Junagadh dispute & Kashmir

[Hulk]

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

I accept it, but your stand is not justified by your own admission Kashmir belongs to India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I accept it, but your stand is not justified by your own admission Kashmir belongs to India.

But then you have to hand over Junagadh and Hyderabad to Pakistan - the point being that one cannot subscribe to both positions - that Junagadh and Hyderabd are Indian territory and so is J&K.

At the root of the accessions was the condition of plebsicite in case of disputes - a very smart thing to do that placed the final decision in the hands of the people of those Princely States, instead of possibly corrupt and brutal dictators.

That underlying principle was the reason for the UNSC endorsing plebsicite as a solution to J&K. As I pointed out before, India adhered to that principle in Junagadh, by conducting a plebsicite that went in favor of India, after India had militarily occupied the State, but has refused to do so in J&K.

 

[bandit]

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.

The rule carried logic thats why it was a rule...you cant have every small bit of land and nowhere near your mainland asking for a plebiscite. You could have got junagadh but it again would probably have been a repeat of 1971. Same goes for hyderabad.

As regards Kashmir...its pretty simple, Pakistan refused to vacate the territory grabbed by it and therefore, India wasnt bound by the UN resolution. Pak feared the plebiscite more it seems and especially when it agreed to have the Independence clause removed from the following resolutions.

and in case of a disputed accession, resort to plebiscite..

any sources for this??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The rule carried logic thats why it was a rule...you cant have every small bit of land and nowhere near your mainland asking for a plebiscite. You could have got junagadh but it again would probably have been a repeat of 1971. Same goes for hyderabad.

I am not contesting the rules of contiguity as it applied to the division of territory in the Punjab and Bengal provinces, merely pointing out that the it did not apply to the Princely States.

And when partition was occurring no one could have expected that India would support terrorists and rebels in East Pakistan to break it off - no one expected the dispute over Kashmir and the subsequent hostility would last this long - hence the claims over Junagadh and Hyderabda are valid, as is the argument that the Indians have been hypocritical with their actions in Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad.

As regards Kashmir...its pretty simple, Pakistan refused to vacate the territory grabbed by it and therefore, India wasnt bound by the UN resolution. Pak feared the plebiscite more it seems and especially when it agreed to have the Independence clause removed from the following resolutions.

Nonsense, I have clearly pointed out in the UNSC resolutions explained stick how the UNSC resolutions called for tripartite negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission/rapporteur on withdrawal. Subsequent resolutions completely debunked the irrational Indian demand of a complete unilateral Pakistani withdrawal, while India forces would remain in occupation of their share of the territory and possibly occupy the remainder.

In addition, the excuse that 'Pakistan should withdraw first' is just that, an excuse - India agreed to the fact that the dispute would be settled via UN held plebsicite, so what difference does it make whether Pakistan withdraws unilaterally or in conjunction with India? It was and is an excuse to avoid a plebsicite, and the UNSC correctly rejected even more directly it in subsequent resolutions.

The UNSC resolutions are clear on this point, India cannot pick and choose what it likes. Independence was not really an option for the Princely States in the rules of partition was it? So why would it be an option in the UNSC resolutions, that were largely based on the agreement on partition arrived at between the Congress, Muslim League and the British?

any sources for this??

Various books by Victoria Schofield, Robert Wirsing, Owen Bennet Jones etc.

From Robert Wirsing's book, India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir dispute:

The Plebiscite Issue

The government of India's 1948 White Paper, we observed earlier, described the objective of India's military intervention in Kashmir as that of clearing the raiders fri the state so that a plebiscite or referendum could be held to settle the matter of accession. Elaborating on this objective, the White Paper went on to say that

In Kashmir, as in any other similar cases, the view of the Government of India has been that in the matter of disputed accession the will of the people must prevail. It was for this reason that they accepted only on a provisional basis the offer of the Ruler to accede to India, backed though it was by the most important political organization in the State [Sheikh Abdullah's National Conference] ... The question of accession is to be decided finally in a free plebsicite; on this point there is no dispute.

...

The commitment to a plebiscite or referendum expressed here stemmed directly from the reply of Governor-General Mountbatten, dated 27 October, to Mahrajah Hari Singh's letter, dated 26 October, which contained the signed instrument of accession of the state to India. In his reply, Mountbatten said that the government of India had decided to accept the accession of Kashmir to India. He then said:

Consistently with their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State...

 

[PostColonial]

Yes Mr. Agnostic, India will hand over Junagad

 

[eastwatch]

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.

Junagadh was a Princely State with a Muslim Nawab and a majority Hindu population. Kashmir had a majority Muslim but with Hindu Raja. Hydrabad Deccan was a Hindu majority but with a Muslim nawab.

This Nawab (Nizam) declared allience with Pakistan, but India occupied and then annexed his territory. So, India has always been following a double standard and causing war and poverty throughout the sub-continent.

 

[PostColonial]

"causing war and poverty throughout the subcontinent".

This is nothing but slander of the worst kind. Let me remind you that were it not for a united India, there would have been alteast 40 different conflicts in the subcontinent dragging the whole place back to the stone age. This irresponsible nonsense can only be expected from a rabid India-hater whose sole agenda is to blame his own problems on the most convenient neighbor.

---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 PM ----------

"causing war and poverty throughout the subcontinent".

This is nothing but slander of the worst kind. Let me remind you that were it not for a united India, there would have been alteast 40 different conflicts in the subcontinent dragging the whole place back to the stone age. This irresponsible nonsense can only be expected from a rabid India-hater whose sole agenda is to blame his own problems on the most convenient neighbor.

 

[deckingraj]

@Ice_Man


Man its ok to argue but some of your argument seems to be very Naive..Some are really good... Let me explain..

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

Yes you got it..but again u did not answered and gave me these below naive statements...

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

Isnt it true that its a disputed territory??? What wrong you see in it???

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

Yes and you call it Azaad Kashmir..

^^^^^^^
What you did above is somehow bullshit india and my question..I asked India is ready to give up claim on ***(Azaad Kashmir)...we haven't done that...we are ready to do that...it should not be difficult to say weather you see it as concession or no...Simple Yes or No...and if no why you think it is not...

P.S : Just see how difficult it is for us to agree even on simple things...

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!

You are right india will never accept it...I am sure even pakistan wont accept it...becuase Pakistan stand is to have plebiscite and let kashmiri choose what they want... Again i told you that you have to come up with a solution that is acceptable to both...otherwise peace will never come.... You got to think out of the box...You have to think of a solution that is acceptable to Kashmiri's, pakistan and India...now what you wish...So please give it another try...

didn't the so called "peace talk drama" get initiated by india POST KARGIL? before kargil that trip could have meant anything...

Again a naive statement...First by calling it drama and then saying trip could have meant anything... What do you mean by anything ??? What could be the reasons of initiating that other than improving relations??? Refute my comment that Kargil created lot of distrust among us... Are you saying that by creating distrust you forced india to initiated peace talk

Even if i go with your comments Kargil was useless because even it forced India to talk to you it was all drama(as per you) and still no progress has been made...

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!

Great add another angle to it...Now if BJP never wanted peace then why you did Kargil during BJP regime when you very well know that they do not want peace??? Any sane person will easliy find say that kargil achieved nothing...It was a strategical..political..diplomatic blunder...

Who told you agra summit was a failure just because of INdia?? Give me one independent proof if you can...

1) kargil like incident happened when you entered siachen!

Again you compared Siachen with Kargil without refuting my dissimilarities about both...Now either stop comparing them or refure my comments(check previous posts)

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!

Wrong...It cause more distrust among two nations thereby making peace process even more difficult...We have stopped talking to you after mumbai incident(though right after musharraf emergency) how do you ecpect india to come on taking table because of Kargil??? We are talking becuase india know that only way forward is peace and nothing else(especially after nukes come in picture) basis of Lahore trip..

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!

But why??? Becuase LOC is not just considered to be a line that can be crossed without any repurcurssions...GOT IT???... and in case the advances are big it will mean full fledged war or alteast a limited war like Kargil...

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!!!

Hahahaha....INdia never planned any surgical strikes on Lahore...The strikes were planned against terrorist camps in ***(Azaad Kashmir)...b/w you just said that you were following 65..what does that mean?? One cannot take LOC lightly...

Comon agree to me that LOC cannot be taken lightly...Yes it is not IB but even then you got to respect LOC or else face war...similar to IB...That's why Pakistan always said(65, Kargil) that LOC has been crossed by Mujahideen's and not regular force...

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

I told you to chuck it(Leave it)..So let's leave it there.. i dont want to start another discussion on something which have been discussed in details.. Though with no intentions of talking more about it..Here is a link

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Congressional Testimony

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!!

Terror against india emanating from your soil...your nationals involved in it..and still we see that terror infrastructure in not dismantled and you expect india to talk peace?? Dont you think condition for peace needs to be created first??

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!

I am just saying that you cannot compare the two because one is internal problem and the external..but anyways no action on saeed will have effect on relations because he impacted us...Modi or Tytler have not impacted Pakistani interests...apart from that i agree with you about our judicial process...thats where i am saying complement your lack of action on saeed(due to whatever reason) with distrust that we have each other how do you expect india not to see it as lack of will when even nuetral agencies found LET direct involvement in Mumbai Attack???

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

Mumbai attack is an excuse..No stable govt(talking about Musharraf emergency)..in pak is an excuse???

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes Mr. Agnostic, India will hand over Junagad

No one is asking India to 'hand over Junagadh' - a plebsicite, even if not under international auspices, was held there.

What is being pointed out are Indian hypocrisy and double standards, and that Indian arguments of 'Pakistan invaded Kashmir' and 'plebiscite is not necessary and accession is complete' are farcical, given that India engaged in the former activity herself, and as illustrated in my last post, clearly understood that accession was not complete without a plebiscite.

 

[deckingraj]

Can i say something here... My intentions are to make neutral statement so please ignore if it don't make sense..

Junagadh..Hyderabad were annexed by India and plebiscite was held there...Pakistan could not stop that annexation...Using the same logic Pakistan tried to annex Kashmir...India could not stop it fully but had partial success and went to UN.. Cease Fire happened...

So far so good..but then the problem started..Plebiscite was never held there...Now not going into why it did not happen(as i said i want to make neutral statement ).. both pak and india should do what was decided in the UN resolution...Are we in agreement???


Lets do some reality check now...

Its been 62 years and both sides have not done what was supposed to be done as per UN resolution ... We already have 4 wars but still no one has budged...Now what???

 

[Hulk]

No one is asking India to 'hand over Junagadh' - a plebsicite, even if not under international auspices, was held there.

What is being pointed out are Indian hypocrisy and double standards, and that Indian arguments of 'Pakistan invaded Kashmir' and 'plebiscite is not necessary and accession is complete' are farcical, given that India engaged in the former activity herself, and as illustrated in my last post, clearly understood that accession was not complete without a plebiscite.

AM can you help me understand. As per my reading for princely states the view of ruler was enough for accession or do we needed a plebiscite also. If plebiscite was so important then what was the role of ruler. IMO it should be either this or that why both?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM can you help me understand. As per my reading for princely states the view of ruler was enough for accession or do we needed a plebiscite also. If plebiscite was so important then what was the role of ruler. IMO it should be either this or that why both?

This was explained somewhat in the excerpt I posted above, which quotes the Indian Government's own White Paper on Kashmir in 1948, along with Mountbatten's comments in the acceptance of the accession, that disputed accessions required a plebiscite.

If there was no dispute over an accession, there was no need for a plebsicite. That is why India conducted a plebsicite in Junagadh, despite the fact that she occupied the entire territory militarily, and why India accepted the principle of plebiscite in J&K, and why the UNSC also endorsed the plebsicite as the means of dispute resolution.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Can i say something here... My intentions are to make neutral statement so please ignore if it don't make sense..

Junagadh..Hyderabad were annexed by India and plebiscite was held there...Pakistan could not stop that annexation...Using the same logic Pakistan tried to annex Kashmir...India could not stop it fully but had partial success and went to UN.. Cease Fire happened...

So far so good..but then the problem started..Plebiscite was never held there...Now not going into why it did not happen(as i said i want to make neutral statement ).. both pak and india should do what was decided in the UN resolution...Are we in agreement???


Lets do some reality check now...

Its been 62 years and both sides have not done what was supposed to be done as per UN resolution ... We already have 4 wars but still no one has budged...Now what???

There is a thread on this forum in the Kashmir section - solutions on Kashmir, that discusses various options to move forward, some of which that even resulted in some Indians and Pakistanis agreeing.

You should read through that.

 

[deckingraj]

^^^^^^
Thanks will go trough them...Kind of looking for something that indian and pakistani agree..will be a good Morale booster...

 

[toxic_pus]

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

It applied to the Princely States just as much as it applied to the Provinces.

…the claims over Junagadh and Hyderabda are valid, as is the argument that the Indians have been hypocritical with their actions in Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad.

Although you have quoted Robert Wrising, you seem to have overlooked the following paragraphs on pg 37 and 59, of the same book

In the case of Junagadh, [...], Pakistan had [...] upheld the right of a minority ruler, [...] a Muslim, to decide upon accession without recourse to a plebiscite. Pakistan's positions in these cases, which seemed in certain respects to contradict its post independence position on Kashmir, obviously would return at later point to haunt its leaders.

…the Junagadh affair, in which the Indian government held that that state's accession to Pakistan was invalid because its Muslim ruler did not have the right to decide the fate of his mainly Hindu subjects,“was the mirror image of [and] clearly a precedent for the State of Jammu and Kashmir." True enough, but the precedent in this case, […], cuts both ways. What served the purposes of Pakistan's argument (India's denial of Muslim maharaja's right to decide), when inverted (Pakistan's denial of the Hindu majority's right to decide) equally well served India's.

Pakistan insisted that Junagadh belonged to it, because the Nawab had chosen to accede to Pakistan. Plebiscite meant nothing. In respect of Kashmir, Pakistan simply reversed its position to deny India’s right to Kashmir by virtue of the ruler choosing to accede to India and demanded plebiscite.

Before accusing India to be hypocrite, it would be better if you get off that high horse.

Nonsense, I have clearly pointed out in the UNSC resolutions explained stick how the UNSC resolutions called for tripartite negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission/rapporteur on withdrawal. Subsequent resolutions completely debunked the irrational Indian demand of a complete unilateral Pakistani withdrawal, while India forces would remain in occupation of their share of the territory and possibly occupy the remainder.

Regarding the manner of withdrawal, time of withdrawal and what constituted minimal Indian force in Kashmir, the ‘negotiations’ were justified. But, what could possibly be the reason or terms of ‘negotiation’ for complete withdrawal of ‘Pakistani citizens and tribals’ from the P0K? What prevented Pakistan from doing that?

Btw, which ‘subsequent resolutions completely debunked the irrational Indian demand of a complete unilateral Pakistani withdrawal’?

In addition, the excuse that 'Pakistan should withdraw first' is just that, an excuse - India agreed to the fact that the dispute would be settled via UN held plebsicite, so what difference does it make whether Pakistan withdraws unilaterally or in conjunction with India? It was and is an excuse to avoid a plebsicite, and the UNSC correctly rejected even more directly it in subsequent resolutions.

The plebiscite was not a free lunch. It not only came with a pre-condition that Pakistan must fulfill its half of the responsibility, it also came with UN assurance that unless Pakistan fulfilled its conditions, plebiscite will not be binding on India.

That ‘excuse’ has a valid legal ground. And, again, which ‘subsequent resolutions’ rejected India's position?

The UNSC resolutions are clear on this point, India cannot pick and choose what it likes. Independence was not really an option for the Princely States in the rules of partition was it? So why would it be an option in the UNSC resolutions, that were largely based on the agreement on partition arrived at between the Congress, Muslim League and the British?

Actually, Independence was an option for the Princely States, although it was buried under so many layers of legalities, that it ultimately meant surrender of sovereignty. It is on this basis, that Pakistan supported Nizam's (of Hyderabad) right to remain independent.