What's new

An Indian Trying To View Kashmir As A Pakistani

Indian Infantry

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
All the while we're attempting to wholeheartedly defend our country's or take such a biased neutral view that the presentation always becomes blurred so I decided that the only way to completely prevent nationalistic tendencies from creeping in was to imagine myself as a Pakistani and think of the arguments that I would put forth. And I must say that some which I found did surprise me.

******************
On August 15, 1947, the ruler of the state of Junagadh Nawab 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. Therefore going by the same logic Pakistan has every right to take control of Kashmir in view of the fact that over 90% of the population is Muslim.
India claims that it sent troops to Kashmir after troops from Azad Kashmir started liberating the Kashmir valley. Yet it is still to answer to the world as to what the Indian Army’s Patiala State Infantry battalion was doing in Jammu and a battery of gunners in Kashmir.
Jawaharlal Nehru - I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which I made last evening. I have stated our government's policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to people of Kashmir. I further stated that we have agreed on impartial international agency like United Nations supervising referendum." If India really is so desirous of bringing about peace then why is it relying on the crutch of the U.N when the matter is now agreed to have been a bilateral one.
The then Kashmiri PM M.C Mahajan’s memoirs and Jawaharlal Nehru’s published correspondence reveal that 26th October, 1947, long held to be the date when the Instrument of Accession was signed is false. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. His Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the traveling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October, and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The letter to Mountbatten therefore alleged to have been signed on the 26th couldn’t have been signed before the 27th afternoon.
India never allowed anybody to have a look at the document of accession and has later claimed that the original document was destroyed in a government office fire! Kashmir article of accession was never presented to Pakistan or the UN. It has now been lost, if it ever existed. Even the forged copy has problems with dates The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, recently, and passed a resolution proclaiming Kashmir’s accession to India as bogus and null and void.

On the practicality of holding a plebiscite, a paper by the US state department, presented to the UN on 2nd December 1947, noted , “the dominion of India may attempt to establish the extant electoral rolls on the basis for the referendum. As these rolls are said to contain less than 7% of the population and were compiled on a basis which served the weight to the members of the wealthiest educated Hindu majority who would obviously vote for accession to India.
In an attempt to malign Pakistan and the Kashmiri freedom movement, India has stepped up its propaganda of cross LOC infiltration from Pakistan and our involvement in so-called cross border terrorism. These allegations are nothing but a ploy to shift focus from the massive violation of human rights being perpetrated by the Indian Security Forces in IOK. While making such baseless allegations, India refuses to allow a neutral mechanism to investigate these charges.
Official figures released in 2009, Indian Health and Family Welfare Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, a Kashmiri himself and former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir said 14,808 Muslims lost their lives while 1,748 Hindus and 115 Sikhs were killed during the rein of militancy in the state since 1989 by militants. If the militants were of Pakistani origin then why on Earth would they attempt to alienate the Muslim population whom they were trying to win over.
Three days before the transfer of power, the Maharaja of Kashmir sent telegrams bearing identical dates, asking for Standstill Agreement on 12 August 1947 to both the Dominions India and Pakistan to maintain the normal amenities of life such as post office, communications and so on. Pakistan immediately accepted the agreement on 15 August through a telegraphic communication. But the Government of India asked the Prime Minister of Kashmir to fly to Delhi to negotiate the Agreement, or to send any other authorized Minister for the purpose. The non-acceptance of the Standstill Agreement by India immediately aroused suspicion in the minds of Pakistan and it complained that India's failure to conclude the agreement was indicative of some plan to effect the accession immediately.
The Kashmiri PM on September 4 1947 requested Pakistan to take prompt action to halt the alleged intrusion armed Rawalpindi residents into J&K. On investigating it was discovered by the no one other than the Deputy Commissioner of Rawalpindi, a fact that in itself is a testament to Pakistan’s commitment to deal with this issue. He reported that No infiltration has been seen by any of my officers or village officials anywhere at various points. To ameliorate the matter the Pakistani government suggested that negotiations take place between them and the representatives of J&K. However then the J&K government demanded that intrusions be stopped before any negotiations could take place slamming into Pakistan’s face offers of peaceful negotiations and raising suspicions. Desirous of obtaining a peaceful end the Pakistani Prime Minister repeated that Pakistan would gladly discuss the matter once this trouble was brought under control. Without even allowing Pakistan any time to get the root of this nonexistent matter J&K threatened Pakistan with getting external help if infiltrations which were at this point of time not taking place were stopped. This confirmed Pakistan’s suspicions that the J&K populace had been cheated by their leaders who by seeking external intervention would complete their aim of suppressing Muslims.




**************************

Is this what a Pakistani would put forth as an argument for their case of Kashmir? Do fill in if I missed stuff out.
 
Indian infantry, I hope you're not a dual account or else you'll put us to shame ;)

But yes, if the two state formula was applied correctly, Junagadh would be ours and Kashmir would be yours. However, since Junagadh isn't ours, we claim our right to Kashmir as the same Hindu-Muslim policy was used.
 
Double standards of india..... count State of Hyderabad also! they were not illing to be a part of india.... they helped in the creation of Pakistan and after independence indian forced marched and forcefully occupied it!

Why should there be little pockets of "pakistan" everywhere, surrounded by Hindu majority land? :what:
 
Hydrabad could physically not be a part of Pakistani state. Even BD could not be as it evident by fall of Dhaka in 71. So Junagarh vs Kashmir is a fair deal. Plus we are not asking for whole of it..just the Muslim majority areas. So i think in future we can divide it across the lines of river chenab and be happy!
 
Double standards of india..... count State of Hyderabad also! they were not illing to be a part of india.... they helped in the creation of Pakistan and after independence indian forced marched and forcefully occupied it!

Actually, the Nizam wanted Hyderabad to be an independent country. According to the Indian Independence Act, he actually did have the right to do so. Given close ties between the UK and Hyderabad state - he was nearly successful and India and Hyderabad State even signed a Standstill Agreement. Kashmir too wanted to be an independent country.
 
Could someone make this clear. Is Pakistan's official stance that it want the entire state or merely the Muslim majority areas?
What now may I ask of any/certain Pakistani members do they come up with if trying to view it from India's side?
 
I have view it from the Indian side most of it is just propaganda, and false information. Yes the ruler of Kashmir was Hindu and asked India for help, but he really didn't have the right since Kashmir was a Muslim marjority, look at the Kashmir right now so many people were killed just a few days ago. This is proof they are not happy. There is a Journeyman documentary on this, and how India tries to make it citizens think they are happy. If you were to give us Kashmir and keep Jammu we would agree and let you have Jammu, even though it is a part of Kashmir we still let you have since it has a non Muslim majority. My question why don't Indians research this. Say if someone was being treated like this in Pakistan even if a non-muslim we would stand up. Injustices were done in Baluchistan but look all of Pakistan wanted the people of that province to succeed and there was immense pressure on the government. Baluchistan got more money to develop its self than Punjab recently.

As human beings why don't you guys lift your head out of the ground to see that women are being raped and children butchered.
 
I have view it from the Indian side most of it is just propaganda, and false information. Yes the ruler of Kashmir was Hindu and asked India for help, but he really didn't have the right since Kashmir was a Muslim marjority, look at the Kashmir right now so many people were killed just a few days ago. This is proof they are not happy. There is a Journeyman documentary on this, and how India tries to make it citizens think they are happy. If you were to give us Kashmir and keep Jammu we would agree and let you have Jammu, even though it is a part of Kashmir we still let you have since it has a non Muslim majority.

That is the whole bloody problem. You guys are used to seeing every thing under the sky with a religious POV. Your whole logic of claiming Kashmir is religion.Try to come up with any logical argument except religion, because religion isn't a legal reason for claiming any land. Why don't you think your leaders raise the issue of religion in UN or any other credible organization: you'll be laughed out of the room.

Kashmir isn't Muslim, the majority of the people are, you got so much love lost for the Kashmiris ask them to join you, the land isn't going to be decided over religion.

My question why don't Indians research this. Say if someone was being treated like this in Pakistan even if a non-muslim we would stand up. Injustices were done in Baluchistan but look all of Pakistan wanted the people of that province to succeed and there was immense pressure on the government. Baluchistan got more money to develop its self than Punjab recently.

You have a lot of questions for Indians, mind answering some yourself? Where were you standing up when the minority population of Pakistan went from ~15&#37; in '47 to <2% currently, or when the Ahmaddiyas who themselves are muslims had a discriminating law framed against them, or did you stand up recently when a hindu had Kafir written on his body by an official?

Let me guess, you were standing by.
 
Last edited:
On August 15, 1947, the ruler of the state of Junagadh Nawab 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. Therefore going by the same logic Pakistan has every right to take control of Kashmir in view of the fact that over 90&#37; of the population is Muslim.
India&#8217;s non acceptance of accession of Junagadh was rooted in the Nawab&#8217;s obvious breech of the principle of accession. Communal make up of the State of Junagadh had little to do with any of it. Although the accession of the Princely States was to be decided solely on the whim of the ruler, Mountbatten had hinted that the decision should be based on the geographical contiguity of the States with the new Dominions. This was taken as the principle for accession of the Princely States. It also made little sense to have pockets of Pakistan in India and vice versa. With the adjoining States acceding to India, Junagadh became non contiguous to Pakistan and hence, if the principles were to be followed, it should have joined India. Note that this was not required by law but was an understanding between the States and the two Dominions which led to the accession of 562(?) States without a hitch.

Had Junagadh been predominantly Muslim, India&#8217;s stand would still have been the same. Incidents that followed the accession of Junagadh, justified this contiguity principle and hence India&#8217;s stand. I may also remind you that the Princely State of Kalat, located deep within Pakistan, wanted to accede to India, but was discouraged by GoI for the same reason.
India claims that it sent troops to Kashmir after troops from Azad Kashmir started liberating the Kashmir valley. Yet it is still to answer to the world as to what the Indian Army&#8217;s Patiala State Infantry battalion was doing in Jammu and a battery of gunners in Kashmir.
Patiala State Infantry was not yet assimilated with Indian Army at that time. It was still a State Militia under the command of the Sikh Maharaja of Patiala. It is true though, that movement of the State Militia still required GoI&#8217;s permission. However there is no evidence that GoI was even aware of the fact that the Sikh Maharaja had sent about a battalion of his army to the aid of his friend, the Maharaja of Kashmir.

If India really is so desirous of bringing about peace then why is it relying on the crutch of the U.N when the matter is now agreed to have been a bilateral one.
Would Pakistan accept a plebiscite conducted by India alone without a neutral party to oversee the process?
The then Kashmiri PM M.C Mahajan&#8217;s memoirs and Jawaharlal Nehru&#8217;s published correspondence reveal that 26th October, 1947, long held to be the date when the Instrument of Accession was signed is false. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. His Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the traveling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October, and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister&#8217;s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The letter to Mountbatten therefore alleged to have been signed on the 26th couldn&#8217;t have been signed before the 27th afternoon.
The decision to accede to India was taken before 27 Oct, 1947 and that&#8217;s all that matters.

India never allowed anybody to have a look at the document of accession and has later claimed that the original document was destroyed in a government office fire! Kashmir article of accession was never presented to Pakistan or the UN. It has now been lost, if it ever existed. Even the forged copy has problems with dates
The IoA is currently in public domain. Use google.
 
My question why don't Indians research this. Say if someone was being treated like this in Pakistan even if a non-muslim we would stand up. Injustices were done in Baluchistan but look all of Pakistan wanted the people of that province to succeed and there was immense pressure on the government. Baluchistan got more money to develop its self than Punjab recently.

Kashmir have been getting more money than any other states in India. Although I'm not sure if that ends up in sarkarai babus coffers or development works being carried out there.

See India isn't looting Kashmir. India isn't taking any resource from Kashmir mainly because there's nothing there except nature, apples and goats. People from rest of India can't even buy land in Kashmir, that effectively makes them super citizens.

There's two ways to address the struggle of Kashmiris, one is struggle for unique Kashmiri identity, other is islamic variant of that.
 
That is the whole bloody problem. You guys are used to seeing every thing under the sky with a religious POV. Your whole logic of claiming Kashmir is religion.Try to come up with any logical argument except religion, because religion isn't a legal reason for claiming any land. Why don't you think your leaders raise the issue of religion in UN or any other credible organization: you'll be laughed out of the room.

care to explain whats the whole point of partition then??


Kashmir isn't Muslim, the majority of the people are, you got so much love lost for the Kashmiris ask them to join you, the land isn't going to be decided over religion.

You have a lot of questions for Indians, mind answering some yourself?
PHP:
 Where were you standing up when the minority population of Pakistan went from ~15&#37; in '47 to <2% currently[/quote]

its not upto pakistanis to control minority population

, [quote][php]or when the Ahmaddiyas who themselves are muslims had a discriminating law framed against them[/quote]

the law says that ahmedies are non muslims and thats it, pakistan is an islamic republic

[quote][php]or did you stand up recently when a hindu had Kafir written on his body by an official?[/quote]

u are not getting into some masala news by our media or are you??

what about the gujrati muslims, the same governor of gujrat who arranged for the massacre of muslims is elected every time with full hindu sympathy to him disregarding muslim sentiments instead of trying him at court for justice
 
care to explain whats the whole point of partition then??


Kashmir isn't Muslim, the majority of the people are, you got so much love lost for the Kashmiris ask them to join you, the land isn't going to be decided over religion.

Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits
In the Kashmir region, approximately 300 Kashmiri Pandits were killed between September 1989 to 1990 in various incidents.[101] In early 1990, local Urdu newspapers Aftab and Al Safa called upon Kashmiris to wage jihad against India and ordered the expulsion of all Hindus choosing to remain in Kashmir.[101] In the following days masked men ran in the streets with AK-47 shooting to kill Hindus who would not leave.[101] Notices were placed on the houses of all Hindus, telling them to leave within 24 hours or die.[101]

Since March 1990, estimates of between 250,000 to 300,000 pandits have migrated outside Kashmir[citation needed] due to persecution by Islamic fundamentalists in the largest case of ethnic cleansing since the partition of India.[102] The proportion of Kashmiri Pandits in the Kashmir valley has declined from about 15% in 1947 to, by some estimates, less than 0.1% since the insurgency in Kashmir took on a religious and sectarian flavor.[103]

Many Kashmiri Pandits have been killed by Islamist militants in incidents such as the Wandhama massacre and the 2000 Amarnath pilgrimage massacre.[104][105][106][107][108] The incidents of massacring and forced eviction have been termed ethnic cleansing by some observers.[101]
 
That is the whole bloody problem. You guys are used to seeing every thing under the sky with a religious POV. Your whole logic of claiming Kashmir is religion.Try to come up with any logical argument except religion, because religion isn't a legal reason for claiming any land. Why don't you think your leaders raise the issue of religion in UN or any other credible organization: you'll be laughed out of the room.

Kashmir isn't Muslim, the majority of the people are, you got so much love lost for the Kashmiris ask them to join you, the land isn't going to be decided over religion.



You have a lot of questions for Indians, mind answering some yourself? Where were you standing up when the minority population of Pakistan went from ~15% in '47 to <2% currently, or when the Ahmaddiyas who themselves are muslims had a discriminating law framed against them, or did you stand up recently when a hindu had Kafir written on his body by an official?

Let me guess, you were standing by.

Then what about Israel? it was created on the bases of religion...there weren't any jews majority there....any way talking about Kashmire, when back in 1947 Pakistan was created on the bases of religion, the 2 nation theory; we Muslims were a diffrent nation then Hindus. The territory was divided on the base of muslim majority areas and Kashmire wasn't an exception.

You are blaming Pakistan for few episodes (those also were higlited and distorted to gain popularity) and that the minorties has decreased since 1947, it's not bcz they are killed or burned alive like in india, we have seen gujrat muslim population massacre and what was done to the christians back a couple of years ago and what about Kasmire? how many innocents indian armed forces have killed, all the violence, massacre, acts against humanity which have been done till day? think about it! so avoid these meanless propaganda.

Kashmires have the right to decide their fate, even like some indians claimed that they don't wanna be a part of Pakistan but for sure they didn't want to be a part of India!
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom