How did Jammu and Kashmir become a part of India? 9 facts on Accession Day

[padamchen]

In your opinion. But you would have to agree that Kashmiris and Pakistanis are closer to one another be it based upon race, culture, religion, geography....

Yes I do.

And I'm telling you it does not matter to either side.

It's about the land.

It was about the land from the beginning.

India and Pakistan are about land man.

Aur bolo.

Cheers, Doc

 

[TMA]

Yes I do.

And I'm telling you it does not matter to either side.

It's about the land.

It was about the land from the beginning.

India and Pakistan are about land man.

Aur bolo.

Cheers, Doc

You are right that geography is a major factor, but ALSO Pakistan has a “claim”on the people. Kashmir is not empty land!!! This is a big difference. Bharat does not have this. The only way she can do this is if she moves millions of non Muslim Bharatis to Kashmir....which is what I would be doing if i were a Bharati Strategist....

 

[padamchen]

You are right that geography is a major factor, but ALSO Pakistan has a “claim”on the people. Kashmir is not empty land!!! This is a big difference. Bharat does not have this. The only way she can do this is if she moves millions of non Muslim Bharatis to Kashmir....which is what I would be doing if i were a Bharati Strategist....

The BJP got my vote for doing exactly that.

They won't get a second chance.

Cheers, Doc

 

[TMA]

The BJP got my vote for doing exactly that.

They won't get a second chance.

Cheers, Doc

This from a strategic point of view is perfect for Bharat as then over time you will have a population that is Bharati and wants to be part of Bharat...therefore no need to keep such a massive army there.

 

[padamchen]

This from a strategic point of view is perfect for Bharat as then over time you will have a population that is Bharati and wants to be part of Bharat...therefore no need to keep such a massive at there

What can I say.

Kashmir is a huge black hole of central funds.

A lot of people across different levels make their fortunes there.

Terrorists.

Seperatists.

Journalists.

NGOs.

Political leaders and party workers.

Informers and loyalists.

Corrupt officers ....

Kashmir is the goose that keeps laying the golden egg on both sides of the LOC.

Why would anyone who can solve it want to solve it?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Mace]

U r the first Indian I've come across who actually used the same yardstick in both cases. Let's take this further back then since u mention 1965 as a "misadventure"...

1965 was regarding Kashmir dispute, which as I already told u...
In case of Junagadh...
- Muslim ruler/Hindu majority population
- Acceded to Pak
- India didn't accept the instrument of accession
- India invaded Junagadh

Kashmir is the exact opposite of above
- Hindu ruler/Muslim majority population
- Acceded to India
- Pak doesn't accept the instrument of accession
- Pak invaded(1965 war...see below)

1965 war is traced to Operation Gibraltar being the cause. Pakistan's aim in this operation was Kashmir and yet somehow India/Indians attribute it as an attack on India and Pakistan being a war monger.
If Indian invasion of Junagadh(note the parallels drawn between Junagadh and Kashmir above) shouldn't be seen as an attack on Pak then Pak's invasion of Kashmir shouldn't be seen as an attack on India. Conversely if instrument of accession is anything to go by(linking Kashmir and India as one entity) then by that same token, India's attack on Junagadh should also be attributed as an attack on Pak.
So u see it is India that started it all. Everything since then has just been a tit for tat...

--> India disregards instrument of accession and invades Junagadh citing Hindu majority
--> Pakistan disregards instrument of accession and invades Kashmir citing Muslim majority

Either 1965 wasn't a "misadventure" or if u think it was then it was just a response to India's "misadventure", which started it all...
...so why don't u tell ur countrymen to see things how they really are rather than being stuck in their fantasy of how India is a peaceful nation whereas Pak is the troublemaker in the region.

You may not agree on this. LOC is inviolable till India and Pak reach a legally recognised boundary agreement. India will defend the sanctity of LOC with all at it's disposal.

I find it baffling that Pakistanis believe that when they are militarily intervening in Kashmir they are not attacking India. Who exactly you are trying to take Kashmir from other than India?

Junagadh was brought into the Indian dominion with a plebiscite after instrument of accession to Pak. Certainly not fair to Pak but India achieved it without bloodshed. Its a moot point whether it would have gone the Bangladesh way with a Hindu majority Junagadh populace to boot.

Pakistan held all the cards on Kashmir at time of independence - muslim majority area, Jammu & Kashmir geography contiguous to Pakistan, standstill agreement with maharaja. Maybe Pak shouldnt have jumped the gun and prematurely begin invasion of Kashmir, maybe once the issue went to UN they should have followed due process as required by the UN resolution for plebiscite. Who knows what might have happened.

1965 was an opportunistic attempt by Pak to wrest kashmir from India. And yes by attacking Kashmir Pak attacked India.

 

[SabzShaheen]

Why not Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Burma as well? Are they not South Asian?

they are, but i put bangladesh, india and pakistan in brackets because i would only want them to be unified. i already mentioned this.

If you honestly believe in the 'free' aspect you should extend the courtesy to Balochis also. Both ethnic Kashmiris and ethnic Balochis have grievances with root causes beginning partition.

Put your money where is mouth is.

lay off the ndtv and hindustan times (among others) and you'll have your answer. it is a bad joke to think that the majority of balochis want independence. very, very few do, including those sponsored by india. my sri lankan friend visited indian kashmir and he spoke to locals there and they said they want freedom. i have also spoken to a balochi who favours independence, though his circumstance is different as he has family from iranian balochistan as well hence why he doesn't feel attachment to a country state.

despite the current state of balochistan, balochis still consider themselves pakistanis. can't say the same for indian occupied kashmiris.

 

[TMA]

they are, but i put bangladesh, india and pakistan in brackets because i would only want them to be unified. i already mentioned this.



lay off the ndtv and hindustan times (among others) and you'll have your answer. it is a bad joke to think that the majority of balochis want independence. very, very few do, including those sponsored by india. my sri lankan friend visited indian kashmir and he spoke to locals there and they said they want freedom. i have also spoken to a balochi who favours independence, though his circumstance is different as he has family from iranian balochistan as well hence why he doesn't feel attachment to a country state.

despite the current state of balochistan, balochis still consider themselves pakistanis. can't say the same for indian occupied kashmiris.

Fair enough, but why only these three to be unified. I just want to understand your reasons.

To me it would make more sense for Afghanistan and Pakistan to be unified. Although that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon unless something cataclysmic happens.....

 

[SabzShaheen]

No issues. This is what I want Pak and its citizens express in various forums - "Kashmir is an unfinished agenda of partition". Not some made up independence or freedom for Kashmir as @SabzShaheen and most of you allude to.

And not insult people's intelligence calling Pak trained insurgents as freedom fighters.

i'm not in favour of indian occupied kashmiris taking a violent approach to achieving freedom. your government likes to use violent force against peaceful protests, clamps down on the regional media during blackouts and refuses to engage in dialogue to resolve the issue. kashmir is an unfinished agenda because part of it is occupied, it's that simple. if kashmiris choose to be part of india (which they don't and never will if we follow the current path into the future), then of course it will not be occupied.

indians have taken this new propaganda approach to equating the balochistan insurgency with the kashmiri issue while the differ significantly. also, pakistan has demonstrated proof of indian involvement with balochi terrorists, whereas i haven't seen anything with regard to pakistan and kashmir

Fair enough, but why only these three to be unified. I just want to understand your reasons.

To me it would make more sense for Afghanistan and Pakistan to be unified. Although that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon unless something cataclysmic happens.....

because these were the countries in south asia that were most recently part of the same entity. afghanistan and pakistan with their current borders were never one, though i advocate for the pashtun areas of afghanistan to be assimilated into pakistan, but not a complete nor equal merger. annexation is best.
members of other ethnic groups will probably disagree, but i think we share more in common with india (and to a lesser extent bangladesh) than we do with afghanistan (and the other south asian countries).

 

[TMA]

i'm not in favour of indian occupied kashmiris taking a violent approach to achieving freedom. your government likes to use violent force against peaceful protests, clamps down on the regional media during blackouts and refuses to engage in dialogue to resolve the issue. kashmir is an unfinished agenda because part of it is occupied, it's that simple. if kashmiris choose to be part of india (which they don't and never will if we follow the current path into the future), then of course it will not be occupied.

indians have taken this new propaganda approach to equating the balochistan insurgency with the kashmiri issue while the differ significantly. also, pakistan has demonstrated proof of indian involvement with balochi terrorists, whereas i haven't seen anything with regard to pakistan and kashmir

Well good for Bharat to equate Kashmir with Balochistan...it is the utter impotence of Pakistan to counter this propaganda. What Pakistan ought to do if Bharat brings up Balochistan, is to bring Assam and Nagaland....not Kashmir...

i'm not in favour of indian occupied kashmiris taking a violent approach to achieving freedom. your government likes to use violent force against peaceful protests, clamps down on the regional media during blackouts and refuses to engage in dialogue to resolve the issue. kashmir is an unfinished agenda because part of it is occupied, it's that simple. if kashmiris choose to be part of india (which they don't and never will if we follow the current path into the future), then of course it will not be occupied.

indians have taken this new propaganda approach to equating the balochistan insurgency with the kashmiri issue while the differ significantly. also, pakistan has demonstrated proof of indian involvement with balochi terrorists, whereas i haven't seen anything with regard to pakistan and kashmir


because these were the countries in south asia that were most recently part of the same entity. afghanistan and pakistan with their current borders were never one, though i advocate for the pashtun areas of afghanistan to be assimilated into pakistan, but not a complete nor equal merger. annexation is best.
members of other ethnic groups will probably disagree, but i think we share more in common with india (and to a lesser extent bangladesh) than we do with afghanistan (and the other south asian countries).

Yes true that they were one...but they were one in a colonial construct.... and remember that not all of Pakistan nor all of Bharat were part of that colonial construct.

 

[SabzShaheen]

Well good for Bharat to equate Kashmir with Balochistan...it is the utter impotence of Pakistan to counter this propaganda. What Pakistan ought to do if Bharat brings up Balochistan, is to bring Assam and Nagaland....not Kashmir...

yes, though i think it would be unfair to the kashmiris to do this. it will just give the impression that this is solely a political issue. for example, the western world likes to divide countries based on ethnicity and other things but we must be different. we must never forget that kashmir is a humanitarian issue and an issue for the Ummah. this doesn't mean i'm advocating "Ummah politics" as this is beyond solely politics. Pakistan has both the humanitarian and political higher ground in terms of justification for campaigning for kashmir to become a part of it, but a separate kashmir state would still benefit pakistan a lot more than india.

 

[TMA]

In addition on average Pakistan is closer to Afghanistan than it is to Bharat or Bangladesh...
Unfortunately the British did not accept the map of Pakistan that was proposed by the Pakistan movement....

 

[SabzShaheen]

Yes true that they were one...but they were one in a colonial construct.... and remember that not all of Pakistan nor all of Bharat were part of that colonial construct.

borders change all the time. our colonial history is still our history and we must accept it. not all were part of it but our borders are directly shaped by our colonial past, not along ethnic lines. even bangladesh's borders are pretty much entirely based on the two nation theory borders.

 

[TMA]

yes, though i think it would be unfair to the kashmiris to do this. it will just give the impression that this is solely a political issue. for example, the western world likes to divide countries based on ethnicity and other things but we must be different. we must never forget that kashmir is a humanitarian issue and an issue for the Ummah. this doesn't mean i'm advocating "Ummah politics" as this is beyond solely politics. Pakistan has both the humanitarian and political higher ground in terms of justification for campaigning for kashmir to become a part of it, but a separate kashmir state would still benefit pakistan a lot more than india.

I see, but this is the craftiness of Bharati propaganda, and Pakistan must convey to the Kashmiris that her countering of this propaganda is not meant as an insult to them...or to just solely politicise their humanitarian suffering....but Pakistan is a complete failure at propaganda...cos even the people believe that if it were not for religion there would be no difference between Bharat and Pakistan....

borders change all the time. our colonial history is still our history and we must accept it. not all were part of it but our borders are directly shaped by our colonial past, not along ethnic lines. even bangladesh's borders are pretty much entirely based on the two nation theory borders.

Yes we must learn from it...not necessarily try and re live or recreate it....

 

[SabzShaheen]

In addition on average Pakistan is closer to Afghanistan than it is to Bharat or Bangladesh...

i've heard this before and it's probably true. it's just hard for me to grasp because of my perception of afghans and indians. indians seem a lot closer to us but i guess if you take into account south and east india then yes, it becomes clearer.

Unfortunately the British did not accept the map of Pakistan that was proposed by the Pakistan movement....

i don't think i've seen this map