Indian double standard on Kashmir issue. From Kashmir to Junagarh

[Sheikh Rauf]

we are all knows that india have double face there is no such a thing called intrests they just have double standards and on the double face standard horse A hindu is riding so you forget that they gonna fall of get tired of maltreating.. we have to cut horses legs weather it takes 70 more years... Just a good planing would do.
india have too many division already.

 

[volatile]

Did you read some history or atleast the link.

Balochistan is not Kashmir nor Hindu majority ,Yes i did and thats why shared with you

 

[M. Sarmad]

Pakistan should be happy and thank British for giving them Pakistan on a platter. Pakistan would not have been a reality in a truly democratic system and Pakistanis should be the last to talk about democracy.

When Pakistan was established in August 1947, it was constitutionally composed of only those areas of British India which had opted for it.

The British allowed the Muslims to establish a separate homeland for themselves, but only on the basis of the will of the people and through democratic channels.



In Balochistan, the Shahi Jirga and the members of the Quetta municipality voted to join Pakistan on behalf of British Balochistan. It was decided to hold a referendum in Balochistan on June 30, 1947 in Shahi Jirga excluding the Sardars nominated by the Kalat state and non-officials members of Quetta Municipality. That would decide the future affiliations of Balochistan. An extraordinary joint Session of the Shahi Jirga was held on 30 June 1947 to decide the crucial issue. To the dismay of the Congress, 54 members of the Shahi Jirga and Quetta Municipality, voted en-bloc to join the new Constituent Assembly to be set up in Pakistan.



In Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), the British allowed for a referendum on the issue of Pakistan.. Polling began on 6 July 1947 and the referendum results were made public on 20 July 1947. According to the official results, there were 572,798 registered voters. 289,244 (99.02%) votes were cast in favor of Pakistan. Only 2874 (0.98%) were cast in favor of India. The resulting referendum in July 1947, showed overwhelming support for the new country and so KPK was included in Pakistan.

Punjab and Bengal legislatures voted for partition.

The Sindh assembly was the first British Indian legislature to pass the resolution in favour of Pakistan.


Before that, General elections were held in British India in 1945 to elect members of the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of State

The Muslim League participated in the elections with a clear cut agenda –

1) Pakistan is the national demand of the Muslims of India and
2) The Muslim League is their sole representative organization.

The turnover was extra ordinary. Leagues performance was even more impressive as it managed to win all the 30 seats reserved for the Muslims. The results of the provincial election held in early 1946 were not any different. Muslim League captured approximately 95 percent of the Muslim seats.



So, Pakistan was "democratically" created in accordance with the the will of the people.

 

[weqi]

What has happened has happened, move on. You cannot change history.

we have !

by drawing line and we will

 

[Tamilnadu]

Balochistan is not Kashmir nor Hindu majority ,Yes i did and thats why shared with you

So now its religion,dont change the goal posts sir..earlier post you said the wish of the people now its majority religion....so will you give up claims if kashmir becomes majority non muslims.

 

[volatile]

So now its religion,dont change the goal posts sir..earlier post you said the wish of the people now its majority religion....so will you give up claims if kashmir becomes majority non muslims.

Im not changing any post and question is and will remain (partition all other regions except Kasmir ) is disputed territory

 

[dadeechi]

When Pakistan was established in August 1947, it was constitutionally composed of only those areas of British India which had opted for it.

The British allowed the Muslims to establish a separate homeland for themselves, but only on the basis of the will of the people and through democratic channels.

So, Pakistan was "democratically" created in accordance with the the will of the people

The point was that British had reserved seats for Muslims to ensure that Muslim league would win. If it was full referendum in the country Congress would have won against the partition.

It was not a free democratic election. British controlled and ensured what they wanted was the end result.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The point was that British had reserved seats for Muslims to ensure that Muslim league would win. If it was full referendum in the country Congress would have won against the partition.

It was not a free democratic election. British controlled and ensured what they wanted was the end result.

In a Representative Democracy (unlike as in a Direct Democracy), there are certain inalienable rights of minority, and the majority cannot impose its will on minority. Representative democracies are much more common than Direct democracies.

Reserved Political Positions are used to protect the rights of minorities in many Representative Democracies (including India)

As for your claim that British had reserved seats for Muslims to ensure that Muslim league would win , the demand of 'Separate Electorate' was first conceded by the British in 1909 (Morley-Minto Reforms).

Though formed in 1906, Until 1930's, the Muslim League was not a mass organisation but represented the landed and commercial Muslim interests of the United Provinces (today's Uttar Pradesh) only and it had less than 2 thousand members.

In the 1937 Indian Provincial Elections, the Muslim League performed very poorly and failed to form the government in any province.

But in 1945/1946 Elections the Muslim League captured approximately 95 percent of the Muslim seats and it managed to win all the 30 seats reserved for the Muslims in the center.

What made Muslim League rise to become the sole representative of millions of Indian Muslims from a regional political party with less than 2 thousand members (in less than ten years) ??


You blame Muslims, You blame the British but you have no one but yourselves to blame for the partition. The Indian National Congress emerged victorious in the 1937 Elections and they formed government in 8 (out of 11) provinces. The way they conducted the business of government was what antagonized the Muslims and rendered the League's claims valid.


If Jinnah had really wanted to divide the country, Lahore Resolution would have been more firm in its structural parameters in the 1940's, and he would not have given up his demand for a separate homeland and accepted the Cabinet mission plan as late as 1946. ...


Maulana Azad (who served on the Congress Working Committee and in the offices of general secretary and president many times) said :

" Looking back after ten years, I concede that there was force in what Mr.Jinnah said. The Congress and the League were both parties to the agreement, and it was on the basis of distribution among the center, the provinces and the groups that the League had accepted the plan. Congress was neither wise nor right in raising doubts. It should have accepted the Plan unequivocally if it stood for the unity of India. Vacillation would give Mr.Jinnah the opportunity to divide India."


The truth is that the proclaimed advocates of United India were not sincere in keeping India united. Jinnah was probably using the Pakistan demand as a bargaining counter. All he wanted was to safeguard the rights of Indian Muslims.

The bloodshed could have been avoided ...History could have been different ... But the Congressi leaders like Nehru were neither sincere nor competent enough ..


But that's past ... The generation that went through those horrific times and carried all the "emotional baggage" has passed on... It's about time we forgot the past and worked together for a better future .

 

[wiseone2]

In a Representative Democracy (unlike as in a Direct Democracy), there are certain inalienable rights of minority, and the majority cannot impose its will on minority. Representative democracies are much more common than Direct democracies.

What you say is true ...

if you had held direct elections like the one to the British parliament the Muslim League would have never won enough seats to be a force. The reserved seats played a big role in the emergence of the Muslim League. The Muslim League was dominated by Urdu speaking Muslims from Central Provinces and Bengali Muslims. Nothing changes that.

 

[dadeechi]

In a Representative Democracy (unlike as in a Direct Democracy), there are certain inalienable rights of minority, and the majority cannot impose its will on minority. Representative democracies are much more common than Direct democracies.

Let not talk about inalienable rights. The fact was not all subjects/citizens of British India had an opportunity to vote, even if we overlook the rigged system of reserved seats.

The British decided and followed the form of system and elections that would serve their best interests. As simple as that.

As for your claim that British had reserved seats for Muslims to ensure that Muslim league would win , the demand of 'Separate Electorate' was first conceded by the British in 1909 (Morley-Minto Reforms).

And why do you want to start the history in 1909? The fact was British played the Muslims against the Hindus. There was only one point in the British Indian history when both Hindus and Muslims fought together. That was the "Indian Rebellion of 1857". After that British clearly understood that Hindus and Muslims need to be separated. The First step was the Hindi-Urdu language movements of 1967. The result of these movements were the formation All-India Muslim League in 1906 which paved way for the separate Muslim electorate under the Minto-Morley act of 1909.

To divide the Hindu-Muslim unity, with the help of some Pro-British Muslim leaders, the British conceded the so-called demand of Muslim leaders for separate electorates. The Act of 1909 stipulated that in councils and in the imperial legislature, for the number of reserved seats to be in excess of their relative population (25 percent of the Indian population), and that only Muslims should vote for candidates for the Muslim seats ('separate electorates').

Though formed in 1906, Until 1930's, the Muslim League was not a mass organisation but represented the landed and commercial Muslim interests of the United Provinces (today's Uttar Pradesh) only and it had less than 2 thousand members.

In the 1937 Indian Provincial Elections, the Muslim League performed very poorly and failed to form the government in any province.

But in 1945/1946 Elections the Muslim League captured approximately 95 percent of the Muslim seats and it managed to win all the 30 seats reserved for the Muslims in the center.

What made Muslim League rise to become the sole representative of millions of Indian Muslims from a regional political party with less than 2 thousand members (in less than ten years) ??

Yes. In the early years Muslim League & Jinnah tried to win seats based on secular agenda just like Congress but were unsuccessful. Then Jinnah changed gears and moved his position to Muslim right wing politics which gave him the success.

You blame Muslims, You blame the British but you have no one but yourselves to blame for the partition. The Indian National Congress emerged victorious in the 1937 Elections and they formed government in 8 (out of 11) provinces. The way they conducted the business of government was what antagonized the Muslims and rendered the League's claims valid.

It is not how Congress conducted the business but how Jinnah changed his position from secular to Muslim right wing politics which tipped the scales in his favor.

The truth is that the proclaimed advocates of United India were not sincere in keeping India united. Jinnah was probably using the Pakistan demand as a bargaining counter. All he wanted was to safeguard the rights of Indian Muslims.

Safeguard the rights of Muslims only. Hence Hindus would never appreciate him. I thank Nehru for standing his ground in spite of immense pressure from Gandhi to relent to the outrageous demands of Jinnah.

But that's past ... The generation that went through those horrific times and carried all the "emotional baggage" has passed on... It's about time we forgot the past and worked together for a better future .

Yes. I agree it is time to move on. Partition was the right choice that both India and Pakistan made. The only complain is that it could have been better planned and organized which could have avoided the loss of life and pending issues between India & Pakistan which still haunt both these nations.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

You don't read past threads, do you? This has been gone into in full detail before.

The princes were given the option of joining either Dominion,India or Pakistan, subject to the existence of contiguity. There was - and is - no contiguity between Junagadh and Pakistan. The ruler's accession was not in line with the Viceroy's instructions.

The State was not taken over by India on religious majority grounds. The State was handed over to an obscure Indian administrative advisor by the then Dewan, who then took ship to Karachi. In order to clear up the position, since the ruler's accession was bad, and since the administration had literally walked away, a plebiscite was held.

What has happened has happened, move on. You cannot change history.

I wish you would inform him, and other mistaken posters, of the true state of affairs.

Yes Bangladesh was a lesson for Pakistan

That was irrelevant to the discussion initiated by the first two posts. It is not very constructive to introduce a totally irrelevant subject.

Yes Bangladesh was a lesson for Pakistan

Is this a thread about lessons that Pakistan has learnt? I thought it was Indian Double Standard on Kashmir Issue........

We really need to stick to the topic, you know.

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.

This is incorrect, and I request you to be very careful when discussing these constitutional and legal issues. Your statement will be taken by the shallower sort of fan-boy as an immediate 'victory' and a future precedent to be used in argument.

But why this obsession with a tiny patch of land called Kashmir? You lost BD, you forgone development, you build many bombs and given unbridled power to your military that your have become a security state, you created environment for many terror group to inflict thousand cuts on India. now the same snake is biting you. May I ask is it a Muslims thingy just because majority of Kashmiris are Muslims?

Yes, it is nothing but that. Judging by their other mails. Which is unfortunate.

 

[SQ8]

You don't read past threads, do you? This has been gone into in full detail before.

The princes were given the option of joining either Dominion,India or Pakistan, subject to the existence of contiguity. There was - and is - no contiguity between Junagadh and Pakistan. The ruler's accession was not in line with the Viceroy's instructions.

The State was not taken over by India on religious majority grounds. The State was handed over to an obscure Indian administrative advisor by the then Dewan, who then took ship to Karachi. In order to clear up the position, since the ruler's accession was bad, and since the administration had literally walked away, a plebiscite was held.



I wish you would inform him, and other mistaken posters, of the true state of affairs.



That was irrelevant to the discussion initiated by the first two posts. It is not very constructive to introduce a totally irrelevant subject.



Is this a thread about lessons that Pakistan has learnt? I thought it was Indian Double Standard on Kashmir Issue........

We really need to stick to the topic, you know.



This is incorrect, and I request you to be very careful when discussing these constitutional and legal issues. Your statement will be taken by the shallower sort of fan-boy as an immediate 'victory' and a future precedent to be used in argument.



Yes, it is nothing but that. Judging by their other mails. Which is unfortunate.

The princes are irrelevant and so is the Dogra Raja. The only thing which matters is Water. Water that comes via Kashmir into Pakistan and is key to Pakistan's survival and India's chokehold on Pakistan. Water that will warrant a war regardless of whatever pragmatism people display due to well formed historical hatred and emotional baggage that is carried on issues that have LITTLE actual value on the issue of water.

What is Legal, what is not; is irrelevant in this fight to the death.

 

[Maira La]

Pakistan should be happy and thank British for giving them Pakistan on a platter. Pakistan would not have been a reality in a truly democratic system and Pakistanis should be the last to talk about democracy.

In a "truly democratic system", India wouldn't exist either. We'd have a bunch of nation states all over the place, and one big united Bengal.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The princes are irrelevant and so is the Dogra Raja. The only thing which matters is Water. Water that comes via Kashmir into Pakistan and is key to Pakistan's survival and India's chokehold on Pakistan. Water that will warrant a war regardless of whatever pragmatism people display due to well formed historical hatred and emotional baggage that is carried on issues that have LITTLE actual value on the issue of water.

What is Legal, what is not; is irrelevant in this fight to the death.

Hmm.

Two points: this was not raised until fairly late in the day.

Second, the Indus Waters Treaty is one of the few arrangements still in working order, although Pakistan has repeatedly protested against some action or the other by India, and these protests were repeatedly rejected by the Tribunal.

Do you really think it will come to war?

 

[SQ8]

Hmm.

Two points: this was not raised until fairly late in the day.

Second, the Indus Waters Treaty is one of the few arrangements still in working order, although Pakistan has repeatedly protested against some action or the other by India, and these protests were repeatedly rejected by the Tribunal.

Do you really think it will come to war?

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?