Illegal occupation: Nawab of Junagadh urges Pakistan to revive accession case

[somebozo]

There is nothing to dispute the legality of Instrument of accession of Hari Singh. BUT the accession would be complete only when we hold a referendum in the state.

Well then where is nothing to dispute in accession of Khan of Kalat either...Indian doing their own moo kala by raising Balochistan issue...

 

[scorpionx]

Well then where is nothing to dispute in accession of Khan of Kalat either...Indian doing their own moo kala by raising Balochistan issue...

If I am not wrong Modi did not question the accession of Baluchistan to Pakistan or did he?

 

[coffee_cup]

If I am not wrong Modi did not question the accession of Baluchistan to Pakistan or did he?

So what was he on about?

Insurgenices like Maoists, Naxals, Khalistanis?

Human rights like Dalits, Christians, Muslims?

 

[scorpionx]

So what was he on about?

Insurgenices like Maoists, Naxals, Khalistanis?

Human rights like Dalits, Christians, Muslims?

Modi talked about human rights issues, not questioning the legalities of accession of Kalat as Somebozo thought to be.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

I will definitely read it. But i don't agree with the part that Britain and US were supporting Pakistan in fear of the Russian influence in the region. This is a popular theory but as far as the American papers suggest, they were mostly indifferent and just did not care which side Pakistan chooses to be.

You read the summary ; if Not the entire book

The summary is excellent

http://www.kashmirherald.com/bookreviews/waranddiplomacyinkashmir.html

US was reluctantly supporting UK to maintain the WESTERN unity

There were three British Men involved on this
Atlee the PM ; Noel Baker ; Anuerin Bevin

Their concern was that British RELATIONS with Muslim world had Nosedived after
they created Israel

So they wanted to support Pakistan as a compensation to re establish friendship with
Muslim world

Secondly they were very keen for a Link to Central Asia to contain the Soviets

 

[coffee_cup]

Modi talked about human rights issues, not questioning the legalities of accession of Kalat as Somebozo thought to be.

So he wanted Pakistan to raise human rights issues of how Dalits, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs are treated in India?

Pakistan can gladly do that. No problems there.


Note: Left out Kashmir on purpose, because it is not part of India.

 

[Djinn]

Pakistan should also renew it's uncanny support to China on Aruanchal Pradesh......
@Chinese-Dragon

 

[scorpionx]

You read the summary ; if Not the entire book

The summary is excellent

http://www.kashmirherald.com/bookreviews/waranddiplomacyinkashmir.html

US was reluctantly supporting UK to maintain the WESTERN unity

There were three British Men involved on this
Atlee the PM ; Noel Baker ; Anuerin Bevin

Their concern was that British RELATIONS with Muslim world had Nosedived after
they created Israel

So they wanted to support Pakistan as a compensation to re establish friendship with
Muslim world

Secondly they were very keen for a Link to Central Asia to contain the Soviets

There is another book by Narendra Singh Sarila, former ADC to Mountbatten. He also suggested that the British had definitely forged a plan right from the thirties when the prospect of Independence seemed imminent to contain the Russians from entering the warm waters and to secure the oil fields of Middle East by building a shield in the East. An interesting book and must read if not 100% factually correct. But the Americans were still undecided, something they revised after the Korean war.

So he wanted Pakistan to raise human rights issues of how Dalits, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs are treated in India?

Pakistan can gladly do that. No problems there.


Note: Left out Kashmir on purpose, because it is not part of India.

It was a political statement to counter balance Pakistan's repeated mentions of 'Indian atrocity' in Kashmir. I think you are missing the context here.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Pakistan should also renew it's uncanny support to China on Aruanchal Pradesh......
@Chinese-Dragon

Did China ASK for your support

You are insulting the Chinese ; they can take care of their interests

It is Pakistan which always asks for Chinese support

 

[Djinn]

Did China ASK for your support

You are insulting the Chinese ; they can take care of their interests

It is Pakistan which always asks for Chinese support

All states need support from one another no matter how strong............Did USA invade Iraq and Afghanistan on it's own despite being a super power? Secondly it's between us and China non of your Bhaarti concern.

 

[The Eagle]

R.I.P. English

NaMo good man . I NO believe you.

Thankyou

Was using cell phone however forgot about the British colonial certificate of language while quoting you so my bad. You got the message or you can ask that didn't get it rather judging my language. You can answer without Personal attack too or is there any problem?

We are isolated in virtual world of NaMO that almost every country is against us and ironically, we don't know about that but India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Please excuse my ignorance, but was it really unconstitutional in 1947? As per Indian Independence act the Governor General had full authority to adopt, amend Government of India act'1935 until 31st March, 1948. After which it was open to constituent assembly to modify or adopt the same act if necessary. So how could Mountbatten's assurance of a plebiscite be termed as unconstitutional?

You have a point.

By 'unconstitutional', I was referring to the adherence to the India Independence Act.. It declared that the paramountcy of the Crown, the suzerainty, in technical terms, would lapse on Independence Day, and the princes would revert to their original position of untrammeled sovereignty, and would be free to join either Dominion.

Please skip the following three paragraphs, which are an historical analysis.

It never said that they would not be free to join neither (forgive the double negative: read it as 'it effectively said that they would be free to join neither', i.e., remain independent). We will take a look at this point later. Right now, we have the princes joining either Dominion. Mountbatten had been carefully briefed on this subject both by the King and by Attlee before leaving London to take up his position; their brief was simple: no independence. No British recognition of a third Dominion, No support of any kind whatsoever. But back to your point.

The actual accession was supposed to have taken place in 1935, on the coming into force of the Government of India Act 1935. That would have had the princes surrender the rights of defence, foreign affairs and communications to the Government of India; they would have retained their other rights. The thinking was that this would enable them to bargain with the (single) constituent assembly for more powers than zero to themselves under the new constitution; a half-way house from the Congress threat to launch their movements in the states direct, with disastrous consequences to most if not all of them. This way, the British and the princes hoped, there would be some role to play for them in the new (single) Dominion.

As it was, some of them were already affected. Kashmir was one. Sheikh Abdullah had converted the unsuccessful and bloodily repressed agitation of 1931 into a movement against the Maharaja, and for the Congress. By 1946, after Nehru's typical disastrous intervention of the 10th of July, it became clear, there would be two Dominions, and Abdullah suddenly had to deal with the possibility of Kashmir joining either. His party had splintered into two, and the breakaway group had returned to their old name of the Muslim Conference, and had strong influence in Poonch. The Maharaja's Prime Minister,Ram Chandra Kak, favoured accession to Pakistan. The Maharaja was definitely under pressure from two sides: from Abdullah and his agitation to join India, and from the administrative advice of Kak to join Pakistan. This is when Abdullah had sought from Nehru the promise of a plebiscite before they were handed over to Pakistan by the Maharaja; ironically, this was the first trace of the idea of a plebiscite. So whose idea was the plebiscite, and why? Was it Abdullah, working through Nehru as his interlocutor within the Congress? Or was it Nehru by himself, upholding the tenets of democratic self-determination? Was it Mountbatten, uncomfortable with any ruler doing anything that would lead to complicating riots, over and above the partition riots, foreshadowed by the Direct Action rioting in Calcutta? We will never know.

So the accession was the accession referred to under the GOI Act, 1935, and the form was one which was appended to that Act. You are perfectly right in saying that the Viceroy was free to implement the workings of that Act in any way that he felt appropriate. Now, for reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, there was talk of a plebiscite. Mountbatten was well within his rights to ask for a plebiscite.

 

[Mamluk]

Did China ASK for your support

You are insulting the Chinese ; they can take care of their interests

It is Pakistan which always asks for Chinese support

We will support our Chinese brothers regardless.

South Tibet's occupation is nothing but a colonial legacy - there is no legal basis for Indian occupation in the post-colonial era.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I like this "If heads I win, if tail, you lose" logic very much...

If a ruler of a state decides joining India, it is lawful, never mind if the majority of population revolts against that.
If the ruler of state decides against joining India, it is unlawful.

You go bro!

@coffee_cup

It wasn't that simple.

It sounds like that because we are considering the actions which became controversial later. But the perspective will change if you look at the actual situation not only there but elsewhere as well.

The case of Kalat was one. Just as in the case of Kashmir, the Khan acceded to the Dominion of Pakistan granting it the originally envisaged three powers of defence, foreign affairs and communications. For a while, things went smoothly. He found that he was suddenly swept aside, the other powers were taken from him summarily, and he was fully absorbed into Pakistan.

The case of Bahawalpur was another. The ruler, according to Penderel Moon, had ambiguous feelings about accession. He, however, stifled them, partly due to Mountbatten's strong advice, and joined Pakistan. This would have been a first class disaster if anything but accession had happened; his troops had already started cleansing the state of non-Muslim elements.

Coming to the provinces, the case of the NWFP was an example. Led by a Congress Government, elected under the restrictive franchise of the times, it had no inclination whatsoever for Pakistan. There was, in fact, a deeply submerged movement for joining Afghanistan; Bacha Khan was, after all, born in Jalalabad. The Congress leadership flatly refused to support the elder Khan's (the Chief Minister's) bid for accession to India, and the way forward was to hold a plebiscite. In that plebiscite, the number of invalid votes was exactly equal to the lead of the pro-Pakistan vote, and the province was found to have declared for Pakistan.

In Bengal, it was different once again; both the Punjab and Bengal were to be partitioned, and there too, popular opinion was sought, but in radically different ways. Please take a look at the arrangements to get an idea how the vote was sought to be 'dressed' in favour of the Dominion of Pakistan.

Did you know that Liaqat Ali Khan had the same views as yours? But that he was partly responsible for the mess that he felt the situation to be? In Kashmir, he supported the people (of Poonch, of Muzaffarabad later) against the Maharaja, but he supported the Nawab against the people in Junagadh.

Now apply your formula to Liaqat Ali Khan's position and see how it sounds.

We will support our Chinese brothers regardless.

South Tibet's occupation is nothing but a colonial legacy - there is no legal basis for Indian occupation in the post-colonial era.

Feel free. Be our guest. Presumably you know that they had already indicated their position in the correspondence before the 1962 war. But don't let that stop you from deciding the fate of the state.

Pakistan should also renew it's uncanny support to China on Aruanchal Pradesh......
@Chinese-Dragon

Uncanny?

 

[Laozi]

Was using cell phone however forgot about the British colonial certificate of language while quoting you so my bad. You got the message or you can ask that didn't get it rather judging my language. You can answer without Personal attack too or is there any problem?

We are isolated in virtual world of NaMO that almost every country is against us and ironically, we don't know about that but India.

No, you are not isolated yet. you have the support of China, Turkey and many other Muslim countries.

You will feel isolated only if China starts befriending India. Till such time you are not alone.

Anyways, no personal attack was intended and ill feelings so caused are regretted.

regards