What's new

KP belongs to Afghans, no one can force them out: Mahmood Achakzai

Just to be provocative. He knows that some dimwit, somewhere, will come out with this sooner or later, and is being very sarcastic and anticipating that remark.



You should check your numbers. How many were in the population, how many were cherry-picked to vote, how many actually voted and what that represents of the population.



Have you met many Afghans? This is a straight question, and depending on your answer, another follows.
And you stop spreading Indian propaganda. Pakistan was a brand new fledgling state and dis not have resources or power to "Cherry pick " . On the other hand India still has to give any right of choice to Kashmiris who have been asking for a regerrendum for over 70 years now.
 
. .
You know Meap...the people from Hazara overwhelmingly voted for the Muslim League even in the 1946 Provincial Election ! :)

Damn...you just might be as patriotic a Pakistani as I am ! :o:

Nah...fat chance of that happening; heck even when I bleed my blood is green and white ! :smokin:

But that could also be because I'm a distant cousin of the Hulk ! :undecided:
About the blood being green and white, I think you need to see a doctor :p:.
 
.
this wannabe roman senator with his desi shawl is too old to even construct a decent sentence.
 
.
Have you met many Afghans? This is a straight question, and depending on your answer, another follows.
They can be found in every notable city of PAK , heck even in remote villages across the country --- the phenomenon of Lunda bazaar and slums has more to do with their existence than of the natives. Furthermore the bread and butter of newcomers is mostly taken care of by the deobaandi madrasas and yes they are ferociously anti Pak
 
.
And you stop spreading Indian propaganda. Pakistan was a brand new fledgling state and dis not have resources or power to "Cherry pick " . On the other hand India still has to give any right of choice to Kashmiris who have been asking for a regerrendum for over 70 years now.

It might amuse you to find out what happened to the plebiscite. That's been fully reported in another thread. I suggest that you go there, learn and then shut up for the next 70 years.

They can be found in every notable city of PAK , heck even in remote villages across the country --- the phenomenon of Lunda bazaar and slums has more to do with their existence than of the natives. Furthermore the bread and butter of newcomers is mostly taken care of by the deobaandi madrasas and yes they are ferociously anti Pak

Are they anti-Indian?
 
.
I am citing more than one opinion on the matter. It is for you to decide if the disqualification of 85% of the eligible electorate leads to a representative vote.
So according to you Sir the whole 3.5 million people should have been eligible to vote?

This includes infants as well. I don't know the stats for that era but 36.7% of current population is under 14 years of age, if that was true back then as well then do you think they should have been allowed to vote as well?

And voting age was 21 in that period so that automatically means at least 50 percent of the population was not eligible to vote any way. So please stop with this 85 percent disfranchised voters routine.
 
. . .
1) So your basis of the statement is that because not all people got to vote means that the people of Chitral, Sawat etc, would join Afghanistan?

Oh no, that bit was just to note the exclusions, so that the whole note should not be described as inaccurate later. The State Forces of Chitral were just a little later busy in shooting down troopers of the State Forces of J&K, their supposed suzerain. Their loyalties were clearly with Pakistan. I was just being as accurate as possible.

2) Historically, the British would always keep a small portion of people to vote in an election. Refer to 1937 elections where a mere 14 percent of entire India voted. So basically the percentage factor can be ruled out, if not, on the same basis I can claim Indian territory where people might have voted for Pakistan. Moving on.

This was in fact one of the anomalies. The Congress, and the Khudai Khidmatgar movement taken together certainly numbered many more than the artificially trimmed down electorate. None of those were allowed to vote.

3) And how do we know, that the double stamped votes, of which how many voted for Pakistan, as evidence from the references you've suggested states:

The unproven indication being that the votes for India were deliberately defaced subsequently, in order to allow the plebiscite to go the way it had already been decided, including by the Congress, that it should.

The Congress had opted to abstain from the referendum in the NWFP, and its outcome was a heavy mandate for Pakistan but even after that the ruling Congress Ministry refused to resign.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/kp-belon...-mahmood-achakzai.437387/page-2#ixzz4DIeGp5Fo

Presumably you are aware that the Congress had decided that NWFP should be let go, and should join Pakistan, in the teeth of the opposition from both Bacha Khan and his brother, the CM.

I'd say it's safe to assume, Pakistan still bagged the majority of the votes.

That is precisely what is in doubt. My own view is that in any case, a portion of India divided from it (in contradiction of the Cabinet's directions to the Viceroy for the edification of the princes, but consistent with the existence of East Pakistan) would not have benefited, and would sooner or later slid into a kind of merger, if not an outright merger with Afghanistan.

But here the argument is about what existed, and what was made to exist.

4) Where did the 90 percent of people voting for Khan Abdul Ghuffar Khan, come from?. Was this just a mere statement, with no evidence? If so I've seen such statements to "sensualize" biased articles you know 2 truths and 10 lies type of things.

I thought the numbers were fairly clear. Please take another look and see for yourself.

Their big guns are not

I am sure you can guess where I am going. :p:

So according to you Sir the whole 3.5 million people should have been eligible to vote?

This includes infants as well. I don't know the stats for that era but 36.7% of current population is under 14 years of age, if that was true back then as well then do you think they should have been allowed to vote as well?

And voting age was 21 in that period so that automatically means at least 50 percent of the population was not eligible to vote any way. So please stop with this 85 percent disfranchised voters routine.

LOL.

No, you just have to check the number allowed to vote, enfranchised, and what would have been a total adult franchise.

Do please check the figures once again, this time with an open mind, before going off like a well-shaken soda water bottle.

This is what happens Sir when you know nothing about a region and still want to add your input to a topic related to it, google helps but it can't win you a losing debate.

The total population of British India in 1945 was a little less than 30 Crore but in the elections of 1946 the total electorate was a bit more than 4 Crore. Now you do the math and see if the electorate has the same average against total population as it was in KPK. And remember those elections decided the fate of Punjab, Sindh, Bengal, which were much larger provinces. (A)

Another fun fact, even in the general election of 1946 where Congress got 30 seats and Muslim League got 17,
League received 146,235 votes in the Muslim constituencies while Congress scored 142,508 votes.

And that election was not fought on any specific agenda as there was never a chance of NWFP joining India. So one British official notes "the results in the voting for the Muslim seats seem likely to be decided by the number of sheep each candidate can kill to feast his supporters”, the general estimate being ten votes per sheep. And by God people in that province have progressed in the last 70 years, while the rest of our country is still stuck with pretty much the same psyche.

So you can see Sir the number of voters allowed to vote were at par with the rest of the country.

And as for the Khudai Khidmatgar boycott, again do the math. With 99.5 percent of the 51% turnout voting in favor of Pakistan, even if 100% of the remaining 49% voted against it, the result would have been the same.

As it happens, very little of my material is from Google. But suit yourself, if it is a consolation. :p:

Incidentally, I have more sense than to try to convince a mob of patriots that they are wrong and that a section of their country was not very keen on Pakistan in that year of 1947. But in passing, you might like to correct your impression: the elections did not (directly) seal the fate of Punjab, Sindh and Bengal. That decision had already been taken between the British administrators, the Muslim League and the Congress. To strengthen that decision and to give it the impression of a popularly chosen decision, the legislators voted (I know this for a fact for the Bengal Assembly, but cannot remember reading any such thing for the Punjab or Sindh Assemblies). The electorate had little to do with it.
 
.
This was in fact one of the anomalies. The Congress, and the Khudai Khidmatgar movement taken together certainly numbered many more than the artificially trimmed down electorate. None of those were allowed to vote.
Is there valid evidence that people who supported The Congress and Khudai Khidmatgar were not allowed to vote? Or was that speculation? .
The unproven indication being that the votes for India were deliberately defaced subsequently, in order to allow the plebiscite to go the way it had already been decided, including by the Congress, that it should.
It could also be a last ditch attempt by Congress, to deface votes to stall the League's victory run in the region. Congress is not new to tyranny and foul play (refer to Congress Tyranny period ).
Presumably you are aware that the Congress had decided that NWFP should be let go, and should join Pakistan, in the teeth of the opposition from both Bacha Khan and his brother, the CM.
Suuureeee, here's what you've stated earlier:
The Congress had opted to abstain from the referendum in the NWFP, and its outcome was a heavy mandate for Pakistan but even after that the ruling Congress Ministry refused to resign

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/kp-belon...-mahmood-achakzai.437387/page-2#ixzz4DLIZP7Nf
Congress refused to back out.

I thought the numbers were fairly clear. Please take another look and see for yourself.
I honestly can't seem to find where the 90 percent of people would vote for Bacha Khan. By that I mean evidence to back that statement.
 
.
No that actually happened and it was one of the grievances of the Naraz Balochs, especially Bugti. I am against this concept of demographic engineering.

The province's name is Baluchistan and the Baluchs should always be the majority there. Such moves will only fuel their resentment. More than half of them are already loyal of the state and rest of them can be brought into national fold with sincere efforts like the ones put in the recent few years. There is no need to change the demographic of a province.
Fair enough. What with the intention of taking pressure off other provinces? If Baluchistan were to be developed there is plenty of space there. Look at how over populated Karachi and Lahore et al are.
Of course non Baloch who move there must learn the local languages.

On a tangent: only a full blown Sunni Shia war can break up Pakistan AND huge uncontrolled demographic change. Both Mir Jafir and external enemies know this. I fear one will hear more statements like this in times to come.
 
Last edited:
.
LOL.

No, you just have to check the number allowed to vote, enfranchised, and what would have been a total adult franchise.

Do please check the figures once again, this time with an open mind, before going off like a well-shaken soda water bottle.
Oh God you are a thick one aren't you.

Let me try again.

Total Population: 35 Lacs

Population under 14 Years: 36.7% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Pakistan

Estimated Population under 21 Years (Voting Age): 50%

Total Adult Franchise (By Today's Standards): 17.5 Lacs

Actual Electorate: 5,72,799

Percentage of Electorate wrt Total Franchise(By Today's Standards): 30.5%

So even by using your twisted logic, 30.5% of the Adult population was allowed to vote and they chose Pakistan with 99.5% majority.

Now look at the electorate wrt total franchise for the rest of the country and you'll see the similar trend. Even the turnout was at par with the rest of the country, and much higher to places like Bombay as armstrong mentioned.

Incidentally, I have more sense than to try to convince a mob of patriots that they are wrong and that a section of their country was not very keen on Pakistan in that year of 1947. But in passing, you might like to correct your impression: the elections did not (directly) seal the fate of Punjab, Sindh and Bengal. That decision had already been taken between the British administrators, the Muslim League and the Congress. To strengthen that decision and to give it the impression of a popularly chosen decision, the legislators voted (I know this for a fact for the Bengal Assembly, but cannot remember reading any such thing for the Punjab or Sindh Assemblies). The electorate had little to do with it.
The voting results in Bengal and Punjab strengthen the League's position that they were the representatives of Muslims of India. And hence we see the division of those provinces along the religious lines.

I don't know about Bengal, but for Punjab just imagine that Unionists who were mainly Muslim aristocrats of Punjab and were campaigning in the elections on the slogan of staying with India(hence name Unionists) won the elections in Punjab. Would Pakistan receive the province of Punjab then. I don't think so as that would have meant that Muslims of Punjab clearly wanted to stay with India and also didn't consider league as their representatives. So the 1946 election was important.
 
.
Is there valid evidence that people who supported The Congress and Khudai Khidmatgar were not allowed to vote? Or was that speculation?

Two points: the original vote that put a Congress Ministry in was based on a very limited franchise, and those numbers are all visible.

The Khudai Khidmatgars themselves abstained, in spite of appeals from his brother to Bacha Khan, on a point of principle.

The spoilt votes are another clue, a third. Only the Muslim League (and the British Administration) had anything to gain by falsifying those votes. Did you note, btw, that precisely that number were defaced that allowed for a tiny League victory?

It could also be a last ditch attempt by Congress, to deface votes to stall the League's victory run in the region. Congress is not new to tyranny and foul play (refer to Congress Tyranny period ).

Why not? Anything is possible. However, I recommend reading through your own comment above; I think you have put it nicely, and the improbability of anyone but the League or the Administration having fudged the vote comes out clearly - from your own comment, to add to one's delight.

Suuureeee, here's what you've stated earlier:
The Congress had opted to abstain from the referendum in the NWFP, and its outcome was a heavy mandate for Pakistan but even after that the ruling Congress Ministry refused to resign

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/kp-belon...-mahmood-achakzai.437387/page-2#ixzz4DLIZP7Nf

Congress refused to back out.

And where, and what is the contradiction? Let me put it in even barer terms, and without intention to annoy or to condescend:
  1. The Congress was voted to power to RUN the province;
  2. Subsequently, it was decided that whether the province should be in India or in Pakistan should be decided by a plebiscite;
  3. The Congress, led by Nehru in this matter, decided that it would NOT encourage NWFP to join India, and it would go along with the Anglo-Pakistani thought that the NWFP should be in Pakistan;
  4. Bacha Khan, on learning this, decided on principle to abstain, since his leadership had decided on the matter (his brother tried until the very end to enlist the KK);
  5. Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan decided to continue after the plebiscite vote, as his administration or the question of which party was to rule was not the subject of the plebiscite;
  6. Huge embarrassment followed, as Jinnah sought dismissal, and the British refused;
  7. The Congress Ministry was dismissed as an extraordinary measure once Jinnah was duly empowered to exercise such measures.
I honestly can't seem to find where the 90 percent of people would vote for Bacha Khan. By that I mean evidence to back that statement.

Let me get back to you on this, once I am a little free of mind. As you may have observed already, I am writing in distracted fits and starts.

Oh God you are a thick one aren't you.

Let me try again.

Total Population: 35 Lacs

Population under 14 Years: 36.7% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Pakistan

Estimated Population under 21 Years (Voting Age): 50%

Total Adult Franchise (By Today's Standards): 17.5 Lacs

Actual Electorate: 5,72,799

Percentage of Electorate wrt Total Franchise(By Today's Standards): 30.5%

So even by using your twisted logic, 30.5% of the Adult population was allowed to vote and they chose Pakistan with 99.5% majority.

Now look at the electorate wrt total franchise for the rest of the country and you'll see the similar trend. Even the turnout was at par with the rest of the country, and much higher to places like Bombay as armstrong mentioned.


The voting results in Bengal and Punjab strengthen the League's position that they were the representatives of Muslims of India. And hence we see the division of those provinces along the religious lines.

I don't know about Bengal, but for Punjab just imagine that Unionists who were mainly Muslim aristocrats of Punjab and were campaigning in the elections on the slogan of staying with India(hence name Unionists) won the elections in Punjab. Would Pakistan receive the province of Punjab then. I don't think so as that would have meant that Muslims of Punjab clearly wanted to stay with India and also didn't consider league as their representatives. So the 1946 election was important.

Yes, I am pretty thick.

Don't you think you are wasting your time on me?
 
.
Funny o see it Indians commenting here. Their country was built on pure brutality and occupation by force. Hyderabad, Kashmir and many other states were absorbed in India by force.
On the other hand Pakistan held referendum in states to join Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom