Manmohan Singh's hypocrisy

[idune]

Instead of "Manmohan Singh's hypocrisy", pathological liar more suites his and indian actions. This is not just one Indian action but chronologies of Indian actions are full of lie and deception.

 

[Tamil]

Well it was admitted by Mr.Menon, the joint statement in egypt was a case of bad drafting, but underlying intent was actions against terrorists should happen irrespective of composite dialogue. And also he mention the inclusion of balochistan in the joint statement because India had nothing to hide. Prime minister would be knowing it as intelligence agencies of the country reports to him.

So i was it is rather bold move, and to prove to the world that India has nothing to do with Baluchistan and down the lane if Islamabad can't prove it claims it will definitely only boost india's image.

Well said mate.

 

[Su 30mki]

Instead of "Manmohan Singh's hypocrisy", pathological liar more suites his and indian actions. This is not just one Indian action but chronologies of Indian actions are full of lie and deception.

You should watch your words, You should never been born if india was not their in 1971.

But still its better then PAK and Bangladesh which provided arms to terrorist , remember truck full loads of arm that captured in Bangladesh came for Terrorist.

Its India's Good behavior that it even talking after what happened.

 

[Su 30mki]

I am not very good with online sources. I can recommend books though.



Kashmir is Disputed Territory controlled by India, Pakistan and China. A solution encompassing all three sectors is not unacceptable to either Pakistan or China. The Indians though have never formally raised the issue out of fear that it might encourage a path to a resolution of the Kashmir dispute, were Pakistan and China to put their bits on the table and ask India to do the same. At most it is a technicality, certainly not in itself an excuse not begin negotiation nor is it a negation of the fact that it is still Disputed Territory.

India already Said to China is held territory of J&K illicit.

BTW who gave PAK gov Authorization to hand over J&K Territory to China , certainly not the J&K People. Isn't that hypocrisy on part of PAK, that they sold land which don't belong to them on all sides.

Can you justify ??

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

it started when the PA intervened in Kashmir in 1947. Then again in 1965, 88 and 99.

Dig deeper than that, you'll have your answer. The maharaja was non representative of Kashmiris, he was a stooge

 

[Spectre]

Dig deeper than that, you'll have your answer. The maharaja was non representative of Kashmiris, he was a stooge

Slippery slope lies that way Sir. You by your particular definition of representation are voiding the validity of all non-democratic regimes among them - some friends, some soon to be friends. Even democratically elected govt is a non representative of the certain subset of people - who refuse to accept the writ of the state.

Anyway all most all princely states at the time were non representative of the people they governed, so let us not go there.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Slippery slope lies that way Sir. You by your particular definition of representation are voiding the validity of all non-democratic regimes among them - some friends, some soon to be friends. Even democratically elected govt is a non representative of the certain subset of people - who refuse to accept the writ of the state.

Anyway all most all princely states at the time were non representative of the people they governed, so let us not go there.

That wouldnt happen to include Hyderabad or Junagarh would it? Yeah it is a slippery slope b/c double standards come onto full display. Frankly - looking to today the only "democratic" solution to Kashmir issue is Referendum but we'll let history books and fate/near future decide that

 

[Spectre]

That wouldnt happen to include Hyderabad or Junagarh would it? Yeah it is a slippery slope b/c double standards come onto full display. Frankly - looking to today the only "democratic" solution to Kashmir issue is Referendum but we'll let history books and fate/near future decide that

Yes, In an ideal world. Absolutely Kashmiris should get a referendum - infact every grouping of people numbering more than 1000 should get a referendum - every year.

I sympathize with the people of Kashmir that they get only 90% of democracy not the full 100 percent where they not only choose their leaders but the flag too.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Yes, In an ideal world. Absolutely Kashmiris should get a referendum - infact every grouping of people numbering more than 1000 should get a referendum - every year.

I sympathize with the people of Kashmir that they get only 90% of democracy not the full 100 percent where they not only choose their leaders but the flag too.

as a fellow chain smoker im sure you agree AFSPA should be repealed as it has been abused.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Dig deeper than that, you'll have your answer. The maharaja was non representative of Kashmiris, he was a stooge

congrats mods ji you openned a 6 year old thread

 

[Spectre]

as a fellow chain smoker im sure you agree AFSPA should be repealed as it has been abused.

Yes, yes infact all such draconian acts within India should be removed irrespective of prevailing security situation. External factors are no excuse for restriction of rights of Indian citizens. Army can perform without AFSPA - the trouble it causes would be well worth it for an extra breath of freedom it provides to Kashmiris.

These people including the Pandits have suffered too much for too long and Indian Govt should do whatever it can to make their lives easier.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dig deeper than that, you'll have your answer. The maharaja was non representative of Kashmiris, he was a stooge

Read a little and you'll have YOUR answer. The Maharaja was a sovereign ruler and the India Independence Act clearly defined what their status was and would be. Kashmir was not a British Indian province.

As for his being a stooge, if you knew anything whatsoever about the matter, you would know that with the single sole exception of the Vale of Kashmir, the Rajas of Jammu fought for and won everything else by force of arms. So stooge of whom, for what?

Just stringing emotional phrases and words together does not constitute a valid case.

That wouldnt happen to include Hyderabad or Junagarh would it? Yeah it is a slippery slope b/c double standards come onto full display. Frankly - looking to today the only "democratic" solution to Kashmir issue is Referendum but we'll let history books and fate/near future decide that

Any time you want to know the facts, since clearly you have no clue about them at the moment, you know where to apply. Attach an s.a.e.

As far as the question of a referendum, or a plebiscite, is concerned, instead of reacting here, try reading the proceedings of the Plebiscite Commission. Keep a hankie or three handy.

 

[nForce]

That wouldnt happen to include Hyderabad or Junagarh would it? Yeah it is a slippery slope b/c double standards come onto full display. Frankly - looking to today the only "democratic" solution to Kashmir issue is Referendum but we'll let history books and fate/near future decide that

About Junagadh, the Nawab had fled to Karachi leaving Shah Nawaz Bhutto, the Dewan, in charge, who had surrendered the administration to Government of India after his repeated calls for help from Pakistani government and the Nawab in Karachi had no effect.

A plebiscite was conducted on 20th February, 1948 and 99.5% population decided to join India. Kashmir, was also given the same offer. Pakistan did not use it when there was time, it is the failure of the then Pakistani leadership.

Regarding Hyderabad, it is none of your business.

 

[Joe Shearer]

About Junagadh, the Nawab had fled to Karachi leaving Shah Nawaz Bhutto, the Dewan, in charge, who had surrendered the administration to Government of India after his repeated calls for help from Pakistani government and the Nawab in Karachi had no effect.

A plebiscite was conducted on 20th February, 1948 and 99.5% population decided to join India. Kashmir, was also given the same offer. Pakistan did not use it when there was time, it is the failure of the then Pakistani leadership.

Regarding Hyderabad, it is none of your business.

More or less. I wish you would get the finer details on board against future need.

1. In Junagadh, the state forces marched into Mangrolia and Babriwadia, subsidiary states of Junagadh which themselves also became sovereign on August 15;
2. Indian troops marched into those two state-lets, not into Junagadh;
3. Hyderabad, like Kalat, sought accession to a Dominion which was not contiguous.
4. Unlike Kalat, where the Dominion concerned, India, promptly declined, in Hyderabad, Pakistan played fast and loose for a long time, encouraging the Nizam's advisors to think that they had options.

 

[Maarkhoor]

Hyderabad, like Kalat, sought accession

Sir India launched attack kill thousands and annexed Hyderabad
Hyderabad 1948: India's hidden massacre
When India was partitioned in 1947, about 500,000 people died in communal rioting, mainly along the borders with Pakistan. But a year later another massacre occurred in central India, which until now has remained clouded in secrecy.

In September and October 1948, soon after independence from the British Empire, tens of thousands of people were brutally slaughtered in central India.

Some were lined up and shot by Indian Army soldiers. Yet a government-commissioned report into what happened was never published and few in India know about the massacre. Critics have accused successive Indian governments of continuing a cover-up.

The massacres took place a year after the violence of partition in what was then Hyderabad state, in the heart of India. It was one of 500 princely states that had enjoyed autonomy under British colonial rule.

When independence came in 1947 nearly all of these states agreed to become part of India.
But Hyderabad's Muslim Nizam, or prince, insisted on remaining independent. This refusal to surrender sovereignty to the new democratic India outraged the country's leaders in New Delhi.

After an acrimonious stand-off between Delhi and Hyderabad, the government finally lost patience.
Historians say their desire to prevent an independent Muslim-led state taking root in the heart of predominantly Hindu India was another worry.

Members of the powerful Razakar militia, the armed wing of Hyderabad's most powerful Muslim political party, were terrorising many Hindu villagers.

This gave the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, the pretext he needed. In September 1948 the Indian Army invaded Hyderabad.

In what was rather misleadingly known as a "police action", the Nizam's forces were defeated after just a few days without any significant loss of civilian lives. But word then reached Delhi that arson, looting and the mass murder and rape of Muslims had followed the invasion.

Determined to get to the bottom of what was happening, an alarmed Nehru commissioned a small mixed-faith team to go to Hyderabad to investigate.

It was led by a Hindu congressman, Pandit Sunderlal. But the resulting report that bore his name was never published.

Historian Sunil Purushotham from the University of Cambridge has now obtained a copy of the report as part of his research in this field.

Image captionPandit Sunderlal's team concluded that between 27,000 and 40,000 died
The Sunderlal team visited dozens of villages throughout the state.
At each one they carefully chronicled the accounts of Muslims who had survived the appalling violence: "We had absolutely unimpeachable evidence to the effect that there were instances in which men belonging to the Indian Army and also to the local police took part in looting and even other crimes.

"During our tour we gathered, at not a few places, that soldiers encouraged, persuaded and in a few cases even compelled the Hindu mob to loot Muslim shops and houses."

The team reported that while Muslim villagers were disarmed by the Indian Army, Hindus were often left with their weapons. The mob violence that ensued was often led by Hindu paramilitary groups.

In other cases, it said, Indian soldiers themselves took an active hand in the butchery: "At a number of places members of the armed forces brought out Muslim adult males from villages and towns and massacred them in cold blood."

The investigation team also reported, however, that in many other instances the Indian Army had behaved well and protected Muslims.

Image captionThe Nizam of Hyderabad was a powerful prince. In this picture taken in 1899, the Nizam, Mahbub Ali Khan, and his party pose with tiger skins
The backlash was said to have been in response to many years of intimidation and violence against Hindus by the Razakars.

In confidential notes attached to the Sunderlal report, its authors detailed the gruesome nature of the Hindu revenge: "In many places we were shown wells still full of corpses that were rotting. In one such we counted 11 bodies, which included that of a woman with a small child sticking to her breast. "

And it went on: "We saw remnants of corpses lying in ditches. At several places the bodies had been burnt and we would see the charred bones and skulls still lying there."

The Sunderlal report estimated that between 27,000 to 40,000 people lost their lives.

Image captionA Shiite shrine built by the seventh Nizam to perpetuate his mother's memory
No official explanation was given for Nehru's decision not to publish the contents of the Sunderlal report, though it is likely that, in the powder-keg years that followed independence, news of what happened might have sparked more Muslim reprisals against Hindus.

It is also unclear why, all these decades later, there is still no reference to what happened in the nation's schoolbooks. Even today few Indians have any idea what happened.

The Sunderlal report, although unknown to many, is now open for viewing at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library in New Delhi.

There has been a call recently in the Indian press for it to be made more widely available, so the entire nation can learn what happened.

It could be argued this might risk igniting continuing tensions between Muslims and Hindus.

"Living as we are in this country with all our conflicts and problems, I wouldn't make a big fuss over it," says Burgula Narasingh Rao, a Hindu who lived through those times in Hyderabad and is now in his 80s.

"What happens, reaction and counter-reaction and various things will go on and on, but at the academic level, at the research level, at your broadcasting level, let these things come out. I have no problem with that."
Hyderabad 1948: India's hidden massacre - BBC News