Kashmir The Freedom of Struggle

[Spring Onion]

Lame excuse! I vehemantly disagree. Can you name ANY country that exists within another country?

You are suggesting that if any country be assumed not surviving, that country or that state should be emerged against the wishies of the population.

SO u mean in case of Hari india was justified and in case of Hyderabad the decision of the leader was not acceptbel?

hmmmmmmmmm means If India says its mine, its her

 

[Neo]

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.

Really?
How about Lesotho, Swaziland, San Marino?
Other landlocked countries like Bhutan, Nepal and Sikkem have survived despite being depandant on India.

 

[Adux]

I dont know about the countries that you have mentioned, wether they are surrounded from all sides by the same country.

Neo i agree with you, that was illegal, but then again we have capability. Kashmir it is legal, You are in the illegal side, but you dont have the capability.

 

[Neo]

I dont know about the countries that you have mentioned, wether they are surrounded from all sides by the same country.

Lesotho is fully surrounded by South Afrika, Swaziland however shares a small border with Mozambique.

Neo i agree with you, that was illegal, but then again we have capability. Kashmir it is legal, You are in the illegal side, but you dont have the capability.

Glad you agreed.

I believe Pakistan or its early governments never had intentions to expand beyond the area's logically condidered as part of Pakistan, i.e. states with muslim majority.

Even if we had the capability, we would have respected the guidelines of the Partition Act.

For example, Gujrat had a hindu majority and a muslim ruler. Its economy (cotton and sugar at that time) heavily depended on raw materials from Pakistan and vice versa.
We could have invaded and annexed a substantial part but we didn't.

 

[vnomad]

You are suggesting that if any country be assumed not surviving, that country or that state should be emerged against the wishies of the population.

Please explain how any country can survive in isolation and still have a future. Practically how would you carry it out?

Really?
How about Lesotho, Swaziland, San Marino?
Other landlocked countries like Bhutan, Nepal and Sikkem have survived despite being depandant on India.

I'm not talking about being landlocked. Germany is land-locked and has done very well. Swaziland share a border with Mozambique. Either way neither Swaziland nor Lesotho are isolated. Lesotho despite being in the centre on SA has diplomatic relations with over 70 countries. I don't know about San Marino though. How would Pakisan administer Hyderabad with which it had no contact at all?

 

[dabong1]

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

Thanx for being honest.
But please do not forget that pakistan can make the same argument when it comes to kashmir.

 

[Bull]

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

Who told you that muslims there wanted to be a part of Pakistan.The border was so close by they could have easily crossed over or created a huge uprising during the first war in 1947.

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.

Why would Harisingh be so sure of him being overthrown? Oh yeah Muslims cant see a hindu ruling them right.How sick?

 

[Bull]

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?

Landlocked Hyderbad would have been useless and would have to depend on india for everyting.Overflights, goods, trade everything.They would have to ask India for everyhting.Situation was totally impractical so we decided to make it more practical.

 

[Bull]

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

And how many more do you know?

 

[Bull]

You are suggesting that if any country be assumed not surviving, that country or that state should be emerged against the wishies of the population.

Dont worry we are not going to sugest that for Pakistan..

hmmmmmmmmm means If India says its mine, its her

You got it.

 

[Bull]

Lesotho is fully surrounded by South Afrika, Swaziland however shares a small border with Mozambique..

So you wanted hyderbad to be like those two.

Even if we had the capability, we would have respected the guidelines of the Partition Act.
For example, Gujrat had a hindu majority and a muslim ruler. Its economy (cotton and sugar at that time) heavily depended on raw materials from Pakistan and vice versa.We could have invaded and annexed a substantial part but we didn't.

Is that why you lead the tribals immediatly after partition into Kashmir.

 

[Bull]

Thanx for being honest.
But please do not forget that pakistan can make the same argument when it comes to kashmir.

What do you think your govt was trying to do all these years.

 

[Neo]

I'm not talking about being landlocked. Germany is land-locked and has done very well.

Huh?
Germany isn't landlocked, there's the North Sea in northwest ans East Sea in the northeast providing Germany free access to international waters.

 

[Neo]

Thanx for being honest.
But please do not forget that pakistan can make the same argument when it comes to kashmir.

Indeed, it works both ways.

 

[Neo]

Who told you that muslims there wanted to be a part of Pakistan.The border was so close by they could have easily crossed over or created a huge uprising during the first war in 1947.

The comon muslim wanted to join Pakistan, its the leadership which opposed in most areas.

Why would Harisingh be so sure of him being overthrown?

I don't think I need to explain that. Just imagine the sentiments of 1947, India was burning.

How could a hindu king have survived in a muslim dominated federation?
Mass would lynch him barehandedly.

Oh yeah Muslims cant see a hindu ruling them right.How sick?

The suffering muslims witnessed after the 1857 uprise when they were systematically made second class burgers paved way for a the creation of Pakistan, a country where muslims wouldn't have to live under a Hindu or British Raj.

Btw, could hindu's see a muslim ruling them in 1947?