What's new

Junagadh: Let the Dust Settle Down | Part 1 | PKKH.tv

Yes.

His remark about Instrument of Accession.

The position was that technically, the princes became sovereign, independent powers on the Crown withdrawing from south Asia after giving dominion status to its colony. This was obviously unworkable; there were 562 princely states, and they were not viable as independent powers. The Instrument of Accession was just an orderly path into their future, rather than have 562 separate points of view come up for protracted negotiations.



The decision for partition was for two states, Punjab and Bengal. The decision for creation of Pakistan was for five states of the British colony, India. The territory of the princes never came into it.

Your assumption, that everything was to have been decided on the basis of the majority community, is a fairly common mistaken impression of many Paistani members, usually the younger ones.

As for Instrument, it is a formal authority to remain independent, or to accede to any of the states. True that It gave these states a power to remain independent, that is what the writer stated. What was wrong in it and exactly that is what the writer stated that no State emerged as problamatic or given a second thought of remaining as independent state except three disputes. Hyderabad, which wanted to remain independent, taken by India, Junagadh and Kashmir. What was wrongly stated in the article then?
 
No my brother..History at your side is as vague as history of Kashmir and Junagadh. Try finding out something better.

why don't you questions your own history before pointing fingers at others????......
"Before joining Pakistan, Balochistan consisted of
four princely states: Makran, Las Bela, Kharan, and Kalat. Three of these, Makran, Las Bela, and Kharan willingly joined with Pakistan in 1947 during the Partition of India.[5] However, Kalat, led by the Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yaar Khan, chose independence as this was one of the options given
to all of the princely states by Clement Attlee at the time.[6] In april 1948 however Pakistan deployed armed forces to Kalat, and the Khan was forced to accede to Pakistan.[7] The Khan's brother Prince Karim Khan declared independence and fled to Afghanistan to seek aid and begin an armed struggle that failed. By June 1948, Balochistan in whole became a region of Pakistan.[8] There were a further three insurgencies in the
region after 1948: 1958-1959, 1962-1963 and
1973-1977, and a fifth nationalistic movement began in 2002.[9] The 1958-1959 conflict was caused by the imposition of the One Unit plan which had been implemented in 1955. This led to further
resistance, and by 1957 Nauroz Khan announced his intention to secede; Pakistan declared martial law one day later.[10] Pakistan bombed villages and deployed tanks with support from artillery.
Nauroz was arrested and died while in prison, his family members were hanged for treason.[11] According to Dan Slater pro independence feelings
in East Pakistan and Balochistan increased in parity with continuing military intervention in the political arena."
 
No my brother..History at your side is as vague as history of Kashmir and Junagadh. Try finding out something better.

Can you explain the version you studied, then I will come back to you. :cool:

As for Instrument, it is a formal authority to remain independent, or to accede to any of the states. True that It gave these states a power to remain independent, that is what the writer stated. What was wrong in it and exactly that is what the writer stated that no State emerged as problamatic or given a second thought of remaining as independent state except three disputes. Hyderabad, which wanted to remain independent, taken by India, Junagadh and Kashmir. What was wrongly stated in the article then?

Why wasn't state of Kalat given same preference and the non- Muslim League majority NWFP assembly was not given the preference like Sindh, Punjab or Bengal Assembly to decide their province's fate.
 
Can you explain the version you studied, then I will come back to you. :cool:



Why wasn't state of Kalat given same preference and the non- Muslim League majority NWFP assembly was not given the preference like Sindh, Punjab or Bengal Assembly to decide their province's fate.

leave it bruv......he has got no answers.....
 
Hyderabad, which wanted to remain independent, taken by India, Junagadh and Kashmir. What was wrongly stated in the article then?

Why was Pakistan concerned about Junagarh or Hyderabad when she didn't share a border with both states, did you find Indians interfering during forceful annexation of Kalat, or NWFP Assembly not allowed to decide her fate like Sind, Bengal and Punjab assembly or people boycotting the referendum in NWFP.

Its clearly visible Pakistan wanted India as an enemy from day 1.
 
why don't you questions your own history before pointing fingers at others????......
"Before joining Pakistan, Balochistan consisted of
four princely states: Makran, Las Bela, Kharan, and Kalat. Three of these, Makran, Las Bela, and Kharan willingly joined with Pakistan in 1947 during the Partition of India.[5] However, Kalat, led by the Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yaar Khan, chose independence as this was one of the options given
to all of the princely states by Clement Attlee at the time.[6] In april 1948 however Pakistan deployed armed forces to Kalat, and the Khan was forced to accede to Pakistan.[7] The Khan's brother Prince Karim Khan declared independence and fled to Afghanistan to seek aid and begin an armed struggle that failed. By June 1948, Balochistan in whole became a region of Pakistan.[8] There were a further three insurgencies in the
region after 1948: 1958-1959, 1962-1963 and
1973-1977, and a fifth nationalistic movement began in 2002.[9] The 1958-1959 conflict was caused by the imposition of the One Unit plan which had been implemented in 1955. This led to further
resistance, and by 1957 Nauroz Khan announced his intention to secede; Pakistan declared martial law one day later.[10] Pakistan bombed villages and deployed tanks with support from artillery.
Nauroz was arrested and died while in prison, his family members were hanged for treason.[11] According to Dan Slater pro independence feelings
in East Pakistan and Balochistan increased in parity with continuing military intervention in the political arena."

You defintly need to google about Khan of Kalat and especially interview of his son. Hope you will find your answers there. Thanks.
 
You defintly need to google about Khan of Kalat and especially interview of his son. Hope you will find your answers there. Thanks.

well then same applies to junagadh and hyderabad as well....now they have no problem with India either........It was just their grand fathers just like Nauroz khan of kalat opposed pakistan....
 
well then same applies to junagadh and hyderabad as well....now they have no problem with India either........It was just their grand fathers just like khan of kalat.

But unlike Junagarh or Hyderabad, Kalat(Balochistan) still haven't completely accepted merger with Pakistan. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom