Junagadh dispute & Kashmir

[deckingraj]

@Ice_Man...

Though i would have liked to see any wording of your that i played with but fir now seems we are back to square one ...I have noticed that you sometime dont answer to my direct questions...It would easy for us to discuss if you can answer me direct questions and also reply to them...Anyways let's try once again...

listen to your point what is your point? kashmir is india's integral part....ok then if you say that then i guess the argument can't be done because tomorrow (FOR EXAMPLE)you will have a complete right to comment about punjab or karachi or NWFP or balochistan! which my friend NO country can because integral parts are internal matter of a country!!!!

No...You are wrong here...You cannot say same about punjab or Karachi because unlike Kasmir you have accepted them as integral parts of each other country...Now tomorrow if i stand and say Washington DC is an integral part of india...I will considered as idiot....I hope you see the difference.

india says KASHMIR is our part & pakistan says its ours! but if one of us says hey its my integral part then there is no point in "DISCUSSING" cuz you are not claiming a stand you are stating....i say their is no Azad Kashmir their is no Indian Held kashmir....its a disputed territory which both are holding onto and an agreement for the WHOLE needs to be done not just a specific part of it!

Again your emphasis is more on wording...Let me ask you something here...why do think we have a dispute on Kashmir??? If you sincerely answer that you will find why India and Pak are saying what they are saying. Now on the talking table you will present your stand and other side will refute it with why they think your stand is not correct and then you will come up with some magic formulae to solve the issue with a resolution that is acceptable to both...

NOw i have asked you many times giving away ***(Azad Kasmir) even after saying J&k is our integral part means no concession to you???

One more food for thought...India always said that Kashmir is an integral part but still we had so many rounds of Talk...what does that imply...may be people who are trying to resolve the issue don't percieve it as end of discussion...what say???

ok you contradicting yourself here buddy "KASHMIR IS OUR INTEGRAL PART" & "KASHMIR IS NOT OUR INTERNAL PROBLEM"

I am surpised you can see them as contradicting...Kashmir is our integral part thats our stand...but how can be its just an internal problem when we have border dispute with a neighbouring country and fought 4 wars with it??? Balochistan is an example of internal problem...Another example of bilateral issue would be AP..India says its an integral part but does that mean while settling border dispute with china AP is not discussed???

and as for LoC right now that you have established that LoC is located in a part where whoever controls whichever sector that's his.... because after all kashmir is a disputed territory....so YES you can cross over and come into Azad kashmir by all means!!!! no issues there buddy! its currently neither ours nor your's!!!!

You are wrong here. If this is your personal opinion then i have no issues with it...But both governments dont see it like that...Thats why we had full fledge war in 1965...Kargil almost brought us close to it..and surgical strikes in *** after mumbai would have surely resulted in full fledge war...Now if it completelt legitimate to corss LOC then why the heck there is any LOC...we should keep fighting all the time to get more and more area...Does it sound OK to you??

and as for AZAAD KASHMIR it has its own government it has its own federal burea and everything! it is more like a seperate state the only thing that might people into believing that it is our part is the fact that our army is guarding its borders from the indians!!!

so yes when i argue about kashmir i am also counting the AZAAD KASHMIR as an area that needs to be discussed!

I never said that you are not arguing about whole kashmir..We are in agreement there...

ok again you are ranting your lines....their is no proof about MODI's involvement because babu bajrangi testifying is not ample proof....Bal Thackrey and shiv sena demolishing BABRI MASJID is not proof BUT wait a sec indian giving proof of of SAEED's involvement should be accepted as bible! and it is the ultimate prooof!!!!

When did i say that Indian proof's should be considered as Bible...But when neutral partires also say the same but Pakistan has different stand how the hell you think anyone can trust you are sincere about punishing him???

Also there is one difference here...These people have commited crimes(my opinion) in my country and have nothing to do with pakistan...Mr Saeed is a pakistani national who have commited crimes in my country and is still free in PAK...

hey indian investigation agencies can't find "proof" against modi,tytlr,advani,bal thackrey BUT they have found proof against SAEED....and international agencies?? what international agencies u talking about?

If you are saying no international agencies did paralled investigation on mumbai then i am sorry my friend i cant say much..In case you genuinely dont know just google it you will find plenty of reports...

well you answered your own question lack of proof!!!! and please name international agencies that you referring to!! and my stand on him is the same as your stand on tytler,modi,thackrey!

Great..if your stand is same then we are in agreement...Now lack of proof or lack of will only time will tell...

well.... you didn't respect the LoC by crossing SIACHEN.....we followed suite by crossing into kargil......

Comon...i have shown you disimilarities between Siachen and Kargil.. Answer them and you will the difference...but i suspect you would...becuase it might delute your stand...

 

[bandit]

Junagadh cannot be counted as a dispute because it did not fall into a Contigous muslim area. Its illogical to ask every little district which country to join. Had it been in punjab it would have made sense as it would have been within a larger muslim dominated area.

This is like saying saying since there were some majority hindu sindhis areas in sindh lets have part of sindh as India.

 

[ice_man]

Though i would have liked to see any wording of your that i played with but fir now seems we are back to square one ...I have noticed that you sometime dont answer to my direct questions...It would easy for us to discuss if you can answer me direct questions and also reply to them...Anyways let's try once again...

please....tel me what is gthe direct question i really seem to miss your "question"!!

No...You are wrong here...You cannot say same about punjab or Karachi because unlike Kasmir you have accepted them as integral parts of each other country...Now tomorrow if i stand and say Washington DC is an integral part of india...I will considered as idiot....I hope you see the difference.

if this is your real stand we have an agreement!


Again your emphasis is more on wording...Let me ask you something here...why do think we have a dispute on Kashmir??? If you sincerely answer that you will find why India and Pak are saying what they are saying. Now on the talking table you will present your stand and other side will refute it with why they think your stand is not correct and then you will come up with some magic formulae to solve the issue with a resolution that is acceptable to both...

NOw i have asked you many times giving away ***(Azad Kasmir) even after saying J&k is our integral part means no concession to you???

One more food for thought...India always said that Kashmir is an integral part but still we had so many rounds of Talk...what does that imply...may be people who are trying to resolve the issue don't percieve it as end of discussion...what say???

kashmir issue from our stand point is a problem because india FORCEFULLY ANNEXED the state!

giving away azaad kashmir??? my friend WE TOOK IT! you didn't give it! just like the rest of kashmir you took it so no one conceded anything to the other party!!!!

india keeps talking because it wants to stop the constant fighting in that region so yes kargil actually has brought india to the table!!!


You are wrong here. If this is your personal opinion then i have no issues with it...But both governments dont see it like that...Thats why we had full fledge war in 1965...Kargil almost brought us close to it..and surgical strikes in *** after mumbai would have surely resulted in full fledge war...Now if it completelt legitimate to corss LOC then why the heck there is any LOC...we should keep fighting all the time to get more and more area...Does it sound OK to you??

my friend LoC stands for LINE OF CONTROL! that would mean that whoever controls whichever part its their's there are routine attacks and counter attacks to attain strategic locations along the LoC and that is norm! a war doesn't break out only cuz these small routine changes are about a couple of 1000 of meters at most!

When did i say that Indian proof's should be considered as Bible...But when neutral partires also say the same but Pakistan has different stand how the hell you think anyone can trust you are sincere about punishing him???

Also there is one difference here...These people have commited crimes(my opinion) in my country and have nothing to do with pakistan...Mr Saeed is a pakistani national who have commited crimes in my country and is still free in PAK...


name your neutral parties please and please also name these FOREIGN INVESTIGATION AGENCIES you keep talking about!!!! i can't be bothered to google your arguments for you!!

and saeed will be guilty when proven just how Modi & the rest of the babri masjid culprits will be! currently i personally feel Saeed is a ****** guy however, law needs proof not my opinon!

 

[ice_man]

Junagadh cannot be counted as a dispute because it did not fall into a Contigous muslim area. Its illogical to ask every little district which country to join. Had it been in punjab it would have made sense as it would have been within a larger muslim dominated area.

This is like saying saying since there were some majority hindu sindhis areas in sindh lets have part of sindh as India.

ok so Junagadh had a muslim ruler who wanted to be with pakistan and his subjects were hindus! now lets focus on kashmir....all the subjects were muslim and the ruler was a hindu! please tell me what don't you see as similarities???

 

[deckingraj]

please....tel me what is gthe direct question i really seem to miss your "question"!!

Just check the previous posts you will get them...

if this is your real stand we have an agreement!

Great...

kashmir issue from our stand point is a problem because india FORCEFULLY ANNEXED the state!

Very true...Thats your stand...OUr is its our integral part and pak is illegally occupying ***(Azad kashmir)

giving away azaad kashmir??? my friend WE TOOK IT! you didn't give it! just like the rest of kashmir you took it so no one conceded anything to the other party!!!!

So pak took azad kashmir and india took rest of it...then why is the conflict?? It is because both are accusing other for illegaly occupying land...

Anyways i asked you(my so called direct questioins) is giving away(claim) Azad Kashmir sounds no concession to you?? Let me make it a little simple...By force neither India can move Pak out of *** nor Pak can get back rest of Kashmir...So by talks where do you see solution coming from??? LOC as IB with more soverignity to Kashmiris nothing else....

india keeps talking because it wants to stop the constant fighting in that region so yes kargil actually has brought india to the table!!!

So its india who wants constant fighting to stop whereas Pakistan don't want it to happen??? Last time i heard you are very concerned about Kashmiri's.. Please Lemme know if i misunderstood you here...

so yes kargil actually has brought india to the table!!!

Back it up with some proof or explain how did Kargil forced india to talking table?? I would like to hear your thoughts...That was the intention before Kargil(Lahore bus yatra) which only got derailed due to Kargil...

my friend LoC stands for LINE OF CONTROL! that would mean that whoever controls whichever part its their's there are routine attacks and counter attacks to attain strategic locations along the LoC and that is norm! a war doesn't break out only cuz these small routine changes are about a couple of 1000 of meters at most!

You just dont get it...I will not discuss more on this particular point unless you answer my so called direct questions...Apologies if i sounded a bit rude here but kind of getting frustrated...

When was the last time Kargil like incident happened in your so called routine changes??
If Kargil like incidents are routine then as per your claim how come it forced india to talk to you??
If crossing LOC is no big deal then why did we went on for a war in 1965??
If crossing LOC is a joke then how come Pak threatened for a full fledge war against any indian surgical strikes after 26/11???

name your neutral parties please and please also name these FOREIGN INVESTIGATION AGENCIES you keep talking about!!!! i can't be bothered to google your arguments for you!!

Chuck it...you dont need google to find out that international agencies like FBI did parallel investigations and concluded the credibility of those proofs...

and saeed will be guilty when proven just how Modi & the rest of the babri masjid culprits will be! currently i personally feel Saeed is a ****** guy however, law needs proof not my opinon!

Stop comparing saeed with babri masjid demolitions or gujarat riots...It need no brainer to differentiate between internal issues vs terrorism from a foreign land..Havind said it i guess we both have shared our personal stands against these people...Rest when Pak will find proofs against him only Pak knows..All i know is nothing will more forward in the peace process unless India sees 26/11 investigation to its logical end...

 

[deckingraj]

ok so Junagadh had a muslim ruler who wanted to be with pakistan and his subjects were hindus! now lets focus on kashmir....all the subjects were muslim and the ruler was a hindu! please tell me what don't you see as similarities???

You got some seriuous problems with discussions.. You just re-iterate your point without even challenging the counter point put forward by other person...

Read his post again...This line refutes your analogy

Junagadh cannot be counted as a dispute because it did not fall into a Contigous muslim area.

Now counter argue this point rather than saying what you said...Let me help by some tips...Did junagadh fall into contigous muslim arear or not?? If not then as per partition was it still supposed to merge with Pakistan...if yes why...if not then your analogy is wrong and correct yourself...No shame in that...This forum is to discuss and validate/correct your understandings...

Make sense??

 

[bandit]

ok so Junagadh had a muslim ruler who wanted to be with pakistan and his subjects were hindus! now lets focus on kashmir....all the subjects were muslim and the ruler was a hindu! please tell me what don't you see as similarities???

Please try reading the post, its in simple english and should not be that hard to comprehend.

Its illogical to even compare junagadh and kashmir.

 

[Hulk]

Was junagarh a princely state? As per my understanding there were 2 different set of agreements.
1) Majority by religion.
2) Princely states that were free to join what they want.

My knowledge is very limited so excuse me and correct me if I sound wrong.
Kashmir as I learnt was in Princely state and did Junagarh also fall in same line.
If Kashmir was princely state then according to agreement wish of ruler was final wish, so there should not be any dispute on Kashmir.
About Junagarh I do not know its status.

 

[bandit]

Was junagarh a princely state? As per my understanding there were 2 different set of agreements.
1) Majority by religion.
2) Princely states that were free to join what they want.

My knowledge is very limited so excuse me and correct me if I sound wrong.
Kashmir as I learnt was in Princely state and did Junagarh also fall in same line.
If Kashmir was princely state then according to agreement wish of ruler was final wish, so there should not be any dispute on Kashmir.
About Junagarh I do not know its status.

The whole logic of creating a separate space for muslims was to carve a space where they were in majority. Though there were no set rules to be followed it was logical to carve a contigous area that could form a country. Junagadh was surroended by India and was some 400 miles IIRC, from Pakistan, making it a third wing of Pakistan was illogical, it would have just made another Bangla story.

 

[PostColonial]

Wha? Junagadh dispute?
Don't you people have enough disputes already? Maybe try to solve them before creating new ones.

 

[ice_man]

Just check the previous posts you will get them...

:l


So pak took azad kashmir and india took rest of it...then why is the conflict?? It is because both are accusing other for illegaly occupying land...

Anyways i asked you(my so called direct questioins) is giving away(claim) Azad Kashmir sounds no concession to you?? Let me make it a little simple...By force neither India can move Pak out of *** nor Pak can get back rest of Kashmir...So by talks where do you see solution coming from??? LOC as IB with more soverignity to Kashmiris nothing else....

ok so your direct question is india giving up claim on azaad kashmir is concession!

if i am not mistaken didn't manmohan tell china to stop building a dam in azaad kashmir because it is disputed territory!!!!

news.outlookindia.com | India Opposes China's Dam on the Brahmaputra

READ YOU CALL IT PAKISTAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR!!!!!!!!!!


So its india who wants constant fighting to stop whereas Pakistan don't want it to happen??? Last time i heard you are very concerned about Kashmiri's.. Please Lemme know if i misunderstood you here...

you want a solution? i will give you a solution that we said for siachen as well both sides withdraw and deploy UN FORCES!! andmake the whole of kashmir a FREE NATION! but i know india will never accept it!


Back it up with some proof or explain how did Kargil forced india to talking table?? I would like to hear your thoughts...That was the intention before Kargil(Lahore bus yatra) which only got derailed due to Kargil...

didn't the so called "peace talk drama" get initiated by india POST KARGIL? before kargil that trip could have meant anything... and post kargil who spoilt the AGRASUMMIT! when mushraff was all set to sign on the dotted line regarding kashmir!!!! your BJP never wanted peace my friend and agra summit talks breakdown is proof enough!



When was the last time Kargil like incident happened in your so called routine changes??
If Kargil like incidents are routine then as per your claim how come it forced india to talk to you??
If crossing LOC is no big deal then why did we went on for a war in 1965??
If crossing LOC is a joke then how come Pak threatened for a full fledge war against any indian surgical strikes after 26/11???

1) kargil like incident happened when you entered siachen!

2) it forced india to talk to us because india realized if thismatter is not solved both sides will keep fighting with losses of lives & money!

3) you went to war in 1965 because to relieve the pressure on AKHNUR...so you crossed the international border inorder to stop our advance!

4) well pakistan threated for a full fledge war if you attacked any area close to lahore besides we were following your example from the 65 war!!!


Chuck it...you dont need google to find out that international agencies like FBI did parallel investigations and concluded the credibility of those proofs...

ok proof? FBI? sounds good but what did FBI conclude i am sorry please elaborate with a credible source!!!


Stop comparing saeed with babri masjid demolitions or gujarat riots...It need no brainer to differentiate between internal issues vs terrorism from a foreign land..Havind said it i guess we both have shared our personal stands against these people...Rest when Pak will find proofs against him only Pak knows.[/B].All i know is nothing will more forward in the peace process unless India sees 26/11 investigation to its logical end...

so unless this "investigation" ends no peace talk? who is derailing the peace process now? pakistan government wasn't involved in the mumbai attacks were we!!

and please internal external problem don't try to change your words you said hafeez is a pakistani national and his trial in pakistan is a farce! to that i responded by giving the example of babri masjid issue!!! two wrongs don't make a right but unfortunately india & pakistan justice is slow & sometimes incorrect! my opinon of saeed is exactly what you think of BAL THACKREY OR MODI OR TYTLER that is my stand & i maintain it!

& stop making excuses for derailing of the peace process!!!

 

[ice_man]

Was junagarh a princely state? As per my understanding there were 2 different set of agreements.
1) Majority by religion.
2) Princely states that were free to join what they want.

My knowledge is very limited so excuse me and correct me if I sound wrong.
Kashmir as I learnt was in Princely state and did Junagarh also fall in same line.
If Kashmir was princely state then according to agreement wish of ruler was final wish, so there should not be any dispute on Kashmir.
About Junagarh I do not know its status.

Junagardh NAWAB was a muslim making it a princely state! so if your stand is correct on kashmir my stand on juagdh is valid!!!!

@bandit

your friend here has clearly stated what decides the fate of the land is either its prince or its overwhelming population religion!

in that case junagadh had a majority hindu population right!!!! agreed! however the prince or NAWAB in this case should have been allowed to over rule their
"wishes" just how the muslim majority KASHMIR peoples "wishes" were over ruled by its prince!!

or let me give DECKINGRAJ some tips here DECCAN is another example of NAWAB & MAJORITY MUSLIM POPULATION what is your stand on deccan annexation!!!!!

what i wonder is when junagadh acceded to pakistan why did india send in its army to annex it....let me answer it majority of the population was hindu!!!!

now when HARI SINGH of KASHMIR aceded to india with his maojrity being muslim why doesn't pakistan have the right to do exactly what india did with junagadh???

 

[Hulk]

In that case Kashmir belongs to India as per decided norms. You should raise Junagarh issue. Your stand is invalid on Kashmir, as per norm decided it's ours.

 

[ice_man]

In that case Kashmir belongs to India as per decided norms. You should raise Junagarh issue. Your stand is invalid on Kashmir, as per norm decided it's ours.

ya in that case india needs to accept it annexed junagadh & HYDERABAD DECCAN INCORRECTLY! finally you getting somewhere my boy!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Junagadh cannot be counted as a dispute because it did not fall into a Contigous muslim area. Its illogical to ask every little district which country to join. Had it been in punjab it would have made sense as it would have been within a larger muslim dominated area.

This is like saying saying since there were some majority hindu sindhis areas in sindh lets have part of sindh as India.

The rule of territory having to be 'contiguous' only applied to the non-princely State territory being divided, primarily in Punjab, Bengal etc.

The Princely States were to accede based on the accession of the rulers, and in case of a disputed accession, resort to plebiscite.

Ruling out military intervention in those states, since it was done by both nations, the only issue that remains is plebiscite. India did carry out a plebiscite in Hyderabad or Junagadh (or both, cannot recall), but it continues to violate both the rules of partition on accession and the UNSC resolutions on holding a plebiscite in Kashmir.