Kashmir The Freedom of Struggle

[Neo]

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.

And vice versa my friend. Hyderabad wa a huge territory in the heart of central India, it seperated Madras (Tamil Nadu), from Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, and Kerrala, Karnataka from Orrisa.
India would have to depand a lot on passages thru Hyderabad to link the South with the rest of the country.

There are international treaties and laws to protect landlocked countries from being cutoff from the rest of the world.

Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) would have gained those rights protected by the UN.

 

[Neo]

So you wanted hyderbad to be like those two.
No, we didn't make a fuss about it, maybe we should have.

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

Again, think 1947 and go back to the very event that lead to the invasion in the first place; the killing of a civil leader during a peacefull demonstration.

If Gujrat massacre can happen in the nineties, why not accept that tribal invasion in 1947/48 was an act of mistrust towards Hari Singh?

 

[sword9]

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.

Not Gujarat, but the principality of Junagarh in the state of Gujarat. BTW, GOI did not intervene in Junagarh, until it was invited by none other than the Dewan of Junagarh, Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, the father of the former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and grandfather of Benazir Bhotto.

Again, think 1947 and go back to the very event that lead to the invasion in the first place; the killing of a civil leader during a peacefull demonstration.

Lol...Neo, of all the people you believe in that fable.

 

[Bull]

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

My question was how did you get that knowledge?

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

And so was pakistan, and that if i am right was specific to the western borders.

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

Muslim mentality, huh?

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.:

1857 uprising!! Is this what is tought under Pakistani sylabbi

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

we still have them in various posts.

 

[Bull]

And vice versa my friend. Hyderabad wa a huge territory in the heart of central India, it seperated Madras (Tamil Nadu), from Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, and Kerrala, Karnataka from Orrisa.
India would have to depand a lot on passages thru Hyderabad to link the South with the rest of the country.

thats the pt i said.We made it more practical and look at where hyderbad is now.

There are international treaties and laws to protect landlocked countries from being cutoff from the rest of the world.

Read abt the two countries you gave as land locked countries and see how they are faring.

 

[Bull]

If Gujrat massacre can happen in the nineties, why not accept that tribal invasion in 1947/48 was an act of mistrust towards Hari Singh?

Whats the relation, Neo? one was foreign and the other was domestic.

 

[Bull]

Not Gujarat, but the principality of Junagarh in the state of Gujarat. BTW, GOI did not intervene in Junagarh, until it was invited by none other than the Dewan of Junagarh, Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, the father of the former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and grandfather of Benazir Bhotto.

U mean the very father of Bhutto wanted to join india.this is new info for me, thanks.

 

[vnomad]

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.

Oh sorry. Slip of ton... err.. finger. I mean't Switzerland. How could Germany have been the naval power they were during the 20s. and 30s that they were if they didn't have any access to the sea.

 

[sword9]

U mean the very father of Bhutto wanted to join india.this is new info for me, thanks.

No Shah Nawz wanted to join Pakistan because he was one of the richest landlords in Sindh. The situation in the state after the Nawab decided to join Pakistan became very grim, the sequence of events were as under:-
- On October 27, 1947, the dewan of Junagadh wrote to Jinnah describing the disastrous consequences following Junagadh's accession to Pakistan, when over 100,000 Hindus fled the State.

- On October 31, 1947, the same dewan wrote to the Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations, Pakistan, that the State's people were completely disheartened, and

- On November 8, 1947, saddled with an administration that had come to a standstill, the same dewan officially handed over the reins of Junagadh to the Government of India "pending an honourable settlement of the several issues involved in Junagadh's accession".

- On November 9, 1947, the Government of India sent a telegram to Pakistan's prime minister saying it "had no desire to continue this arrangement and wished to find a speedy solution in accordance with the wishes of the people". Thus the referendum of February 1948 when, to repeat, 91 voters out of 190,870 opted for Pakistan.

Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, fled India for Karachi on November 8, 1947 and the next day, the Government of India had taken over Junagadh's administration.

 

[Bull]

No Shah Nawz wanted to join Pakistan because he was one of the richest landlords in Sindh. The situation in the state after the Nawab decided to join Pakistan became very grim, the sequence of events were as under:-
- On October 27, 1947, the dewan of Junagadh wrote to Jinnah describing the disastrous consequences following Junagadh's accession to Pakistan, when over 100,000 Hindus fled the State.

- On October 31, 1947, the same dewan wrote to the Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations, Pakistan, that the State's people were completely disheartened, and

- On November 8, 1947, saddled with an administration that had come to a standstill, the same dewan officially handed over the reins of Junagadh to the Government of India "pending an honourable settlement of the several issues involved in Junagadh's accession".

- On November 9, 1947, the Government of India sent a telegram to Pakistan's prime minister saying it "had no desire to continue this arrangement and wished to find a speedy solution in accordance with the wishes of the people". Thus the referendum of February 1948 when, to repeat, 91 voters out of 190,870 opted for Pakistan.

Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, fled India for Karachi on November 8, 1947 and the next day, the Government of India had taken over Junagadh's administration.

Thanks for the info

 

[Adux]

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

Honestly Pakistan doesnt have the capability, your desires should be in accordance with your capability. So they cant walk the talk.

Adu

 

[dabong1]

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.

A bit like the americans depend on canada to get to alaska?
Do you not think the Situation is totally impractical in kashmir for india , do you think the pakistanis deciding to make it more practical is a good thing.

 

[dabong1]

Honestly Pakistan doesnt have the capability, your desires should be in accordance with your capability. So they cant walk the talk.

Adu

Yea i agree pakistan does not have the capability to defeat india three times and sustain a freedom struggle in kashmir.
So please stop blaming pakistan for kashmir as you said yourself "So they cant walk the talk".

 

[dabong1]

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.

Kashmir.......pakistan has the capability so according to your logic its okay for pakistan to act in kashmir.

 

[Adux]

Kashmir.......pakistan has the capability so according to your logic its okay for pakistan to act in kashmir.

In geo-politics there are no perfect players or Saint players, I have the capacity and depth in me to accept what my country has done and what it hasnt. Just cuz we did it in Hyderbad doesnt give you the right to do it kashmir. This is not kindergarten

Pakistan can act all she likes, but other than harrassing india with some terrorist bombings and a few half hearted attacks, there is no way pakistan can do anything to India.

If you believe Pakistan defeated India three times shows your grasp on history and the level propaganda ingraved in you.