Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well then by that scale, Indian's claim on the territory of Junagadh and Hyderabad is also illegal.
Which part of 'geographical contiguity' do you not understand?
But I guess then you also agree that whole of Kashmir belongs to India and Pakistan is illegally occupying whatever it is occupying
The Princely States were never a part of the British India
East pakistan.....andaman islands which are closer to burma then india and for the sake of 'geographical contiguity' should belong to burma.
Let the people decide like they did in junagarh.
May this will help....Princely state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No! Because junagarh and hyderabad do not share a border with pakistan, hence they can not join pakistan. Pls read Toxic's response again. he does use heavy words and then people fail to understand
Also understand pakistani troops entered kashmir first, indian later, hence you are occupiers and we are liberators in our books
Also AZAD kashmir my foot, you have already annexed gilgit baltistan, you can fool your gullible population, not us.
New Recruit
Get your facts right first, the Indian part is the occupied Kashmir, the rest is refered to as AZAD KASHMIR.
Ever wondered why there are always demos, strikes, abduction and killing and rapes etc etc taking place on daily basis in the Indian held Kashmir, where as Azad Kashmir is the most peaceful part on this side of the border. ? But i guess it takes high moral values to address this question.
ok
We Agree for Referendum ...
Let the People Decide ..
Burma ceased to be part of British India sometime in late '30s. It is not a coincidence that The Indian Independence Act, 1947 bears the name of India and not Burma.East pakistan.....andaman islands which are closer to burma then india and for the sake of 'geographical contiguity' should belong to burma.
Shifting the post already. Just a few posts ago you were hinting that Junagadh should have belonged to Pakistan simply on the basis of Instrument of Accession. Why then this sudden change of heart?Let the people decide like they did in junagarh.
No that won't help. The India Act, 1935 would. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 would help too. But before that get yourself acquainted with words like 'suzerainty', 'paramountcy' or what is 'direct rule' and what is 'indirect rule'.May this will help....Princely state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
East Pakistan was Pakistan.1)Neither did East Pakistan.
HUH ?2)Toxic didn't even write that post, consult an optician.
Kashmiri people didn't revolt against Maharaja. The revolt - if it can be called that - was a local rebellion restricted to the Poonch district. I suggest you grab hold of 'The Raiders In Kashmir' by Akbar Khan to understand how the whole so-called tribal invasion happened initially with the connivance and tacit support of GoP and PA and later with direct support.3)Pakistani troops didn't enter first, Kashmiri people revolted against the Maharaja, Pathan tribes invaded to support them,Maharaja acceded to India and then Pakistani troops invaded and captured what today is Azad Kashmir,consult a history book.
The feeling is mutual4)We don't give a damn what's written about us in "Your Books".
Read EU Report. You might just learn something different.5)Was convincing enough for the Kashmiris to struggle against your occupation.
Well then by that scale, Indian's claim on the territory of Junagadh and Hyderabad is also illegal.
Who is to say when and why an international agreement is "outdated"?
I dunno, they probably will stage more terror sieges in India and bombings. Doe that answers you questions?