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