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

[Cookie Monster]

Muslim land?? Seriously?



You couldnt govern Bangladesh. How could you have governed Hyderabad?

Good India stopped the madness of further fragmentation of the sub continent.

It was proposed to the British to have Bangladesh as a separate third entity since the beginning and they refused.

It still doesn't justify Indian occupation of Kashmir specially since u guys took Junagadh citing "Hindu majority". The Muslim Nawab of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan just like Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir acceded to India. Junagadh was Hindu majority and Kashmir is Muslim majority. India disregarded the instrument of accession and took Junagadh by force and held a plebiscite, which as expected due to majority Hindu population favored India. So why should Pakistan accept the instrument of accession for Kashmir? It's exactly the same situation...it's India that's being a hypocrite bcuz it's just hungry for territory.

 

[waz]

At the morning meeting he handed over the (Accession) thing. Mountbatten turned around and said, ' come on Manekji (He called me Manekji instead of Manekshaw), what is the military situation?' I gave him the military situation, and told him that unless we flew in troops immediately, we would have lost Srinagar, because going by road would take days, and once the tribesmen got to the airport and Srinagar, we couldn't fly troops in. Everything was ready at the airport.

From the link given by @Suriya

@Indus Pakistan, just like we discussed. Well that's history for you.

That guy is one and im positive that even you know that.

Personal feelings aside, we have to keep the thread clean.

 

[TMA]

Whilst I would favour a unified south asia (pakistan, india, bangladesh only), you are under the false impression (or delusion) that pakistan was ever part of india though i don't blame you since this is a propaganda technique that indians love to use. both were created in 1947 hence "reunification" of any country in south asia would only apply to bangladesh and pakistan. a south asian version of the EU would also be good, but all of this is just wishful thinking. we are a long way off of even peaceful relations let alone cooperation.

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

 

[Mace]

Replace 'independent' with 'free' and you have your answer. There are many successful Pakistani Kashmiris in and out of Pakistan. Unfortunately, part of their homeland is occupied.

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.

 

[Cookie Monster]

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.

If u could escape watching ur Indian propaganda on Balochistan u will realize that it's nothing like Kashmir and instead more akin to something like u guys have going on in Assam(ULFA). Kashmir is a disputed region where it was forcefully occupied and the ppl are not happy with how things turned out...at least on ur side as evident by the massive amounts of Indian security forces and armed forces deployed. In case of Pakistan u wouldn't see such massive deployment of forces to ensure "peace" at gun point...neither in Azad Kashmir nor in Balochistan.

The grievances of Balochi ppl against the government are misplaced to an extent. They are given equal rights just like other Pakistanis. Most of their grievances come down to economic matters. The biggest issue they have is they point fingers at Punjab/Sindh and other more prosperous regions and say they are neglected. This comes down to the natural order of things...a businessman is gonna set up his business in a commercial area, which has a developed infrastructure and facilities such as water, power, etc. He is not about to go in the middle of nowhere and start from scratch there.

This is how things started out when Pak became independent, Punjab was already more developed comparatively and then naturally that gravitated towards itself more progress as shown in the example above. U will see that everywhere. For example cities like Los Angeles or New York are way more developed, have more jobs, infrastructure, etc. than a city like Glasgow(Montana). So accordingly more capital is spent on Los Angeles/New York, more businesses set up shop there, which creates more jobs and attracts more ppl etc. It doesn't mean US favors Americans who live in Los Angeles over those who live in Glasgow...but apparently in Pakistan this exact phenomenon somehow translates into Punjabis being favored over Baloch. The politicians grab on to this for their own narrow minded games to gain support/voter base among a certain group. An example of this is MQM's politics over "Muhajirs". This further adds fuel to the fire.

In conclusion...Kashmir is an unfinished agenda of partition whereas Balochistan is not. Don't try to compare the two...even with BLA's armed resistance u don't see Pak Army deployed in huge numbers there...setting up curfews, using pellet guns, raping ppl, etc. Stop trying to be fair and just over here in case of Balochi ppl...go read the UN reports about ur army's conduct against Kashmiri ppl.

 

[Mace]

In conclusion...Kashmir is an unfinished agenda of partition whereas Balochistan is not. Don't try to compare the two...even with BLA's armed resistance u don't see Pak Army deployed in huge numbers there...setting up curfews, using pellet guns, raping ppl, etc. Stop trying to be fair and just over here in case of Balochi ppl...go read the UN reports about ur army's conduct against Kashmiri ppl.

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.

 

[Cookie Monster]

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 allure to.

Allude?

As for what u want...sry I don't think that's how it works. If u r here to get ppl to do the things u want them to do then u r out of luck. At best u can hope for ppl to have their opinions based on logic and reasoning. Let's see if u stick to logic and reasoning in ur reply for the questions below...

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

So Kashmiri(from Indian Kashmir) ppl who oppose India and take up arms...and let's take at face value what u claim that they are also trained by Pak...
...so they shouldn't be called "freedom fighters" and rather "Pak trained insurgents"?

Hmm well then before u get off ur high horse...would u call Mukti Bahini(armed and trained by India) "Indian trained insurgents"? Or "freedom fighters"? Why do the rules change when they are applied to u?

Patiently waiting for a response

 

[Mace]

Allude?

As for what u want...sry I don't think that's how it works. If u r here to get ppl to do the things u want them to do then u r out of luck. At best u can hope for ppl to have their opinions based on logic and reasoning. Let's see if u stick to logic and reasoning in ur reply for the questions below...

So Kashmiri(from Indian Kashmir) ppl who oppose India and take up arms...and let's take at face value what u claim that they are also trained by Pak...
...so they shouldn't be called "freedom fighters" and rather "Pak trained insurgents"?

Hmm well then before u get off ur high horse...would u call Mukti Bahini(armed and trained by India) "Indian trained insurgents"? Or "freedom fighters"? Why do the rules change when they are applied to u?

Patiently waiting for a response

Of course Mukti Bahini were Indian trained/supported insurgents. No rule change, same yardstick. India screwed Pak for the 1965 misadventure.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Of course Mukti Bahini were Indian trained/supported insurgents. No rule change, same yardstick. India screwed Pak for the 1965 misadventure.

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.

 

[TMA]

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.

Look even if Bharat agrees that “morally” Kashmir does not belong to them as the people don’t want to be...from a strategic point of view she will not let go willingly. Otherwise her foot on the jugular vein of Pakistan will be off...and why would she do that...her quest for regional hegemony will be severely dented....

 

[padamchen]

Look even if Bharat agrees that “morally” Kashmir does not belong to them as the people don’t want to be...from a strategic point of view she will not let go willingly. Otherwise her foot on the jugular vein of Pakistan will be off...and why would she do that...her quest for regional hegemony will be severely dented....

Neither side care about the Kashmiris.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Chakar The Great]

Factually incorrect every word of it. Another propaganda by paid indian media.

 

[TMA]

Neither side care about the Kashmiris.

Cheers, Doc

I beg to differ....at least Pakistanis are closer culturally, racially, geographically and religiously than Bharatis....

 

[padamchen]

I beg to differ....at least Pakistanis are closer culturally, racially, geographically and religiously than Bharatis....

We can't have an intelligent conversation if we play pretend games from entrenched state positions.

The people do not count.

Not the Indians.

Not Pakistanis.

And certainly not the Kashmiris.

The ONLY way they would and could count is if they went Syria and Iraq.

They have never had it in them. So they get used.

Cheers, Doc

 

[TMA]

We can't have an intelligent conversation if we play pretend games from entrenched state positions.

The people do not count.

Not the Indians.

Not Pakistanis.

And certainly not the Kashmiris.

Cheers, Doc

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....