M.A Jinnah on weeky time magazine cover April 22 1946

[INDIC]

It is your lack of knowledge of history and geography !!!
In 1947 , The railway track and the only road (a dirt track) that connected Jammu to Eastern Punjab ran via Gurdaspur (Gurdaspur-Pathankot-Jammu). If Muslim majority Tehsils of Gurdaspur and Batala were awarded to Pakistan there would be no effective road link between India and Kashmir

Lack of knowledge? Only railway line was between Sialkot and Jammu, there was no railway line between Pathankot and Jammu in 1947.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Oh yaar. I admire your detailed knowledge of history that is atypical of most Hindu and Muslim posters.

--- This is the reason I am "forced" to give you positive ratings and not just thumb up

But few key points are missing in your interpretation of history. And that's OK we all do,.


Partition in reality was not too unexpected. and it was going to lead to controversy no matter what

Because resurgent Hindu nationalism was looking at the whole continent as their mai baap ki jaagir INCLUDING Muslim majority provinces.

So even an inch sq being given to non-Hindu nationalist was going to be controversial.


These Hindu nationalists were planning such massacres and looting since 1920s.

And you know the original planned birth of modern day India and Pakistan was to be in 1948?


you know that?

Right?


Then it was moved to 1947 for some specific reasons.,

you know them too.

Right?

Thanks a lot brother thanks for appreciation

In history there are theories only , not verdicts

Khaksars were one of the reasons for this speedup (though often ignored in history)
This is not my Quaid’s Pakistan | Page 8

 

[INDIC]

@INDIC

Nobody had plans except Sardar Patel. He knew exactly what to do and when to do. He knew this territory more than anybody else in the states department. What surprised me was Mr.Jinnah's attitude towards the partition of princely states. Perhaps his health was not permitting or he severely lacked a decent reserve bench. ( I am going through your link,coming back soon.)

"The Muslim League leadership from the very beginning stood for faithful adherence to the doctrine of non-interference in the affairs of the states which in turn overlook the insidious political developments taking place in states of vital interest to Pakistan like Jammu and Kashmir. Even among the 12 states located within the geographic limits of Pakistan, at least two rulers initially attempted to keep away from Pakistan. Mountbatten quoted in an aid-memoir that "a large state-Kalat-approached the Government of India for political relationship, but was refused; and unofficial overtures from Bahawalpur [for acceding to India] were similarly discouraged". 9 The Muslim League was not looking into the merits of each of these cases and their political hold over the prospective areas of Pakistan appeared to be loose.

The Muslim, League had admittedly no political ambition as far as Hyderabad was concerned except for maintaining centuries' old culture and religious bonds existing between the States' Muslims and Pakistan.

On the contrary the Congress had taken a lead in extending its political influence in the princely states. It actively helped to establish the All-India States Peoples' Conference in 1927. During 1928-46, the Congress leadership worked for establishment of representative institutions in the states and lent active support for their legitimate and peaceful struggle for responsible government."

From the link; this is precisely what I was trying to say so far.

But lastly Pakistan can't keep themselves away from the charm of getting princely states no more following the policy of non interference. In case of Hyderabad, Pakistan even supplied weapons and ammunition to Hyderabad in peak of Razakar violence against Hindus. It was even reported in British newspaper.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Khaksars were one of the reasons for this speedup (though often ignored in history)

...

Nah. bunch of show-shaw-list socialist belcha (spade) carriers didn't have momentum anywhere near what you are implying.


The reason of moving birthdays for India and Pakistan was the fear of civil war resulting of Patel/Indian army's attack on modern day pakistani territory.

Such a civil war would have allowed Commie Russians to open their door down in warm waters of Arabian sea/Indian ocean.


May be Khaksars would have turned out to be Afghan commies like Najibullah.

But nothing of signficance.

It was the red army itself that Brits were afraid of


So they moved the bday of India/pak a year ahead to deny India its ability to wage war on MMP in the west.


Thank you

 

[M. Sarmad]

Lack of knowledge? Only railway line was between Sialkot and Jammu, there was no railway line between Pathankot and Jammu in 1947.

My dear part-time troll brother , You said that Pathankot was Hindu/Sikh majority , and it would connect Kashmir with rest of India !! right ??The railway line reached Pathankot via Gurdaspur , So if Gurdaspur were given to Pakistan and Pathankot to India , there would have been no rail connection b/w Pathankot and India . Hence no direct railhead for the State of Jammu and Kashmir from India !!! and read my post again , I said there would be no effective road link b/w Jammu & India

 

[FaujHistorian]

But lastly Pakistan can't keep themselves away from the charm of getting princely states no more following the policy of non interference. In case of Hyderabad, Pakistan even supplied weapons and ammunition to Hyderabad in peak of Razakar violence against Hindus. It was even reported in British newspaper.

Hyderabad state was a gonner.

Jinnah being the weakest party could never dream of military interference in any state that happens to lie in the middle of newly born country.

Listen to @scorpionx. He is doing much more than "out of the box" analysis compared to MOST of the posters here.

your interoperation is very one sided as if cut n pasted from 5th grade gov history books in India

Sorry to say

 

[scorpionx]

But lastly Pakistan can't keep themselves away from the charm of getting princely states no more following the policy of non interference. In case of Hyderabad, Pakistan even supplied weapons and ammunition to Hyderabad in peak of Razakar violence against Hindus. It was even reported in British newspaper.

I do not know how authentic this claim is. As Pakistan was asking for a massive $ 2 billion loans from United states. Mr.Jinnah's letters to Nizam even suggest that he was asking for loans from Nizam itself. So, the arms support looks a bit dubious to me.

 

[FaujHistorian]

My dear part-time troll brother , You said that Pathankot was Hindu/Sikh majority , and it would connect Kashmir with rest of India !! right ??The railway line reached Pathankot via Gurdaspur , So if Gurdaspur were given to Pakistan and Pathankot to India , there would have been no rail connection b/w Pathankot and India . Hence no direct railhead for the State of Jammu and Kashmir from India !!!

True.

But given Indian drive and ambition, they would have used alternatives like Dasuya etc. to go around Gurdaspur.

See example of Banihal tunnel for a comparison.


In the short run It was the Indian air power that stopped Pak army/militants in J&K and not a rail link via Gurdaspur

later years would have allowed India to control J&K in many other ways.



peace

I do not know how authentic this claim is. As Pakistan was asking for a massive $ 2 billion loans from United states. Mr.Jinnah's letters to Nizam even suggest that he was asking for loans from Nizam itself. So, the arms support looks a bit dubious to me.

Excellent Analysis.

Thank you

 

[M. Sarmad]

True.

But given Indian drive and ambition, they would have used alternatives like Dasuya etc. to go around Gurdaspur.

See example of Banihal tunnel for a comparison.


It was the Indian air power that stopped Pak army/militants in J&K and not a rail link



peace



Excellent Analysis.

Thank you

What led India to gain advantage in J&K is a long story bro , may be we will discuss it some other time

 

[scorpionx]

What led India to gain advantage in J&K is a long story bro , may be we will discuss it some other time

Don't forget to mention me.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Don't forget to mention me.

No worries Scorps.

It is always good to have a balanced person on India-Pak debate.

I believe that people like yuor excellency may end up (even inadvertently ) cultivating badly needed peace in the region.

peace to you bro

peace to your family

What led India to gain advantage in J&K is a long story bro , may be we will discuss it some other time

Absolutely

and hopefully by then, your avatar will have less sharp reds and more soft greens



I long for the day when we the Pakistanis learn to separate Allah and Rasool from sharp red tools, swords, and AK-47s

and instead associate our Allah and our Rasool with things like a golden stock of wheat, or blue background of hope.

 

[M. Sarmad]

He was best man because he could use Indian military machine to achieve his objectives of gobbling up as much area as possible.

It was the race to occupy

and he had the military to do so.

Nothing of his personal acumen

Just an example of sheer cruelty

I hope you see this side too,



My question was Punch uprising.

Who were the "uprisers"

and why did they rise up?




Yaar I have read a lot about Gurdaspur thingy.

We Pakistanis tend to moan and groan about this one district without realizing the causes and long term repercussions of this district verses larger regional planning and policies.

Yes if Gurdaspur provided the only land route to Jammu from the newly born India.

But this was not the silver bullet to solve Kashmir issue.

Indian army back then and later would have been strong enough to carve the moutains and do something to establish some other more difficult route.

We Pakistanis tend to sit on our behinds without realizing the zeal and determination of Hindu nationalists.

--- In a reverse way, Hindu nationalist also fail to realize the tenacity of Pakistanis. Thus the constant $tupid wars.

Pakistan lost J&K much earlier perhaps as early as 1920 when the writing was on the wall about Plan B by two top parties in British India

1. Congress
2. and to lesser degree British gov (as they preferred Plan A to avoid balkanization)


It is time for Pakistanis to analyze the root causes much beyond just one district.

Thank you

I know that very well bhai , but as I mentioned earlier , this is not a serious thread !! to treat a troll , you have to become a troll yourself
@scorpionx You have made some very good points , we will discuss them in some serious thread .

 

[INDIC]

I do not know how authentic this claim is. As Pakistan was asking for a massive $ 2 billion loans from United states. Mr.Jinnah's letters to Nizam even suggest that he was asking for loans from Nizam itself. So, the arms support looks a bit dubious to me.

The problem of Nizam was location of Hyderabad, so only get to import weapon was from Karachi and Pakistan gave active support for that.

 

[M. Sarmad]

and hopefully by then, your avatar will have less sharp reds and more soft greens
I long for the day when we the Pakistanis learn to separate Allah and Rasool from sharp red tools, swords, and AK-47s
and instead associate our Allah and our Rasool with things like a golden stock of wheat, or blue background of hope.

Bhai aisa na kerain to log atheist samjhain humko

 

[INDIC]

My dear part-time troll brother , You said that Pathankot was Hindu/Sikh majority , and it would connect Kashmir with rest of India !! right ??The railway line reached Pathankot via Gurdaspur , So if Gurdaspur were given to Pakistan and Pathankot to India , there would have been no rail connection b/w Pathankot and India . Hence no direct railhead for the State of Jammu and Kashmir from India !!! and read my post again , I said there would be no effective road link b/w Jammu & India

So, you think we couldn't have constructed new railway line, had rest of Gurdaspur not given to India. BTW the railway line was irrelevant in case of Kashmir.

Hyderabad state was a gonner.

Jinnah being the weakest party could never dream of military interference in any state that happens to lie in the middle of newly born country.

Listen to @scorpionx. He is doing much more than "out of the box" analysis compared to MOST of the posters here.

your interoperation is very one sided as if cut n pasted from 5th grade gov history books in India

Sorry to say

It was gonner because of geographical realities but neither Muslim League or rulers of Hyderabad realized that. Liaquat Ali Khan didn't keep his intention hidden that he wanted to pull out state of Hyderabad from India. Unfortunately, Hyderabad had to see lots of violence until 1948 because of all those things.