Whatever makes you feel happy.
here read this:
Before and after the withdrawal of the British from India in 1947, the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu came under pressure from both India and Pakistan to agree to become part of one of the newly independent countries. According to the instruments of accession relating to the Partition of India, the rulers of princely states were to be given the choice of either acceding to India or Pakistan, or remaining independent. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh chose the latter and tried to avoid accession to either country. When British forces ceded responsibility for security to the two dominions, Muslim troops rebelled in the some state force units and alongwith Pashtun tribals from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), invaded the state, thereby triggering the war.
Fearing that his forces would be unable to withstand the assault, the Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance. India set a condition that Kashmir must accede to India for it to receive assistance. Whereupon the Government of India recognized the accession of the erstwhile princely state to India, and was considered the new Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, Indian troops were sent to the state to defend it against the Pakistani forces. The legitimacy of this accession is still disputed.
Pakistan was of the view that the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army, because it held that the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler, that he was merely a British appointee.[citation needed] There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" prior to British rule. Hence Pakistan decided to take action,
More nonsense - how on earth does that passage change the fact that you have no justification for calling Junagadh's accession to Pakistan 'illegal and immoral', or the fact that the Maharajah was already fighting a rebellion against his dictatorial and discriminatory rule in Kashmir, BEFORE the Tribal's entered the conflict.
What was Pakistan's justification for intervention? None whatsoever, just a trouble maker and that set the ball rolling for all the troubles that Pakistan faces today.
You are being a serious troll here - let me change a couple of words in your sentence:
What was India's justification for intervention in Junagadh? None whatsoever, just a trouble maker and that set the ball rolling for all the troubles that India faces today.
You dont get it, do ya? It very simple, I have said it earlier and will say it again.
Post independence, it was mad rush for land grab to consolidate borders by both countries. India played her cards very nicely and came up tops. Simple. Could have been better with Kashmir, if Nehru had played those cards skillfully but got misguided just like he got misguided with China.
Make up your mind - first you tried to argue 'legality and morality' with minimal knowledge of the issues concerning Indian double standards in invading and occupying Junagadh and justifying the annexation of a State that had acceded to Pakistan by holding a unilateral plebiscite.
Then you call Pakistan a 'trouble maker' and that 'it had no justification for intervention in J&K', and then yourself state that 'it was a mad rush and every State was entitled to do whatever it wanted'. Right there you destroyed your own arguments of 'legality and morality' and 'justification for intervention'. You are posting like an utterly confused man, more out of emotion than rational, coherent thought.
As for Junagadh, Pakistan did not have her forces in those territories, so could not "defend". Added to that is the hesitancy shown by your leaders (probably because of the Hindu majority population) to accept accession, which gave Indian authorities a reason to act, and act they did. Rest is History!
In other words India acted illegally in invading and occupying Junagadh, and Pakistan is justified in maintaining a military deterrent against India, since under your logic India could invade and occupy any part of Pakistan.
India acted after accession was accepted by Pakistan, and the diplomatic cables between the two sides (some of which I will post later in another thread) clearly indicate that India was aware of the accession and wanted Pakistan to annul it.
You couldnt be more wrong. Eradication, you say? Where?
On the contrary, India has gone to extreme pains to preserve the Kashmiri culture and its people by giving them unprecedented sops - unavailable to common Indians. And you talk about eradication? Seriously, that deserves a LOL.
'LOL's' won't change what you wrote - to argue the migration of millions of outsiders into Kashmir to settle and buy property, as you and many other Indians advocate, in essence means the extermination of the Kashmiri identity and culture in the long run. It would be one thing if they accepted Indian Statehood and the Indian constitution through a plebiscite, but to force it upon them is nothing but deliberate extermination of their culture to complete their subjugation.
What China did to Tibetans can be considered as what you put forth. Guess India has to do a Tibet in Kashmir. Then all the flak that India faces will be justified. I say, India should do a Tibet in Kashmir.
Take it up with the Chinese - this thread is on India-Pak-Kashmir.
Where did I say Pakistan decided to hold a plebiscite in Junagadh?
You stated 'India will decide to permit a plebsicite in kashmir', so since Junagadh acceded to Pakistan, I asked you when Pakistan permitted the plebiscite in Junagadh, that India claimed justified its annexation of the territory.
Jinnah's speech, though revered, can be considered a farce. The whole reason for Pakistan's creation as Junnah put it, was that Muslims and Hindus of the subcontinent cannot co-exist in peace! How wrong he was! And then after the creation of Pakistan, he makes this speech! What do you make of it?
That is your opinion, I disagree. Jinnah did not believe Muslims would get treated fairly in India, a sentiment strengthened by Nehru and the Congress's rejection of his compromise proposals. He did not at any time advocate that non-Muslims in Pakistan would be unwelcome.
"Quite frankly, Pakistan's ideology is none of your business in the context of accessions."
Whoa! didnt see THAT coming. That was NOT expected from you. Anyway, why is Pakistan's ideology none of my business, when we are arguing about justifications?
Because the justifications for accession are legal - you cannot just invent your own justifications to hide a part of Indian history in which India acted in a hostile and hypocritical manner.
Atleast in India's defense, India did not show hypocrisy in calling for a plebiscite in those areas. It was plain - joins us, you dont have a choice. Period.
You held a plebiscite after illegally invading and occupying Junagahd, and you also illegally invaded and occupied Hyderabad. It was hostile, expansionist behavior.
Similar was the case for Kashmir. India intervened only AFTER accession was signed. However, Pakistan intervened on a flimsy pretext of "helping" people against supposed "atrocities" (which was in fact rebellion by some soldiers who wanted to join Pakistan for being a Muslim state), and created this mess.
And in Junagadh India intervened after the State had acceded to Pakistan, on a 'flimsy pretext of helping people against supposed atrocities and created this mess'.
I am giving you a timeout before I have to perm ban you for even more sheer stupidity and incoherent rants.
