How Pakistan’s Military Lost Kashmir: Foreign Policy

[Silverblaze]

It was lost in 48 when the political class wanted Hyderabad and ignored Kashmir.
Once again in 62 an opportunity came up and Pakistan's ruling class spent their time listening to JFK's hollow words.

hyderabad was one of the reasons. Sadly, Pakistan's corrupt and incompetent political and bureaucratic class is worse than the nigerian elite. Just one example, while india on 15 august 47 had bagged over 540 princely states, Pakistan had none. There was not even a single ministry dedicated to collecting states.

May be Mountbatten should have been made Governor general as per his wish with Quaid as PM. Pakistan might have had whole of Kashmir and Assam. Just a point. Theres needs to be a detailed discussion on this.

62 was a blunder. We were assured that india will talk. The hindus and sikhs offered not even the complete kupwara district to Pakistan during Suran singh and bhutto talks of 63 to close the Kashmir matter. Naturally Pakistan rejected.

How did we manage to liberate GB and AJK with such incompetent leadership? Thats why the shoes of our martyrs of Kashmir in 47/48 should be far more precious to us than any president or prime minister.

 

[Silverblaze]

What is this Kachra article from this Azeem. And this guy served as an advisor to Imran Khan before becoming PM.
Immediately after his piece he is being invited on indian channels even though he says he criticizes Modi.

It was Israel that started proper proxy armies like the Free army of lebanon is 70s and then Free syrian army today. Israel does it its fine, but Pakistan a smaller state surrounded by hostile hindus and mentally ill Afghans does not have the right to proxy war.

 

[waz]

hyderabad was one of the reasons. Sadly, Pakistan's corrupt and incompetent political and bureaucratic class is worse than the nigerian elite. Just one example, while india on 15 august 47 had bagged over 540 princely states, Pakistan had none. There was not even a single ministry dedicated to collecting states.

May be Mountbatten should have been made Governor general as per his wish with Quaid as PM. Pakistan might have had whole of Kashmir and Assam. Just a point. Theres needs to be a detailed discussion on this.

62 was a blunder. We were assured that india will talk. The hindus and sikhs offered not even the complete kupwara district to Pakistan during Suran singh and bhutto talks of 63 to close the Kashmir matter. Naturally Pakistan rejected.

How did we manage to liberate GB and AJK with such incompetent leadership? Thats why the shoes of our martyrs of Kashmir in 47/48 should be far more precious to us than any president or prime minister.

Yep true facts.
Also the Indians were willing to trade Hyderabad for Kashmir, and it was rejected in the dreams of getting both. We got neither.
As for making Mountbatten governor general, here is a good link about it;

The Quaid could not entrust the fate of the infant State of Pakistan to a person who initially hated the very idea of the partition of the subcontinent and who was openly committed to the Hindu Congress and its leading light, Pandit Nehru, whose animus for Jinnah was blatant.

https://fp.brecorder.com/2006/12/20061225511586/

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@waz

Waz sb,

Also the Indians were willing to trade Hyderabad for Kashmir, and it was rejected in the dreams of getting both. We got neither.

Indeed this is correct, sir. As late as the first week of Nov 1947, when India's military position was indubitably getting stronger, Sardar Patel had made a public offer of a quid pro quo on Kashmir and Hyd. Sadly, it was passed up and unfortunately we are still reaping the consequences.

If my understanding is correct, Ghulam Mohammed who was in cahoots with some of the Nizams key aides was instrumental in misleading our beloved Qaid (RA) into turning down the offer.

Regards

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@waz

Waz sb,

Also the Indians were willing to trade Hyderabad for Kashmir, and it was rejected in the dreams of getting both. We got neither.

Indeed this is correct, sir. As late as the first week of Nov 1947, when India's military position was indubitably getting stronger, Sardar Patel had made a public offer of a quid pro quo on Kashmir and Hyd. Sadly, it was passed up and unfortunately we are still reaping the consequences.

If my understanding is correct, Ghulam Mohammed who was in cahoots with some of the Nizams key aides was instrumental in misleading our beloved Qaid (RA) into turning down the offer.

Regards

 

[ghazi52]

Insh a Allah.

 

[SQ8]

@waz

Waz sb,

Also the Indians were willing to trade Hyderabad for Kashmir, and it was rejected in the dreams of getting both. We got neither.

Indeed this is correct, sir. As late as the first week of Nov 1947, when India's military position was indubitably getting stronger, Sardar Patel had made a public offer of a quid pro quo on Kashmir and Hyd. Sadly, it was passed up and unfortunately we are still reaping the consequences.

If my understanding is correct, Ghulam Mohammed who was in cahoots with some of the Nizams key aides was instrumental in misleading our beloved Qaid (RA) into turning down the offer.

Regards

It is a tragedy to know how a character like Ghulam Mohammad ended up as Governor General.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@SQ8

Sir,

It is a tragedy to know how a character like Ghulam Mohammad ended up as Governor General.

It was an outcome of the relatively nascent stage of the evolution of the bourgeoisie class among IMs. This meant a relatively weak political class as a consequence. This apart, while the Muslim minority provinces and Bengal had a fairly sophisticated political class, West Pak which was the economic and military locus of Pak had a relatively underdeveloped one. The military and bureaucracy was able to play upon the differences between East and West Pak.

Regards

 

[waz]

@waz

Waz sb,

Also the Indians were willing to trade Hyderabad for Kashmir, and it was rejected in the dreams of getting both. We got neither.

Indeed this is correct, sir. As late as the first week of Nov 1947, when India's military position was indubitably getting stronger, Sardar Patel had made a public offer of a quid pro quo on Kashmir and Hyd. Sadly, it was passed up and unfortunately we are still reaping the consequences.

If my understanding is correct, Ghulam Mohammed who was in cahoots with some of the Nizams key aides was instrumental in misleading our beloved Qaid (RA) into turning down the offer.

Regards

Good Lord that makes it far worse.
Yes Kashmir lost forever over a state that even a layman could understand could NEVER join Pakistan i.e. majority Hindu, surrounded by the Indian landmass, far away from both East and West Pakistan and so on.
Perhaps the biggest misleading, mistake, blunder whatever in Pakistan's history.
Sardar's offer was actually reasonable.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

Foreign Policy is the same journal that certified the counting of Pakistani F-16s last year.

This article didn't said that it had learnt it from sources in pentagon, so we can take it as an opinion not as a news.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@waz

Waz sb,

https://scroll.in/article/884176/pa...agadh-was-the-wild-card-that-changed-the-game

https://theprint.in/politics/sardar...stan-take-hyderabad-nehru-saved-it-soz/74420/

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/131...le/ag-noorani-blames-patel-downfall-hyderabad

Mr Noorani, scroll and print are all quite hostile to Mr Patel and the former is a great supporter of Jinnah sb; but all of them vouch for an offer that the Sardar made in good faith. LAK acting on faulty and mala fide advice by Shahnawaz Bhutto and GM, talked Jinnah sahib out of it.

Regards

 

[Osiris]

Pakistan lost Kashmir in 1947 .. when Jinnah stopped being a gentleman and became greedy and wanted to have it all .. it all started with Jinnah accepting the accession of Junagadh despite it being surrounded by India on all sides, not being contigous with Pakistan and having more than 80 percent Hindu population.
Decided to not to negotiate for Hyderabad in exchange of Kashmir and wanted both .. despite Hyderbad not being contigous with Pakistan and having a majority Hindu population.
And last nail in the coffin was ...when Pakistan invaded the independent state of Kashmir despite being in a stand still agreement with them.

Pakistan became greedy ..it wanted it all..and ended with nothing.

 

[Silverblaze]

The Quaid could not entrust the fate of the infant State of Pakistan to a person who initially hated the very idea of the partition of the subcontinent and who was openly committed to the Hindu Congress and its leading light, Pandit Nehru, whose animus for Jinnah was blatant.

https://fp.brecorder.com/2006/12/20061225511586/

Yes, I came across this article some time ago. Good piece. And Quaid R.A might have made the right choice. My confusion arose when I read Stanley Wolpert's excerpt that when Gracey refused to send 3 brigades in Kashmir and Claude Auchinleck ( supreme commander of all british forces of india) flew to lahore and made it clear that gracey will do nothing as india's actions are legal - Jinnah found out how high the price now Pakistan must pay for refusing Mountbatten's offer.

As Quaid R.A openly stated on 30 oct 47, "We have been the victims of a deeply-laid and well-planned conspiracy executed with utter disregard of the elementary principle of honesty, chivalry and honor."

Auchinleck later criticized Mountbatten as well. But Since All british forces were already being commanded from Delhi, and all service chiefs of Pakistan were british including ISI chief, I just thought may be had mountbatten or any other brit taken over as governor general with Quaid R.A as PM. Things might have been easier for Pakistan and not india. Just a thought.
Kashmir had a higher percentage of muslims than Bengal, Punjab and Sindh. So its so mind boggling to have it in hindu india.

Yep true facts.
Also the Indians were willing to trade Hyderabad for Kashmir, and it was rejected in the dreams of getting both. We got neither.

Ur right, but please understand it was not that simple. They wanted a plebiscite. On nov 1st 47 in lahore, during Jinnah mountbatten talks, Quaid R.A rejected plebiscite because Sheikh Abdullah (May he forever rot in hell) was free with hindu army roaming around. Quaid R.A wanted a neutral set up which was rejected by hindu apologist Nehru and hindu fascist Patel. Quaid R.A also said he cannot pressure Nizam in having a plebiscite as he was a sovereign king. He was willing to offer junagadh though.

May be Pakistan should have demanded partition of Kashmir by Sep 15, 47 when Pakistan realized that hindu Maharaja had decided to accede to india. Pakistan did go for partition in the 50s as the dixon plan was the most successful but Nehru being a true hindu rejected it.

Frankly, I dont agree with partition its a desperate attempt. The entire state should have acceded to Pakistan just like Hyderabad and Junagadh were forced by hindus. Thats why I dont agree with Pak military's Chenab formula as well. But hope whatever happens, happens best for Pakistan.

 

[SecularNationalist]

The stupid writer wrote this article right when India is weaker than ever in Kashmir and is in deep trouble.
This article made sense in Musharraf and manmohan Singh era when no one was talking about Kashmir and the insurgency in Kashmir was almost non existent.
Whenever the insurgency goes on and the local population against you ,it represents a perfect opportunity for the opponent and you are extremely vulnerable (India).
That's the reason we want modi to rule India for another decade

 

[WarKa DaNG]

Sometimes you have to give illusions to the enemy that you have lost everything