How Kashmir was stolen from Pakistan by Mountbatten

[Joe Shearer]

you're out of your mind, just because an indian state has so many Muslims,you can't claom that state???? what the hell is wrong with you, this is India and we welcome all the religions, infact not to mention we've so many already, see you're eyes now even blinded by your politions....there's no problem in kashmir, it your polititions making the problem through terrorism and fake messages,...leave your religious exremism and think like normal human

He isn't out of his mind, he is misguided and misinformed as every 9 out of 10 Pakistanis are.

They think that the partition of India wad on communal lines and majority Muslim provinces were to go to Pakistan, and conversely. Few of them even know that besides British India, the British colony, there were 562 princes who had treaties with the Crown, but not with British India. The moment the British left, they became free. They were under no obligation to join either side on the basis of the percentage of each religion that they had.

This mistake continues on and on. It was not there in Pakistanis of an older generation, none of the younger people even understand the basics. Kashmir was for the Maharaja to decide; his opposition, the popular opposition to autocratic rule, was the National Conference led by Mohammed Abdullah, who had the support of Congress, opposed the Muslim League and wanted accession to India.

The commonly-held belief of many young Pakistanis is without foundation.

Well Yea We lost a territory which have to be declared Bangalistan and Bangladesh in 1947 , But still character of bangladesh remain same right after Liberation indeed doing really well. An Important Stake holder of Bay of Bengal of ay aggressor don't block it for some prepratory reason.

Really ! Are you sure that you never sended troops In Pakistan "1965"? or never Armed terrorists against us? or never used your institutions to brainwashed your peoples, Plz don't include yourself , But we all knows that exterimism exist in india, If you call it as standard reaction then same can be said for Pakistan.

You should read in your defence journal, Defence Pakistan, how SSG troops were infiltrated into Kashmir to stir unrest, how they got no support and were rooted out with the help of the local population, and how Major General Akhtar Hussain Mallik mounted an armored attack on India.

 

[shuntmaster]

He isn't out of his mind, he is misguided and misinformed as every 9 out of 10 Pakistanis are.

They think that the partition of India wad on communal lines and majority Muslim provinces were to go to Pakistan, and conversely. Few of them even know that besides British India, the British colony, there were 562 princes who had treaties with the Crown, but not with British India. The moment the British left, they became free. They were under no obligation to join either side on the basis of the percentage of each religion that they had.

This mistake continues on and on. It was not there in Pakistanis of an older generation, none of the younger people even understand the basics. Kashmir was for the Maharaja to decide; his opposition, the popular opposition to autocratic rule, was the National Conference led by Mohammed Abdullah, who had the support of Congress, opposed the Muslim League and wanted accession to India.

The commonly-held belief of many young Pakistanis is without foundation.

If the Pakistanis still want to quote the two nation theory as justification for their claim over Kashmir, then this policy has to be implemented 100%. This means Pakistan (and to an extent Bangladesh) should facilitate & accept all the Muslims of the subcontinent, including the Indian Muslims, to migrate to Pakistan. Pakistan would be the homeland for all the Muslims of the subcontinent and India will be a nation of non-Muslims only, when the two nation theory is implemented 100%. India would loose the Kashmir valley in the bargain.
The Indian Muslims (non-Kashmiri) understand this double-edged sword of the two nation theory, which is why there is no support for the Kashmir secessionist movement among the general masses of Indian Muslims.

 

[vsdoc]

I wonder how many children Diana Spencer and I would have had if we had got married. Would they have been my dark brown, or a cream and pink, or an assortment?

May her soul rest in peace ....

 

[Joe Shearer]

If the Pakistanis still want to quote the two nation theory as justification for their claim over Kashmir, then this policy has to be implemented 100%. This means Pakistan (an to an extent Bangladesh) to accept all the Muslims of the subcontinent, including the Indian Muslims. Pakistan would be the homeland for all the Muslims of the subcontinent and India will be a nation of non-Muslims only.
The Indian Muslims (non-Kashmiri) understand this double-edged sword of the two nation theory, which is why there is no support for the Kashmir secessionist movement among the general masses of Indian Muslims.

Again, I repeat, the Two Nation Theory DID NOT apply to the princes and their territory.

 

[Joe Shearer]

--------------------

 

[$@rJen]

Ha Ha Ha HA......you're a funny man....we loosing to you....its like deer trying to fight tiger,,,Boy don't get yourself killed, i'm a indian and i don't want modi to come , you know why because i'm worried that you won't be on the map if you try to do anymore nasty to indians............you may have nukes more than us..we can take a hit and stand but think about you, our N-sub will fire the nuke from inside the Karachi port.......becarefull what you write.......and i hope you know your history,,,you know how many times you lost...i know these reply of mine may make you angry,i'm so sorry about it but can't help it, pakistani's are the one who start the conflict first.....We'll not elect Modi because our country is know for peace and i'm sure if he comes it'll be opposite, and thats not good for country's economy......

 

[Samlee]

He isn't out of his mind, he is misguided and misinformed as every 9 out of 10 Pakistanis are.

They think that the partition of India wad on communal lines and majority Muslim provinces were to go to Pakistan, and conversely. Few of them even know that besides British India, the British colony, there were 562 princes who had treaties with the Crown, but not with British India. The moment the British left, they became free. They were under no obligation to join either side on the basis of the percentage of each religion that they had.

This mistake continues on and on. It was not there in Pakistanis of an older generation, none of the younger people even understand the basics. Kashmir was for the Maharaja to decide; his opposition, the popular opposition to autocratic rule, was the National Conference led by Mohammed Abdullah, who had the support of Congress, opposed the Muslim League and wanted accession to India.

The commonly-held belief of many young Pakistanis is without foundation.



You should read in your defence journal, Defence Pakistan, how SSG troops were infiltrated into Kashmir to stir unrest, how they got no support and were rooted out with the help of the local population, and how Major General Akhtar Hussain Mallik mounted an armored attack on India.

Then Junagarh Should Have Gone To Pakistan Because The Nawab of Junagarh Had Signed Accession to Pakistan But The Indian Government Did Not Respect His Wishes.They Sent The Army To Occupy The State and Held A Plebiscite.

A Plebiscite Was Held Here and The Hindu Majority Chose India.Here A Plebiscite Was Held But For The Muslim Majority of Kashmir,The Accession (BTW Whose Authenticity Has Been Doubted By Multiple People) Document Of Maharaja Was Enough Justification.

How Convenient

 

[INDIC]

AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS STILL LIVE IN 1971

FORGET ABOUT IT JUST COME BACK TO THE REAL TOPIC

2012:- Kashmir is with India and we are constructing a rail line.

 

[shuntmaster]

Again, I repeat, the Two Nation Theory DID NOT apply to the princes and their territory.

If that is the case, Pakistan has no locus-standi (hehe borrowed from sriman AB Vajapayeeji) in J&K, whatsoever.

 

[INDIC]

Then Junagarh Should Have Gone To Pakistan Because The Nawab of Junagarh Had Signed Accession to Pakistan But The Indian Government Did Not Respect His Wishes.They Sent The Army To Occupy The State and Held A Plebiscite.

If the invading Pakistanis didn't went idiotic in Kashmir and refrained from plundering the houses of people they came to liberate.

 

[shuntmaster]

Then Junagarh Should Have Gone To Pakistan Because The Nawab of Junagarh Had Signed Accession to Pakistan But The Indian Government Did Not Respect His Wishes.They Sent The Army To Occupy The State and Held A Plebiscite.

A Plebiscite Was Held Here and The Hindu Majority Chose India.Here A Plebiscite Was Held But For The Muslim Majority of Kashmir,The Accession (BTW Whose Authenticity Has Been Doubted By Multiple People) Document Of Maharaja Was Enough Justification.

How Convenient

There is no proof of instrument of accession from Junagarh to Pakistan. If there was accession, why was there a referendum, isn't it contradictory?
BTW.. in 1948 Pakistan was actually against a plebiscite in J&K, because they were afraid that it would go against them especially since the popularity of Sheikh Abdullah who was very anti-Pakistani and also due to what the Pakistani raiders did to the locals when they invaded J&K. That is the reason why Pakistan refuse to withdraw their forces from parts of J&K state, which was a pre-requisite for conducting the plebiscite as per UN resolutions.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Then Junagarh Should Have Gone To Pakistan Because The Nawab of Junagarh Had Signed Accession to Pakistan But The Indian Government Did Not Respect His Wishes.They Sent The Army To Occupy The State and Held A Plebiscite.

A Plebiscite Was Held Here and The Hindu Majority Chose India.Here A Plebiscite Was Held But For The Muslim Majority of Kashmir,The Accession (BTW Whose Authenticity Has Been Doubted By Multiple People) Document Of Maharaja Was Enough Justification.

How Convenient

Wrong twice over. Are you trying for a record?

I explained this only a few days ago. Either you don't read very comfortably, or you don't want to believe what was explained there.

The Nawab acceded to Pakistan but he tried to drag along two states which were under his suzerainty, NOT his sovereignty, the city of Mangrol and the state of Babarwadia. They revolted against their being allowed to exercise their rights of accession to either Pakistan or India. The Nawab then sent his troops into those independent states. They appealed to India, which expelled Junagadhi troops from Mangrol and Babarwadia.

INDIAN TROOPS DID NOT ENTER JUNAGADH.

The Nawab left for Karachi. After a few days, the Dewan, whom he had left behind, REVOKED the accession and handed over the administration to the nearest Indian officer, who was not even present, and left for Karachi. The Indian administration then moved in, ran a plebiscite and normalized the situation.

Be sure to look up who the Dewan was.

About Kashmir, the UN Resolution required Pakistan to vacate her intrusion, including the intrusion of tribals, immediately. The Indians were requested to keep enough troops to maintain law and order, and the Plebiscite Commissioner identified by the Security Council, was to have been appointed by the State and to have run the plebiscite in every corner.

SINCE PAKISTAN REFUSED TO VACATE THEIR OCCUPIED TERRITORY, THE UN RESOLUTION COULD NOT BE MET.

Members of the forum will notice how often these half-digested facts emerge, and have to be explained patiently to the new-comer, almost every six months or so.

There is no proof of instrument of accession from Junagarh to Pakistan. If there was accession, why was there a referendum, isn't it contradictory?

Please look up the correct facts, or refer to my summary.

There was a formal accession, there was a referendum because the accession was revoked by the state itself (by the Dewan, in the absence of the Nawab). Also for the sake of good order.

BTW.. in 1948 Pakistan was actually against a plebiscite in J&K, because they were afraid that it would go against them especially since the popularity of Sheikh Abdullah who was very anti-Pakistani and also due to what the Pakistani raiders did to the locals when they invaded J&K. That is the reason why Pakistan refuse to withdraw their forces from parts of J&K state, which was a pre-requisite for conducting the plebiscite as per UN resolutions.

 

[karan.1970]

Wrong twice over. Are you trying for a record?

I explained this only a few days ago. Either you don't read very comfortably, or you don't want to believe what was explained there.

The Nawab acceded to Pakistan but he tried to drag along two states which were under his suzerainty, NOT his sovereignty, the city of Mangrol and the state of Babarwadia. They revolted against their being allowed to exercise their rights of accession to either Pakistan or India. The Nawab then sent his troops into those independent states. They appealed to India, which expelled Junagadhi troops from Mangrol and Babarwadia.

INDIAN TROOPS DID NOT ENTER JUNAGADH.

The Nawab left for Karachi. After a few days, the Dewan, whom he had left behind, REVOKED the accession and handed over the administration to the nearest Indian officer, who was not even present, and left for Karachi. The Indian administration then moved in, ran a plebiscite and normalized the situation.

Be sure to look up who the Dewan was.

About Kashmir, the UN Resolution required Pakistan to vacate her intrusion, including the intrusion of tribals, immediately. The Indians were requested to keep enough troops to maintain law and order, and the Plebiscite Commissioner identified by the Security Council, was to have been appointed by the State and to have run the plebiscite in every corner.

SINCE PAKISTAN REFUSED TO VACATE THEIR OCCUPIED TERRITORY, THE UN RESOLUTION COULD NOT BE MET.

Members of the forum will notice how often these half-digested facts emerge, and have to be explained patiently to the new-comer, almost every six months or so.



Please look up the correct facts, or refer to my summary below.

There was a formal accession, there was a referendum because the accession was revoked by the state itself (by the Dewan, in the absence of the Nawab). Also for the sake of good order.


BTW.. in 1948 Pakistan was actually against a plebiscite in J&K, because they were afraid that it would go against them especially since the popularity of Sheikh Abdullah who was very anti-Pakistani and also due to what the Pakistani raiders did to the locals when they invaded J&K. That is the reason why Pakistan refuse to withdraw their forces from parts of J&K state, which was a pre-requisite for conducting the plebiscite as per UN resolutions.

[/QUOTE]

The problem is not the new comers, but the old timers who have been brought up on a steady dose of fabricated history and madarassa influenced context of India and the state of Jammu and Kashmir.. You can only take the horse to the water.......

 

[$@rJen]

It is col. Prohit type scums... who are the sponsors of all terrorism and indian army supply explosives.



It was again Indian army doing all those things and arming the terrorists.

you say what...we sponser terrorists........why don't you ask the rest of the world wh does that.....you're the silver medalist after Iran.....

you send terrorists to Kashmir and inside the india...you send terrorists to sfganistan..and you accuse us......can you find one country except your husband(china) telling that we sponser terrorism........

 

[shuntmaster]

Be sure to look up who the Dewan was.

Was it Bhutto??

Please look up the correct facts, or refer to my summary.

There was a formal accession, there was a referendum because the accession was revoked by the state itself (by the Dewan, in the absence of the Nawab). Also for the sake of good order.

Thanks for correcting me with the right info.