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

[MultaniGuy]

Yes. Jinnah wanted to become leader of the Congress and Leader of Undivided India but he could become either of them.

Nice try, Jinnah rejected being the leader of a United South Asia. Nehru takes the job of being the PM of the Republic of India.

Regards.

 

[Cookie Monster]

@Mace so I see u r just choosing to avoid replying...oh well so much about u being "fair"

Link

 

[Mace]

@Mace so I see u r just choosing to avoid replying...oh well so much about u being "fair"

Link

Sorry dude. Not avoiding. Under the pump at work. Will get back.

 

[Mace]

My post was about the precedent India had set. When India ignored instrument of accession and invaded Junagadh then why cry foul and waive ur instrument of accession as a document of authority when Pak is doing the same?

Just like how India made the opportunistic attempt using the fact that Pakistan army couldn't get to Junagadh to aid it?

Is this ur answer? Bcuz I could've sworn u tried hard to avoid answering it. So in a convoluted way are u saying that if an attack on Kashmir is an attack on India then by that same token an attack on Junagadh was an attack on Pak?

Nobody is crying foul when Pak tried to snatch Kashmir from India in 65. As i already mentioned I find it baffling, hilarious even, that Pakistanis crying hoarse complaining India should not expand the conflict to international border and confine hostilities to Kashmir when Pak attacks.

Regarding Janagadh, I commend the Indian leadership of that time, particularly Vallabhbhai Patel, to have had the foresight to integrate Junagadh, Hyderabed and other princely states preventing untenable fragmented islands of foreign territory within Indian dominion. India was not opportunistic otherwise they might have accepted section of Baluchistan which was willing to accede to India.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Nobody is crying foul when Pak tried to snatch Kashmir from India in 65. As i already mentioned I find it baffling, hilarious even, that Pakistanis crying hoarse complaining India should not expand the conflict to international border and confine hostilities to Kashmir when Pak attacks.

Again I'm not talking about the PA's strategy or tactics regarding India not escalating the war. I'm talking about u and other Indians calling it a "misadventure" and painting Pakistan as a "warmonger". Do u not see how India set that precedent by invading a territory that acceded to Pakistan? So my question is who started the "misadventure"?

Regarding Janagadh, I commend the Indian leadership of that time, particularly Vallabhbhai Patel, to have had the foresight to integrate Junagadh, Hyderabed and other princely states preventing untenable fragmented islands of foreign territory within Indian dominion. India was not opportunistic otherwise they might have accepted section of Baluchistan which was willing to accede to India.

As for u claiming Balochistan wanting to join India...I would like to see some proof of that. Some neutral source of course.

And yes India is opportunistic...it ignores instrument of accession and relies on the excuse of "Hindu majority" to invade a territory and then turns around and starts waiving the instrument of accession ignoring "Muslim majority". All that so it can get some territory...if that's not opportunistic then I don't know what is.

In a perfect world...instead of instrument of accession, princely states should've been forced(by Britain) to either go to India or Pak based on their majority population. As an added measure they(British) should've conducted plebiscite beforehand in each of these princely states with British forces deployed not comprising of men from the subcontinent. This would've prevented any future conflicts. Just like how a plebiscite conducted in Junagadh took into account ppl's choice...and now there are no problems(for the most part). The same needs to be done in Kashmir and let the ppl choose what they want. This will ensure no problems in the future just like in case of Junagadh. It would also eliminate any need for animosity between India/Pak.

 

[Mace]

Again I'm not talking about the PA's strategy or tactics regarding India not escalating the war. I'm talking about u and other Indians calling it a "misadventure" and painting Pakistan as a "warmonger". Do u not see how India set that precedent by invading a territory that acceded to Pakistan? So my question is who started the "misadventure"?

As for u claiming Balochistan wanting to join India...I would like to see some proof of that. Some neutral source of course.

And yes India is opportunistic...it ignores instrument of accession and relies on the excuse of "Hindu majority" to invade a territory and then turns around and starts waiving the instrument of accession ignoring "Muslim majority". All that so it can get some territory...if that's not opportunistic then I don't know what is.

In a perfect world...instead of instrument of accession, princely states should've been forced(by Britain) to either go to India or Pak based on their majority population. As an added measure they(British) should've conducted plebiscite beforehand in each of these princely states with British forces deployed not comprising of men from the subcontinent. This would've prevented any future conflicts. Just like how a plebiscite conducted in Junagadh took into account ppl's choice...and now there are no problems(for the most part). The same needs to be done in Kashmir and let the ppl choose what they want. This will ensure no problems in the future just like in case of Junagadh. It would also eliminate any need for animosity between India/Pak.

Again I'm not talking about the PA's strategy or tactics regarding India not escalating the war. I'm talking about u and other Indians calling it a "misadventure" and painting Pakistan as a "warmonger". Do u not see how India set that precedent by invading a territory that acceded to Pakistan? So my question is who started the "misadventure"?

As for u claiming Balochistan wanting to join India...I would like to see some proof of that. Some neutral source of course.

And yes India is opportunistic...it ignores instrument of accession and relies on the excuse of "Hindu majority" to invade a territory and then turns around and starts waiving the instrument of accession ignoring "Muslim majority". All that so it can get some territory...if that's not opportunistic then I don't know what is.

In a perfect world...instead of instrument of accession, princely states should've been forced(by Britain) to either go to India or Pak based on their majority population. As an added measure they(British) should've conducted plebiscite beforehand in each of these princely states with British forces deployed not comprising of men from the subcontinent. This would've prevented any future conflicts. Just like how a plebiscite conducted in Junagadh took into account ppl's choice...and now there are no problems(for the most part). The same needs to be done in Kashmir and let the ppl choose what they want. This will ensure no problems in the future just like in case of Junagadh. It would also eliminate any need for animosity between India/Pak.

@Cookie Monster
No, Indians are not war mongers. Give it a thought who might be perceived as troublemakers when you are pulled off the line for questioning when you return to States after visiting Pak. Stop sponsoring insurgents in Kashmir and for Indians you will be just another country like Iran.

70 years back during time of partition thinking of dividing a country based on religion might have had its advocates. Today in my view that is a akin to racism. Pak must use non violent means of addressing its concerns with India. It is the only way for the region to come out of backwardness.

Regarding your plebiscite strategy for all princely states, I am happy there was somebody in India with all the post partition chaos and killings around had the sense to approach it pragmatically. It was the right thing to to. Having fragmented tiny Pakistani states within India is a no go.

 

[Cookie Monster]

@Cookie Monster
No, Indians are not war mongers. Give it a thought who might be perceived as troublemakers when you are pulled off the line for questioning when you return to States after visiting Pak. Stop sponsoring insurgents in Kashmir and for Indians you will be just another country like Iran.

70 years back during time of partition thinking of dividing a country based on religion might have had its advocates. Today in my view that is a akin to racism. Pak must use non violent means of addressing its concerns with India. It is the only way for the region to come out of backwardness.

Regarding your plebiscite strategy for all princely states, I am happy there was somebody in India with all the post partition chaos and killings around had the sense to approach it pragmatically. It was the right thing to to. Having fragmented tiny Pakistani states within India is a no go.

So I see u keep avoiding what I keep asking u...
U still insistent on how Pakistan had a "misadventure" invading Kashmir(acceded to India with Muslim majority population)...while u won't acknowledge India doing the same "misadventure" by invading Junagadh(acceded to Pakistan with a Hindu majority population). Well so much for ur claims of being "fair" and "using the same yard stick". U r clearly blinded by nationalism. So carry on...there's no discussion to be had.

 

[Mace]

So I see u keep avoiding what I keep asking u...
U still insistent on how Pakistan had a "misadventure" invading Kashmir(acceded to India with Muslim majority population)...while u won't acknowledge India doing the same "misadventure" by invading Junagadh(acceded to Pakistan with a Hindu majority population). Well so much for ur claims of being "fair" and "using the same yard stick". U r clearly blinded by nationalism. So carry on...there's no discussion to be had.

Sorry dude, from what I read in your last few posts you want some sort of excuse for absolving Pak's continuing patently bad behaviour connecting to what happend in Junagadh. It is not going to stick.

I am not blinded by nationalism, if that had been the case I will be advocating reunification of sub continent under Indian flag. Indians do not have any interest in land beyond Radcliffe line which includes erstwhile East Pak.

If you want a say on Kashmir opportunistic 1965 & Kargil misadventures, or the continuing support to insurgency in Kashmir are not the paths.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Sorry dude, from what I read in your last few posts you want some sort of excuse for absolving Pak's continuing patently bad behaviour connecting to what happend in Junagadh. It is not going to stick.

I am not blinded by nationalism, if that had been the case I will be advocating reunification of sub continent under Indian flag. Indians do not have any interest in land beyond Radcliffe line which includes erstwhile East Pak.

If you want a say on Kashmir opportunistic 1965 & Kargil misadventures, or the continuing support to insurgency in Kashmir are not the paths.

I'm not absolving Pak of anything...I'm stating the FACT that if Pak invaded a princely state(Kashmir) that acceded to India and u r calling that a "misadventure" then India's invasion of a princely state(Junagadh) that acceded to Pak was also a "misadventure".

If u wish to classify Indian invasion of Junagadh as not a "misadventure" but something "necessary" India HAD TO DO...then that same reasoning applies to Pak. That's how fairness works...

Idk why u keep bringing up things like Pak Army not expecting a full scale war, or things like Kashmir insurgency among other such things I'm not talking about.

I started with calling u out on classifying Pak's invasion of Kashmir(1965) as a "misadventure"...and since u claimed to be fair...I brought up Junagadh invasion by India where it was the same circumstances with roles reversed...and u never gave me a straight answer. Instead u kept beating around the bush and brought up other things I never discussed. So am I getting a straight answer or u gonna bring up some other irrelevant stuff?

 

[Mace]

I'm not absolving Pak of anything...I'm stating the FACT that if Pak invaded a princely state(Kashmir) that acceded to India and u r calling that a "misadventure" then India's invasion of a princely state(Junagadh) that acceded to Pak was also a "misadventure".

If u wish to classify Indian invasion of Junagadh as not a "misadventure" but something "necessary" India HAD TO DO...then that same reasoning applies to Pak. That's how fairness works...

Idk why u keep bringing up things like Pak Army not expecting a full scale war, or things like Kashmir insurgency among other such things I'm not talking about.

I started with calling u out on classifying Pak's invasion of Kashmir(1965) as a "misadventure"...and since u claimed to be fair...I brought up Junagadh invasion by India where it was the same circumstances with roles reversed...and u never gave me a straight answer. Instead u kept beating around the bush and brought up other things I never discussed. So am I getting a straight answer or u gonna bring up some other irrelevant stuff?

@Cookie Monster, you are one tenacious pr*ck , kudos

Lets look at the timelines:
Junagadh:
Muslim Nawab of Junagadh offers Instrument of accession to Pak - 15Aug47
India objects and asks Pak to reject Junagadh's accession offer
Pak accepts Junagadh's instrument of accession - 13Sep47
India encircles Junagadh. Nawab flees to Pak.
Plebiscite held in Junagadh state - 20Feb48.
More than 99% vote in favour of India
(190,870 voted in favour of India & 91 voted in favor of Pakistan)
Junagadh joins India.

"Jammu & kashmir"
Hindu Maharaja HariSingh of J&K wants to remain independent.
Offers standstill agreement with India and Pak.
Pak jumps the gun and attacks Independent state of J&K - 22Oct1947
HariSingh asks for India's help. India offers to help only if J&K accedes to India
Maharaja signs instrument of accession to India - 27Oct1947
India kicks Pak invaders out of Kashmir valley and takes the matter to UN - 1Jan1948
UN resolution adopted and ceasefire declared along LOC. The accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be decided through a plebiscite.
For plebiscite to happen Pak must withdraw all intruders (tribal and army) followed by India, but India to maintain minimum force levels to maintain law and order.

If you want fairness, Pak should have followed UN resolutions and withdrawn the intruders and allowed rest of the UN resolution to be actioned including plebiscite.

Pak did not follow UN resolutions and after more than 15 years after ceasefire attacked India opportunistically in 1965 when India had just gone through a disastrous campaign with China. The 1965 war qualifies as misadventure dude. What is worse and humiliating is the local Kashmiri populace handing over Pak intruders to Indian authorities in 1965. Clearly Kashmiris were not impressed with Pak then.

You dont have to be a genius to conclude that Kargil was another ill thought out misadventure by Pak.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Lets look at the timelines:
Junagadh:
Muslim Nawab of Junagadh offers Instrument of accession to Pak - 15Aug47
India objects and asks Pak to reject Junagadh's accession offer
Pak accepts Junagadh's instrument of accession - 13Sep47
India encircles Junagadh. Nawab flees to Pak.
Plebiscite held in Junagadh state - 20Feb48.
More than 99% vote in favour of India
(190,870 voted in favour of India & 91 voted in favor of Pakistan)
Junagadh joins India.

"Jammu & kashmir"
Hindu Maharaja HariSingh of J&K wants to remain independent.
Offers standstill agreement with India and Pak.
Pak jumps the gun and attacks Independent state of J&K - 22Oct1947
HariSingh asks for India's help. India offers to help only if J&K accedes to India
Maharaja signs instrument of accession to India - 27Oct1947
India kicks Pak invaders out of Kashmir valley and takes the matter to UN - 1Jan1948
UN resolution adopted and ceasefire declared along LOC. The accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be decided through a plebiscite.
For plebiscite to happen Pak must withdraw all intruders (tribal and army) followed by India, but India to maintain minimum force levels to maintain law and order.

Nice history lesson...as if I didn't know how it all played out. The fact remains that India INVADED Junagadh, which had acceded to Pakistan.

If you want fairness, Pak should have followed UN resolutions and withdrawn the intruders and allowed rest of the UN resolution to be actioned including plebiscite.

Pak did not follow UN resolutions and after more than 15 years after ceasefire attacked India opportunistically in 1965 when India had just gone through a disastrous campaign with China.

Opportunistic? Opportunistic would have been to attack India simultaneously when China was engaging ur forces in 1962. Opportunistic is India taking advantage of the fact that Pak couldn't get its forces to Junagadh to defend it and thus invading it. Opportunistic is India taking advantage of Pak's civil war and intervening. U can take ur double standards elsewhere. Go fool someone else who doesn't know history.

The 1965 war qualifies as misadventure dude.

And by that same token Indian invasion of a territory that acceded to Pak is also a misadventure.

Of course u r biased and u claim that India's invasion of a territory that acceded to Pak was a "strategic move to not have parts of Pakistan within India"(or however u had put it in ur earlier post)...using the same reasoning one could also call Pak's invasion strategically necessary to secure the water supply(that flows through Kashmir into Pakistan)
...however according to u Pak doing the same thing India did is a "misadventure"...
...and then u claim to be "FAIR"
How pathetic is that...at least have the balls to own up to it.

What is worse and humiliating is the local Kashmiri populace handing over Pak intruders to Indian authorities in 1965. Clearly Kashmiris were not impressed with Pak then.

Yes and then look how it went for them. From ppl going missing and then turning up dead, to mass graves, rapes, being blinded by pellet guns, constant curfews, etc. If u had any honor and loyalty u will realize that it's more humiliating for u...how u treated them after they chose to side with u guys.

They learned their lesson and now there are plenty among them to be armed to fight back.

You dont have to be a genius to conclude that Kargil was another ill thought out misadventure by Pak.

Yes India started out with grabbing territories left and right...but that's no longer gonna fly. U may be able to bully small states around u but not Pak. Pak will do whatever the F it wants(like Kargil) and get away with it. Either u start playing fair...or quit crying when u r paid back in the same coin.

@Cookie Monster, you are one tenacious pr*ck , kudos

I was keeping it respectful and on point prior to this post...but clearly u don't deserve it. U have resorted to such behavior as quoted above so any civility on my end is out the window. Don't bother replying either since u have no manners on how to debate/argue with someone.