Indian double standard on Kashmir issue. From Kashmir to Junagarh

[Joe Shearer]

You control the tap to the water cooler and I need water to survive.

Do you really believe that I trust your intentions to it after we have bickered over the tap for 65 years?

LOL.

You've always drawn water from it, and it hasn't been choked, ever. If you read the history of the bickering, it was (AFAIK) Pakistan's constant apprehension that there MIGHT be something.

 

[SQ8]

LOL.

You've always drawn water from it, and it hasn't been choked, ever. If you read the history of the bickering, it was (AFAIK) Pakistan's constant apprehension that there MIGHT be something.

I have read the history. The history does begin WITH the treaty, it begins prior to it. The threat of closing waters was used by politicians within congress who may not have had any actual deciding power but who on the other side knew. The requirement of 3 eastern rivers that provided the majority of the flow as compared to the western tributaries and then the payment for the water; so the precedent for parching Pakistan to death has good historical context.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

If India was really stopping water ; then the whole WORLD would have supported Pakistan

The reason OIC and UNO dont care about Kashmir
is that Pakistan is getting its share of water ; infact
more than its share

Even after we are making dams ; Pakistan's share of water is still reaching

The arbitration cases won by India prove our stance

 

[third eye]

The ruler of Junagarh State signed instrument of accession to Pakistan. The state was taken over by India on religious majority grounds as it's population was pro-India. Compare this to Kashmir and you will see double standard at it's fullest.

Welcome to the real world.

Every nation has a right to exercise options to retain or add areas during its inception while boundaries are being formed . Pakistan still laments on the ' loss ' of Gurdaspur , Faridkot etc.

The world has accepted the merger of Junagadh & Manavadar to India. Manadaver was a princely state of British India. Founded in 1733, it became a British protectorate in 1818. On 25 September 1947, it also acceded to the newly formed Pakistan. However, Indian forces entered the area on the grounds that the state was a vassal of the Junagadh state, which was itself a vassal of the Baroda state that had acceded to India.

This was 69 years ago. fast forward to the present, the Pak Idol China is claiming all of SCS how come this does not sound silly & wrong to Pakistani posters ?

If I were the PM of India in 1947, I would have allowed Junagarh's accession to Pakistan because that is how all 500 odd princely domain have acceded either to Pakistan or India. Now time passed...as I said move on.

I wouldn't. Read my comments above. Sardar Patel did right by doing what he did to consolidate the nation.

Going by your logic reclaiming Goa in 61 would also then be wrong ?

India illegally occupied Hyderabad too after it refused to join hindus

Okay, would you also consider Tibet to be illegally occupied by China, the Tibetans too refused to be a part of PRC.

Before any poster cribs as to why China is being mentioned - its because for Pak , China is the guiding beacon .

Pakistan & Pak posters need to stop being poor losers & move on in life to progress their own nation & the region.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Okay, would you also consider Tibet to be illegally occupied by China, the Tibetans too refused to be a part of PRC.

Before any poster cribs as to why China is being mentioned - its because for Pak , China is the guiding beacon .

Because of the Chinese examples of Tibet and Xinjiang ;
NO country can fault India for Kashmir

That is why China is always muted in its response

 

[adil_minhas]

I do not understand the water angle put forward by @Oscar honestly. Everyone needs water. We can share water with a traveller. Or a neighbor. It's only human. But now along with the water he wants my house? My big latth is ready for him then ...

 

[Stephen Cohen]

This MAP shows the real Geo strategic value of Kashmir

Kashmir gives India " Strategic depth " ; We CANNOT give up our advantages

 

[Robinhood Pandey]

Junagardh

Hyderabad

So basically OP is suggesting that Pakistan couldnt handle east Pakistan ( which was on the other side of India ) well . . .but somehow they could have managed places right in the Middle of India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

India illegally occupied Hyderabad too after it refused to join hindus

Actually, that each of the princely states would join India, the British Colony, had been decided as far back as the First Round Table Conference. The idea of these mergers was nothing new, nothing concocted just for the Dominions to be. None of the states, sovereign though they were in essence, was given the option even then of staying independent. The Congress had started agitations and people's movements in the states by then, and it was clear that it would be much more difficult stopping these in the states than even it was in the efficiently organised Colony lands proper. It was this imminent danger that forced the British hand and that persuaded the Indian princes to consider merger.

The merger was not planned for 1947; it was planned for 1935. Elsewhere, somewhere, @Parul has reproduced a document, the covering letter to the Instrument of Accession, which was accompanied by another, the actual Instrument of Accession. This Instrument was not patched together in 1947; it was drafted at the time of the promulgation of the Government of India Act, 1935. That Act, and the creation of autonomous states within the Colony, was thwarted because of the Congress belief that they only had to push harder to get to the next goal, Dominion status.

So as far back as 1935, the British were willing to hand over power to autonomous states within the Crown Colony, and were willing to lean on the princes to merge with the colony, ultimately, with the autonomous states. There was nothing, then, about Hindu and Muslim; it was then only Madras, Bombay, Sindh, CP, UP, Punjab, Bengal; I may have got the tally wrong but this was it, more or less.

Therefore the plan in 1935 was for the princes to merge with the provinces. Period.

Once Congress shot itself in the foot and boycotted the Assemblies and the Legislatures, the communal factor came in. It was from roughly 1939 onwards that the idea grew that Muslims needed a territory where they could live peacefully without the majoritarian pressure of the Hindu community. @Oscar has defined it rather well, I don't think I can do better.

Perhaps this will explain adequately why saying what you did was incorrect.

 

[Goenitz]

Junagardh
View attachment 323164

Hyderabad
View attachment 323165

So basically OP is suggesting that Pakistan couldnt handle east Pakistan ( which was on the other side of India ) well . . .but somehow they could have managed places right in the Middle of India.

those were states then not small cities.. anyway landlocked or not.. it just depends hows ur relations are with teh surrounding contry.. moreover in today's world its not easy to capture another country territory, without inviting all ur enemies against yourself.. so these states, can go well with India if were independent or part of pakistan.. it takes a full sacle war to chnage the geography...
lastly do check San marino, Vatican, Munaco

 

[SQ8]

Actually, that each of the princely states would join India, the British Colony, had been decided as far back as the First Round Table Conference. The idea of these mergers was nothing new, nothing concocted just for the Dominions to be. None of the states, sovereign though they were in essence, was given the option even then of staying independent. The Congress had started agitations and people's movements in the states by then, and it was clear that it would be much more difficult stopping these in the states than even it was in the efficiently organised Colony lands proper. It was this imminent danger that forced the British hand and that persuaded the Indian princes to consider merger.

The merger was not planned for 1947; it was planned for 1935. Elsewhere, somewhere, @Parul has reproduced a document, the covering letter to the Instrument of Accession, which was accompanied by another, the actual Instrument of Accession. This Instrument was not patched together in 1947; it was drafted at the time of the promulgation of the Government of India Act, 1935. That Act, and the creation of autonomous states within the Colony, was thwarted because of the Congress belief that they only had to push harder to get to the next goal, Dominion status.

So as far back as 1935, the British were willing to hand over power to autonomous states within the Crown Colony, and were willing to lean on the princes to merge with the colony, ultimately, with the autonomous states. There was nothing, then, about Hindu and Muslim; it was then only Madras, Bombay, Sindh, CP, UP, Punjab, Bengal; I may have got the tally wrong but this was it, more or less.

Therefore the plan in 1935 was for the princes to merge with the provinces. Period.

Once Congress shot itself in the foot and boycotted the Assemblies and the Legislatures, the communal factor came in. It was from roughly 1939 onwards that the idea grew that Muslims needed a territory where they could live peacefully without the majoritarian pressure of the Hindu community. @Oscar has defined it rather well, I don't think I can do better.

Perhaps this will explain adequately why saying what you did was incorrect.

You have to hand it to the Empire. They extracted themselves from the occupier and foe equation so nonchalantly and silently that one could be forgiven to think that they were invited to arbitrate between the squabbles of India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

junagarh became part of india because no hindu should stay in a officially muslim country like pakistan . but india is a secular country and muslims can stay in it . india is not officially hindu unlike pakistan which is officially muslim . that is the difference .

Complete and undiminished rubbish.

The princes were allowed to choose which Dominion they would join, India or Pakistan, but they would have to join a Dominion which was physically next to theirs. The Nawab of Junagadh chose to join Pakistan, although there was no physical common border. It was for this reason that his accession to Pakistan was questioned, and nothing else.

You have to hand it to the Empire. They extracted themselves from the occupier and foe equation so nonchalantly and silently that one could be forgiven to think that they were invited to arbitrate between the squabbles of India.

LOL. They do give that impression. And the beauty of it is that it was across such different personality types. Just look at Linlithgow, then Wavell, then Mountbatten; all of them managed the difficulties, the personalities, the squabbles and back-biting with such effortless ease.

 

[SQ8]

I do not understand the water angle put forward by @Oscar honestly. Everyone needs water. We can share water with a traveller. Or a neighbor. It's only human. But now along with the water he wants my house? My big latth is ready for him then ...

Its quite simple, the water is coming from your house and I have little trust in your claims of humanity. I only care for the part of your house that has the water and so I will continue to wave my latthi and you yours until one of us or both of us kill each other.

Any of these humanity ideas are as laughable as the concept of virginity when trying to rise up from a small town girl to a big movie star.

LOL. They do give that impression. And the beauty of it is that it was across such different personality types. Just look at Linlithgow, then Wavell, then Mountbatten; all of them managed the difficulties, the personalities, the squabbles and back-biting with such effortless ease.

Its called civil servant common sense and training, something that the ICS inherited(and sadly even the CSS but was lost to successive dictators and politicians). Pre-30's election, in the eyes of the majority of the public; there was only the evil British that needed to be kicked out.

 

[adil_minhas]

Its quite simple, the water is coming from your house and I have little trust in your claims of humanity. I only care for the part of your house that has the water and so I will continue to wave my latthi and you yours until one of us or both of us kill each other.

Any of these humanity ideas are as laughable as the concept of virginity when trying to rise up from a small town girl to a big movie star.

Man if I had made that last statement there would be a flood of fury directed my way from the feminist brigade here.

If the water is coming from my house, it is my water. For me to share.

We have mango trees growing in our compound, whose canopies overgrow into the neighbours garden. Their kids can break the mangos on their side. But the tree - and the fruit that grow on it, are ours.

As good neighbors we do not bother.

The day the kids (now men) start coming into our compound claiming the tree to be theirs, will be the day my family will put status and civility and decency to the side and go Mongol on them.

We have not yet gone Mongol on you brother. Don't please force our hand. We are blood brothers. No less.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Its quite simple, the water is coming from your house and I have little trust in your claims of humanity. I only care for the part of your house that has the water and so I will continue to wave my latthi and you yours until one of us or both of us kill each other.

Any of these humanity ideas are as laughable as the concept of virginity when trying to rise up from a small town girl to a big movie star.


Its called civil servant common sense and training, something that the ICS inherited(and sadly even the CSS but was lost to successive dictators and politicians). Pre-30's election, in the eyes of the majority of the public; there was only the evil British that needed to be kicked out.

There is an interesting side-story to that. Considering what was going on, it is very clear that British civil servants recruited in the 20s and 30s expected to do their full 30 years or so of service and retire to middle-class comfort in the 50s and 60s. My father's two sets of memoirs (one still in document form, unpublished due to my gypsy wanderings after he died) make it clear that the vast bulk of them were completely unprepared for retirement in the 47/48 kind of time line. Just as an example, Alexander Brown, of Gilgit Scouts and Ibex Force fame, retired to an ICI job in Calcutta. He was recognised by some Sikhs, attacked and left for dead, and nursed back to health by a surgeon who came along and found his body. Other, very senior civil servants and policemen, landed up as bursars in small British public schools, executives in Devonshire municipalities, very junior executives in the City and so on. One of them became a sheep-farmer in the Lowlands. Jamieson, of the whiskey (Irish) family, became head of security for Andrew Yule in Dishergarh. In the 60s, they were leading lives of genteel poverty, all across the country (GB).

These were the iron frame, not the boxwallahs, who stayed on in plush style until the late 60s. Tony Hayward of the other whisky (Scotch) family, stayed on in Calcutta and Madras for much longer, while Shaw Wallace was run by professional managers.

So they managed with a deft touch and a suave air, but their own futures were desperately clouded. Got to hand it to them; an Indian, faced with similar prospects, would probably have dropped everything official and focussed with a laser focus on building himself a way out.