistan in history: PAKISTAN ABSORBS THE KHANATE
The Accession of Kalat: Myth and Reality - Crisis Balochistan
http://www.bso-na.org/files/The_Illegal_Annexati_478B7B.pdf
Jinnah, Muslim League and Accession of Princely States - wiki
