Kashmir The Freedom of Struggle

[Neo]

Their ruler, the King was given the oppurtunity, and he sided with India when Pakistan sent in her troops as locals for a revolt fearing that the King may side with India. It is actually that invasion from Pakistan that made the King sign with India.

Malay,

Your claim is partly true on the tribal invasion part, they freard for Hari's dicision which he conveniently kept delaying.

The invasion was a direct result of slamming down of a peacefull demonstration and killing of the leader by Hari's men.

This 'accident' was regarded as a proof of Hari's unwillingness and incompetancy to decide whats best for the Kashmiris.

Hari fled to India and sined the IoA 'illegally'.

 

[vnomad]

Vnomad, the very fact that Pakistan acknowledged LeT's existence and banned it should be taken as a good sign.

Is the LeT dead? Is it like the Khalistani groups that don't operate anymore? The brand name might be different but the product hasn't changed.

Whatever may be happening in India now (apart from the usual rhetoric that even if a bird dies, its ISI's doing) is mostly non-related to Pakistan.

NE groups haven't ever carried out activities in the rest of India. The naxals don't carry out blasts in urban areas. So, obviously the explosion were spontaneous. :wall: Have you read the roll of the LeT's objectives? Well it lists the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of India not just Kashmir. Must I point out terrorist activities around the world traced back to Pakistan? London, New York ...

My advice, find another escape goat.

You mean scapegoat. Ofcourse. How could we question the saints who comprise the Lashkar-e-Taiba.

 

[vnomad]

This 'accident' was regarded as a proof of Hari's unwillingness and incompetancy to decide whats best for the Kashmiris.

Not joining Pakistan was a bad decision? He intended to stay independant until Pakistan forced his hand.

 

[Contrarian]

Malay,

Your claim is partly true on the tribal invasion part, they freard for Hari's dicision which he conveniently kept delaying.

The invasion was a direct result of slamming down of a peacefull demonstration and killing of the leader by Hari's men.

This 'accident' was regarded as a proof of Hari's unwillingness and incompetancy to decide whats best for the Kashmiris.

Hari fled to India and sined the IoA 'illegally'.

What is IoA mate??
is it India? if so then how was it illegal?

I mean, its pretty simple what happened in Kashmir then,

Pakistan sent in troops as locals to overthrow and take Kashmir by force. King Hari Singh saw this invasion, and asked the Indian govt to help. Indian Govt said that it will help if he signed in with India, thus making the entire Kashmir a part of India, and by implication, Pakistan was thus attacking India.

India then rushed in the IA, and fought off the PA, till then PA had already taken 1/3rd of Kashmir. There was some law or something, i forget, cuz of which the IA didnt push PA backwards. So India got 2/3rd's of Kashmir which is now Indian Kashmir. And the rest 1/3'rd is Azad Kashmir.

So now if the King of a state signs it with India, how can it be illegal?
Who decides the legality? Just because the majority of people in Kashmir were Muslims does not mean that the king because he was Hindu does not have the right to join which ever block he wished. The stupidest thing that Nehru or whoever did at the time was agree to the plebicite, which Pakistan now demands everytime.

Anyways, it is commonly known that Hari Singh was not going to join either India or Pakistan. He wanted to remain independent. But the attack forced him to sign with India.

 

[vnomad]

What is IoA mate??

Instrument of Accession. The document which Hari Singh signed to accede to India.

 

[Contrarian]

Thanx mate

 

[Neo]

Not joining Pakistan was a bad decision? He intended to stay independant until Pakistan forced his hand.

Full independancy was not an option, it was either be part of Pakistan or India.
Small kingdoms however were given the choice to remain autonomous within the union.

We all know Kashmir would have opted for Pakistan given the fact that muslims wanted to be part of Pakistan.

Hari Singh knew he wouldn't stand a chance in a muslim dominated federation and would be dethroned, his only chance was to seek Indian support.

Imho its an act of selfishness, not the common interest or benefit.

 

[Contrarian]

Yeah, but he was the king and it was his decision to make. Not the common man on the street, different people have different views, but it was the kings view that mattered.

 

[dabong1]

Yeah, but he was the king and it was his decision to make. Not the common man on the street, different people have different views, but it was the kings view that mattered.

If that is the case then what about Operation Polo in 1948 when the the ruler of Hyderabad did not want to join india but was invaded by the indians and his country forced to join india.
How come the rulers view does not matter when it comes to Hyderabad?

 

[vnomad]

Full independancy was not an option, it was either be part of Pakistan or India.

It was an option for Hari Singh. J&k shared a border with three countries and it could have survived as a land-locked country.

If that is the case then what about Operation Polo in 1948 when the the ruler of Hyderabad did not want to join india but was invaded by the indians and his country forced to join india.
How come the rulers view does not matter when it comes to Hyderabad?

Hyderabad was bang in the middle of India. No country can exist in isolation.

 

[Neo]

If that is the case then what about Operation Polo in 1948 when the the ruler of Hyderabad did not want to join india but was invaded by the indians and his country forced to join india.
How come the rulers view does not matter when it comes to Hyderabad?

Exactly!

 

[Neo]

Hyderabad was bang in the middle of India. No country can exist in isolation.

Come on, thats a lame excuse and you know that!

 

[Adux]

Come on, thats a lame excuse and you know that!

Neo simple fact,

India has the capability and it didnt feel it is strategically feasible to have a landlocked country inside of india, so they went against the spirit of 1947 and took over hyderabad.It was illegal

You can use the same arguement for your case in J&K, but we were there to stop you and we were legal in this contest. According to spirit of the agreement, If they were princely states the rulers had the right to decide and not the people. It was not democratic, but then again we are talkin about princely states

 

[vnomad]

Come on, thats a lame excuse and you know that!

Lame excuse! I vehemantly disagree. Can you name ANY country that exists within another country? The prospect is laughable. As a nation is would be completely cut off from the rest of the world. No trade no food no foreign exchange, no contact with Pakistan(or any country for that matter) whatsover. Preventing a blockade of Karachi by the IN is one the foremost goals of the PN in the event of a war. Imagine a permanent blockade and a complete one not a just a port. How can any country survive that?

 

[PakSniper]

Lame excuse! I vehemantly disagree. Can you name ANY country that exists within another country? The prospect is laughable. As a nation is would be completely cut off from the rest of the world. No trade no food no foreign exchange, no contact with Pakistan(or any country for that matter) whatsover. Preventing a blockade of Karachi by the IN is one the foremost goals of the PN in the event of a war. Imagine a permanent blockade and a complete one not a just a port. How can any country survive that?

Lesotho which is in the center of South Africa exists., as an independant country and Swaziland aswell in South Africe

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/e9/750x750_africa_m.gif