This is hypocritical and equivalent to handing over the lands under our control to India.
This is where i say you twist facts to prove your point.
How can NC be termed as main political force when there was no election data to back up.
If there are no elections held in Azad Kashmir then how do they fill up their legislative assemblies and choose a Prime Minister?
Whatever definition you do that suits you but the fact is it will remain a Muslim majority area and brings us to the point where we started the discussion that on the basis of partition it should remain independent or align with Pakistan. India is no where to be found in that picture that's why i call your stance in UN for Pakistan to vacate Kashmir as absurd and hypocritical.
You should in fact hand over the lands under your control to India,
unless you argue that main force is the basis for decisions on which part of the land is to belong to whom. That might not be the best argument to use, considering the state of Pakistan at present.
Which fact have I twisted? You said this earlier, I asked you earlier, and you did not reply. I ask you again, which fact have I twisted?
About the National Conference being the main political force, there is enough reason to think that it was. There was no election data anywhere else; how was the Muslim Conference the main political base in Mirpur? In the Vale, the National Conference were able to mobilise the people, and did so, not just in 1947 but in 1965 as well. NC volunteers were prepared to resist the raiders through force of arms and took to patrolling the streets in anticipation. In case you think that this was not sufficient, they won the elections in which Mohammed Abdullah came to power, not one, presumably, in which any unseen hand might be thought to have functioned.
You say that there was democracy in Azad Kashmir, and that is how they filled their legislature and appointed a Prime Minister. Are you addressing an illiterate?
From 1947/49 until 1970, there was no representative government in Azad Kashmir; so much for the use of the term Azad. A quote from the only source that is likely to be familiar to this audience:
Elections were held to the 49-seat Legislative Assembly of Azad Kashmir on July 11 to the eighth Legislative Assembly since 1970 (seventh since 1974 when Pakistan granted the region a parliamentary system with adult franchise).Azad Kashmir is categorised as an autonomous region. But critics claim titles such as Prime Minister and President for the region's elected political leadership are misleading as candidates are required to sign an affidavit of allegiance to Kashmir's accession to Pakistan.
Who is the fact-twisting hypocrite, deliberately telling a lie to make a point?
If Muslim majority was to have been the basis, if the Two Nation Theory was to have been the basis, then we would still have a Pakistan in two segments. 1971 effectively destroyed the myth of a Muslim majority area belonging by prescriptive right to Pakistan; it doesn't.
It was, in fact, not the basis. The princely states were not governed by this principle; perhaps you should look up the original India Independence Act, since much of your argument is based on a specious and superficial knowledge of the facts. The princely states were given their independence, and warned that Great Britain would not recognise any of them as Dominions, and expected each of them to join either of the two Dominions of India or Pakistan, but subject to continguity. That is why Kalat was refused accession to India by India, since there was no contiguity. That, too, governed the situation in Hyderabad, and in Junagadh.
You might argue that it should at least be an independent entity and not part of India at all. That too fails; Kashmir was never offered independent existence. The ruler had two choices and only two: Pakistan or India. And it was the ruler who had the choice.
India was the Maharaja's choice and Sheikh Abdullah's choice, and it was their choice to make, not the Pakistani government sitting in Karachi. This was made clear about all the princely states to the two Dominions. It was the delicacy of feeling of Mountbatten and of Nehru that made them ask for a plebiscite after the raiders had been driven out. The documents and the correspondence are both very clear in this regard.
Yet there are people sitting in Delhi who think that they have a real shot at this region due to Shia population and they can connect India directly with Afghanistan if ever a plebiscite was held.
