India Invaded Pakistan In 1971: Know The Facts, And The Enemy

[DEV444]

Those who are quoting Churchill, must I remind you his opinion about Muslims, Hitler among others?

Sir,

Any religious Muslim will burn with rage at what Churchill has said on record about their Koran & Prophet ! So one can only but laugh at the ignorance of some Pakistani posters on this forum who gleefully use Churchill's tripe as their signature !

On second thoughts, maybe they are only carrying on a tradition, given that the only subcontinent leader in those times who truly respected and got along famously with Churchill was the great Jinnah !

 

[Black Widow]

Isn't it the other way around? Didn't India take over Kashmir militarily immediately after independence? According to accepted partition criteria, Kashmir should have been a part of Pakistan but the Raja sold it to India....however, the Raja did not have authority to do so, the decision was not his. So in the end it was India that violated legal terms.

You are ill-informed. Indian forces were waiting in Himachal and Punjab till Hari singh Sign the merger document and till he asked for help.. Go back to British library if you don't trust me. So your understanding of immediately after independence is flaw...

You are not some one to decide where Kashmir would have gone, As per division plan the King/Nawab had right to merge to Either India or pakistan. It was impatient pakistan who attacked on Kashmir in reply of which Indian forces reacted. The King/Nawab had all authority to do so. Infact they were only authorized to do so.

 

[LaBong]

Please do, I will, most likely, return the favour

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/50672-1947-48-kashmir-war.html

 

[Mav3rick]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/50672-1947-48-kashmir-war.html

Is the author a retired Army officer? I guess not. But that's more or less the story I guess, however, why was no plebiscite ever held in Kashmir to determine what they wanted as per the UN resolution on ceasefire of 1947 war?

 

[Mav3rick]

You are ill-informed. Indian forces were waiting in Himachal and Punjab till Hari singh Sign the merger document and till he asked for help.. Go back to British library if you don't trust me. So your understanding of immediately after independence is flaw...

You are not some one to decide where Kashmir would have gone, As per division plan the King/Nawab had right to merge to Either India or pakistan. It was impatient pakistan who attacked on Kashmir in reply of which Indian forces reacted. The King/Nawab had all authority to do so. Infact they were only authorized to do so.

Quote from Wikipedia:

"Pakistan was of the view that the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army, because it held that the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler, that he was merely a British appointee after the British defeated Ranjit Singh who ruled the province before the British.[9] There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" prior to British rule. Hence Pakistan decided to take action"

 

[LaBong]

Is the author a retired Army officer? I guess not. But that's more or less the story I guess, however, why was no plebiscite ever held in Kashmir to determine what they wanted as per the UN resolution on ceasefire of 1947 war?

The citations were from retired army officers, major agha ameen, gen akbar khan among others. I stand correct at my reply to abu zolfiqer.

As for the plebicite, that's whole different debate and off topic.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Pakistan's first war - Kashmir 1947:

"The Pathan tribesman under Khurshid Anwar’s command halted after reaching Baramulla, only an hour’s bus ride from Srinagar, and refused to go any further. Here they embarked on a three-day binge, looting houses, assaulting Muslims and Hindus alike, raping men and women and stealing money from the Kashmir Treasury. The local cinema was transformed into a rape centre; a group of Pathans invaded St Joseph’s Convent, where they raped and killed four nuns, including the Mother Superior, and shot dead a European couple sheltering there. News of the atrocities spread, turning large numbers of Kashmiris against their would-be liberators. When they finally reached Srinagar, the Pathans were so intent on pillaging the shops and bazaars that they overlooked the airport, already occupied by the Sikhs."

Tariq Ali · Bitter Chill of Winter: Kashmir · LRB 19 April 2001

 

[LaBong]

Quote from Wikipedia:

"Pakistan was of the view that the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army, because it held that the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler, that he was merely a British appointee after the British defeated Ranjit Singh who ruled the province before the British.[9] There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" prior to British rule. Hence Pakistan decided to take action"

That's a bizzare logic considering jinnah supported the right of princely states.

 

[Mav3rick]

That's a bizzare logic considering jinnah supported the right of princely states.

Yeah but the Maharaja ruling 80% Muslim majority had no right to make a decision as he was an English puppet so unless the English were still calling the shots, he had no right.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

The citations were from retired army officers, major agha ameen, gen akbar khan among others. I stand correct at my reply to abu zolfiqer.

As for the plebicite, that's whole different debate and off topic.

I could find no such citations from retired Army officers in your link.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

he was more than just an english puppet....maharaja was a rascal.

And about Kashmir; these indians always love to discuss false/fake Kashmiri Maharaja Stories


disguising people with this kind of lame stories which potrays Maharajas' as true warrior. We all know history very well and we know about these Maharajas' during British Rule over India. how they were acting during British rein.They ride on Elephants and Horses, they travel on Motor-cart ......in reality they could hardly stand on their own feet when facing Britishers. The Britisher rulers used them as mere tools to rule over majority Muslim Kashmiri region in past times.

 

[lkozhi]

he was more than just an english puppet....maharaja was a rascal.

And about Kashmir; these indians always love to discuss false/fake Kashmiri Maharaja Stories


disguising people with this kind of lame stories which potrays Maharajas' as true warrior. We all know history very well and we know about these Maharajas' during British Rule over India. how they were acting during British rein.They ride on Elephants and Horses, they travel on Motor-cart ......in reality they could hardly stand on their own feet when facing Britishers. The Britisher rulers used them as mere tools to rule over majority Muslim Kashmiri region in past times.

What pakistan always does mistake in kashmir is instead of sending regular troops they send hooligans and the hooligans do what they do best.. hooliganism. What india did right is we send our army proper along with mukthis. Otherwise it would have been 90000 plus lots of biharis raped and murdered by mukthis in revenge mania. These are apart from maharaja

 

[third eye]

Quote from Wikipedia:

"Pakistan was of the view that the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army, because it held that the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler, that he was merely a British appointee after the British defeated Ranjit Singh who ruled the province before the British.[9] There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" prior to British rule. Hence Pakistan decided to take action"

Well in that case Pakistans POV was wrong.

Applying this skewed logic Ayub, Yahya, Zia & Mush had no locus standi to rule or issue orders - they were self imposed rulers and not elected by the people.

 

[Mav3rick]

What pakistan always does mistake in kashmir is instead of sending regular troops they send hooligans and the hooligans do what they do best.. hooliganism. What india did right is we send our army proper along with mukthis. Otherwise it would have been 90000 plus lots of biharis raped and murdered by mukthis in revenge mania. These are apart from maharaja

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah did order Pakistani troops to counter Indian troops in Kashmir, however, at that time the command of the Army was in the hands of a Britisher and he refused to obey Quaid's orders stating that since the Indian army was also commanded by a Britisher he could not wage war on fellow countrymen.

And what we know from the past is that looting and plundering takes place in war on enemy combatants and enemy areas, not in areas where one wants to support his/her own countrymen so any looting/plundering/raping stories are sheer nonsense, propaganda against Tribals who hold the highest of honour in humanity and hospitality.

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 AM ----------

Well in that case Pakistans POV was wrong.

Applying this skewed logic Ayub, Yahya, Zia & Mush had no locus standi to rule or issue orders - they were self imposed rulers and not elected by the people.

Correct and incorrect. Correct because any such self imposed ruler cannot justify his actions, especially if public support is against them but they all were welcomed by the public initially, and incorrect because none of these wanted to sell Pakistan to India. On the other hand the Maharaja of Kashmir was imposed upon them outside of their will and he sold Kashmir to India. I hope you get what I mean.

 

[lkozhi]

I hope britisher was not in charge during kargil . The brutal handling of some indian pows during kargil was the result of this.pakistan army does a roster call of all jihadist elements once in a while ,names them as volunteers and sends all these madmen to kashmir without backup and supplies to get rid of them. We should give a garland to invaders for having alienating the public when they were already angry with king and his servants. That is sheer hard work.

 

[KS]

LOL what's up with the thread ?

Another (failed) attempt at revisionist history ?