Kashmir belongs to Pakistan as a Muslim majority state as how the partition went. Just because some un-elected Ruler decides which side he will want to join makes it irrelevant. The only reason you are trumpeting his veiw is because he decided to join India over Pakistan. And we know how you guys react if the opposite is true such as Hyderabad.
Excuse me, but that was not how partition went.
Four provinces of British India were handed over to Pakistan on the west, one province on the east. As there were substantial minority elements, certain parts of the provinces of Punjab and Bengal were partitioned out, and stayed with the rest of British India.
British India itself was not divided according to communal population. The Muslim parts of UP, Bombay, CP, Bihar and Madras did not go to Pakistan, just to run through the top examples. The new state only consisted of these five provinces, with certain exclusions.
Princely India became free and independent on August 15, 1947. Neither India nor Pakistan had a right to take over any of the princely states on the grounds of communal composition. There was no binding on the princes to take their population's composition into account. Pakistan had no prescriptive right to Kashmir, because Kashmir was not part of British India but an independent state under British suzerainty, which ceased to exist on August 15.
Apart from all that, you consistently overlook the fact that the people of Kashmir rejected Pakistan. The National Conference was the legitimate representative of the Kashmiri people, and the Muslim League was NOT supported in Jammu and Kashmir. Jinnah himself had a very poor impression of the League representative in the Vale, and used abusive language about him.
Even on the grounds of popular will, the popular will was with India, quite apart from the Maharaja's desire.
There was no legitimacy for Pakistan in Kashmir, apart from the support of the feudal Mehtar of Chitral, the mutineers of the Gilgit Scouts and their British officers, and the pillaging tribals. This incidentally is the same mix that rules Pakistan even today, feudals, soldiers beyond the control of the state and tribal looters and robbers striking patriotic poses to justify their barbaric conduct.
Ummm....yea ok. So some kind of national poll was done which showed how the people of Kashmir followed their ruler blindly and wanted to join Inida. Please do you have any evidence to back up these claims?
First, they did not follow their ruler; they followed their political leader. The evidence you want is in the history of the state from 1932 onward, in the history of the struggle for greater popular power against the ruler, a struggle supported by the Congress. As a result, the Muslim League did not have a foothold in Kashmir.
One of the conditions made for accepting the Maharaja's accession to India was that Sheikh Abdullah and the Conference should be brought to power, and the hand-picked unrepresentative government of the Maharaja discarded.
It is remarkable that people comment glibly about Kashmir, but are not aware of these basic facts.
Yeah right. Hyderabad agreed to join Pakistan. India being the hypocritical nation that it is, invaded and brutally took over Hyderabad.
Completely wrong. Check your facts.
The Nizam never agreed to join Pakistan. At the time of Operation Polo, there was still a stand-still agreement in place with Pakistan.
Nothing that we didn't do in Kashmir.
India wasn't this savior coming to liberate the people of Hyderabad.
Sadly,the facts are not in your favour.