Pakistan's 'Truth' On Kashmir Is Mostly Argumentative

[Spectre]

Pakistan's 'Truth' On Kashmir Is Mostly Argumentative | S.Mubashir Noor

You know, I struggle with the truth. Is this most sacred of human constructs majoritarian, historical or divine? If it is all three, is there a golden ratio between them that makes some truths universal? Also, how does this truth triangle apply to the Kashmir issue bedeviling India and Pakistan?

For starters, Pakistan's "truth" on Kashmir is absolutely majoritarian. The "Dushman Hindustan" (Nemesis India) narrative is the national gospel and any political rhetoric wrapped around the "Kashmir banega Pakistan" (Pakistan will conquer Kashmir) chant preaches to packed crowds.

"It is imperative for an artificial nation-state like Pakistan to have an artificially bloated sense of nationalism. "

I have no issues with this overblown patriotism. It is imperative for an artificial nation-state like Pakistan to have an artificially bloated sense of nationalism. Since 1947, the government has carefully brainwashed us to believe that Pakistan had a parallel history of its own for centuries before partition. This "Muslim" version of the Indian subcontinent implies Pakistan was always here, they just called it the Mughal Empire back then.

Historical truth, however, does not side with Pakistan on Kashmir. The exiting British Raj in 1947 had both the Muslim League and Indian National Congress sign off on theIndian Independence Act. This legislation simplified, or so everyone thought, the divvying up of British India into the sovereign republics of India and Pakistan.

Under said act, areas won outright by either Congress or the Muslim League in the 1945-1946 elections would go straight to India or Pakistan. Moreover, the 565princely states of the Raj would choose their own masters through the Instruments of Accession.

Unfortunately, this transition did not go smoothly. Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir opted to mull his options before joining either country. His decision infuriated Pakistan's founding father Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was convinced somehow that all Muslim-majority areas (princely or otherwise) would become part of Pakistan. No such clause existed in the Indian Independence Act.

Regrettably, Jinnah, a singular legal talent, then abandoned his lifelong devotion to the fine print. By sending a Pashtun tribal militia across the border into Kashmir, he forced Hari Singh's hand. The panicked Maharaja quickly ran to India for help and signed the Instrument of Accession, thereby formalizing his state's entry into the Indian federation.

Now, was this sequence of events ideal? Not at all. Was Hari Singh within his rights to throw his lot with India? Most assuredly. Some say Jinnah's testy relationship with Lord Mountbatten cost him Kashmir. Others say Jawaharlal Nehru schemed with the Viceroy to keep his beloved home state within the Indian dominion. Either way, the only evidence admissible in court is the Instrument itself.

The comedy of errors did not end here either. If Jinnah shot future Pakistan in the foot by trying to conquer Kashmir, India's socialist leader Nehru returned the favor bytaking Kashmir to the UN Security Council. There he ran into a brick wall named the Cold War. America, the newly minted global sheriff and custodian of Christian capitalist values, suspected socialism was the gateway drug to ungodly Bolshevism.

Unsurprisingly, then, there was little sympathy for India's position and pro-Pakistan resolutions on Kashmir piled on from 1948 to 1971. It was only after the Soviet Union took India under its wings and started using the UNSC veto in the 1960s that the latter got some breathing room. However, this also meant that hitherto non-aligned India entered the Cold War on the Soviet side. This was not a particularly happy arrangement, as the recently declassified CIA report from 1985 confirms.

Pakistan's divine (or moral) case on Kashmir is tethered to Allama Iqbal's version of the Two-Nation Theory, a facetious idea for the time. Never before in history, nor since, has religion been solely responsible for the division of a landmass as huge as the Indian subcontinent. The Viceroy's office would surely have laughed out a lesser lawyer than Jinnah.

Nevertheless, an unfortunate byproduct of the Two-Nation Theory was that it wrongly imbibed a warrior-of-faith complex in the Pakistani populace. This led to the public being more passionate about the perils of Muslims abroad instead of focusing their energies on building Pakistan. Both Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Gen. Zia-ul-Haq expertly used pan-Islamism to start ultimately pointless wars.

"If the Hurriyat Conference and its constituents so chafe under Indian rule, why do they not move to Pakistan?"

There is, however, a more important facet of this theory that keeps getting lost in cross-border jingoism. If the Hurriyat Conference and its constituents so chafe under Indian rule, why do they not move to Pakistan?

Pakistan, after all, exists for all the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent and nowhere does it say that 1947 was the cutoff point on immigration. Also, considering the 65% voter turnout in the 2014 assembly elections, it seems the majority of Kashmiris have already made peace with living under India.

So what if the separatists have to leave their ancestral lands and homes behind? Did 8 million Muslim refugees not cross over into Pakistan from India in 1947, penniless and without shelter? All for a better life. Surely the Hurriyat leaders and partisans don't think they are better than the original Muhajirs?

 

[WAJsal]

"Kashmir banega Pakistan" (Pakistan will conquer Kashmir) chant preaches to packed crowds.

Basic translation is incorrect, "Kashmir baney ga Pakistan," means it will be a part of Pakistan...Just shows the quality of the article.

By sending a Pashtun tribal militia across the border into Kashmir, he forced Hari Singh's hand.

If i am not correct he acceded his state to India first, only then Pakistani forces moved in..elaborate.

The comedy of errors did not end here either. If Jinnah shot future Pakistan in the foot by trying to conquer Kashmir, India's socialist leader Nehru returned the favor bytaking Kashmir to the UN Security Council.

Ironically Indian state realized any referendum would result in Kashmir state becoming a part of Pakistan, fearing this they haven't proceeded to this date-it's enough to say who's case is strong and who isn't even making a case. I guess this was the correct thing to do back in 1948-49, this issue should have been resolved within 5 years, unfortunately ego and hatred from one side didn't want peace between the two countries.

Some say Jinnah's testy relationship with Lord Mountbatten cost him Kashmir.

It is correct, according to Major Shahid Hamid:
"On 27th October he ordered Gracey(then commander in chief of Pakistan) to move troops into Jammu and Kashmir and to seize Srinagar and the Banihal Pass. Gracey replied that he could not comply with the order and must report the matter to Auchinleck(who was field Martial of the time) as compliance would entail the issue of 'Stand Down Order No.2' which meant the withdrawal of the British officer from the Pakistan Army. According to Gracey's private Secretary, Wilson, Mountbatten rang up Gracey and threatened that if he moved troops into Kashmir he would ensure that he would not get his knighthood. Gracey capitulated."
Mountbatten hated Jinnah for not letting him become the Governor General of both states and etc,etc reasons. But i would say not having a professional military at the time cost us, as we were in a good position to conquer the whole of Kashmir.

Pakistan, after all, exists for all the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent and nowhere does it say that 1947 was the cutoff point on immigration. Also, considering the 65% voter turnout in the 2014 assembly elections, it seems the majority of Kashmiris have already made peace with living under India.

Good logic applied.

Let's face the truth, Kashmiris would join Pakistan, the very reason Indian state has been hesitant to solve the issue to this date.
@Neutron .....

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

Only a handful of separatists who are paid by Pakistan would love to join Pakistan...

 

[nForce]

If i am not correct he acceded his state to India first, only then Pakistani forces moved in..elaborate.

This part caught attention while doing a quick sweep. Yes, you are incorrect. Hari Singh acceded to India only after he came under attack by tribal militia, not before that. Had it been otherwise, India would have still retained whole of Kashmir.

 

[Spectre]

This part caught attention while doing a quick sweep. Yes, you are incorrect. Hari Singh acceded to India only after he came under attack by tribal militia, not before that. Had it been otherwise, India would have still retained whole of Kashmir.

Seems logical

 

[WAJsal]

This part caught attention while doing a quick sweep. Yes, you are incorrect. Hari Singh acceded to India only after he came under attack by tribal militia, not before that. Had it been otherwise, India would have still retained whole of Kashmir.

Rise of Pro-Pakistan element all over Gilgit agency, then there was unrest in his forces, mostly Muslim. He even tried to get rid of GB scouts, was too late for him. He feared losing power if he acceded to Pakistan, didn't care much for the wishes of the locals. Anyway good news out of all the hectic situation was that Gilgit agency acceded by the wishes of the people to Pakistan...

Had it been otherwise

Had it been: key word. Had Gracey listened to Jinnah Pakistan would have whole of Kashmir. Had Pakistan better army things would have been different. Had, had...

 

[Indika]

Ironically Indian state realized any referendum would result in Kashmir state becoming a part of Pakistan, fearing this they haven't proceeded to this date-it's enough to say who's case is strong and who isn't even making a case.

Sir , you seem to have selective amnesia. It is quite clear in UN resolutions that pakistan has to withdraw its forces before any further action can be taken.
1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

Article is quite clear about nehrus stupidness and americans tilt in favor of pakistan.

If i am not correct he acceded his state to India first, only then Pakistani forces moved in..elaborate.

pray and tell me why maharaja would relinquish his kingdom if there is no threat to it?

conquer the whole of Kashmir.

Unfortunately it seems you still favor violence like your bungling predecessors that has left subcontinent in blood shed.

.

 

[The-king]

For starters, Pakistan's "truth" on Kashmir is absolutely majoritarian. The "Dushman Hindustan" (Nemesis India) narrative is the national gospel and any political rhetoric wrapped around the "Kashmir banega Pakistan" (Pakistan will conquer Kashmir) chant preaches to packed crowds.

First of all i would like to clarify this part Dushman Hindustan and its popularity in Pakistan that id totally wrong if you compare anti India sentiments in Pakistan with anti Pakistan sentiments any rational analyze will tell you that anti Pakistan sentiment in India is for more aggressive and widespread as compared to Pakistan. Example is cricket no body n Pakistan says no for playing cricket with India but in India most of the people are against playing with Pakistan. So your comment Dushman Hindustan not well justified here. Second thing you are wrong at Kashmir Banay gha Pakistan correct translation is Kashmir will become Pakistan (After the independence).

"It is imperative for an artificial nation-state like Pakistan to have an artificially bloated sense of nationalism. "

That is very rude and incorrect statement Pakistan is not artificial state with the arrival of first Muslim in this sub-continent very basic foundation of Pakistan laid and with centuries passed a full very mature very well crafted nation with country come to existence. Know please justify your stance.

Historical truth, however, does not side with Pakistan on Kashmir. The exiting British Raj in 1947 had both the Muslim League and Indian National Congress sign off on the This legislation simplified, or so everyone thought, the divvying up of British India into the sovereign republics of India and Pakistan.

Again master blunder who told you Mr. Jinnah was not sided with Pakistan on Kashmir. he was the first person who raise the voice for Kashmir and order the forces to help the mujaheddin to get the Kashmir back from Indian annexation.

having discuss above few points my conclusion is that whole your article is biased and full with incorrect references and claims not worthy to discuss more.

Regards,

 

[Indika]

This part caught attention while doing a quick sweep. Yes, you are incorrect. Hari Singh acceded to India only after he came under attack by tribal militia, not before that. Had it been otherwise, India would have still retained whole of Kashmir.

Agreed , Royals in subcontinent have been pretty stubborn and never relinquished power unless there is no other choice.

 

[nForce]

Rise of Pro-Pakistan element all over Gilgit agency, then there was unrest in his forces, mostly Muslim. He even tried to get rid of GB scouts, was too late for him. He feared losing power if he acceded to Pakistan, didn't care much for the wishes of the locals

I don't know why you bent it towards Gilgit. Gilgit is a slightly separate case. It was under lease given to the British. It's history is somewhat asynchronous with that of the valley.

Anyway good news out of all the hectic situation was that Gilgit agency acceded by the wishes of the people to Pakistan...

There was a plebiscite there ?

 

[Spectre]

First of all i would like to clarify this part Dushman Hindustan and its popularity in Pakistan that id totally wrong if you compare anti India sentiments in Pakistan with anti Pakistan sentiments any rational analyze will tell you that anti Pakistan sentiment in India is for more aggressive and widespread as compared to Pakistan. Example is cricket no body n Pakistan says no for playing cricket with India but in India most of the people are against playing with Pakistan. So your comment Dushman Hindustan not well justified here. Second thing you are wrong at Kashmir Banay gha Pakistan correct translation is Kashmir will become Pakistan (After the independence).

That is very rude and incorrect statement Pakistan is not artificial state with the arrival of first Muslim in this sub-continent very basic foundation of Pakistan laid and with centuries passed a full very mature very well crafted nation with country come to existence. Know please justify your stance.

Again master blunder who told you Mr. Jinnah was not sided with Pakistan on Kashmir. he was the first person who raise the voice for Kashmir and order the forces to help the mujaheddin to get the Kashmir back from Indian annexation.

having discuss above few points my conclusion is that whole your article is biased and full with incorrect references and claims not worthy to discuss more.

Regards,

It matters little, but the thread would be poorer without your inputs. However you pejorative.....

I am just here to learn more about the history of Kashmir Conflict straight from friends across the border and not from dry and dusty old books. All kind of views are welcome.

 

[WAJsal]

Sir , you seem to have selective amnesia.

Avoid the attacks, we can have a debate in a better manner. Thank you for teaching this wise lesson to me @nForce ..
To answer you post, sir so does India, read the whole resolution. India has to keep enough to maintain law and order and nowhere does it state that India has to take over the whole of Kashmir to hold referendum-something our Indian friends usually mention. We will have to keep local forces to maintain law and order-such as GB scouts or etc, etc...
Plus we can't take this step without formal understanding with India, say we remove our forces and turns out India doesn't follows what it has to do; or that it attacks Pakistan. There has to be formal 'talks' between the two countries before any steps being taken. and India doesn't want to talk on Kashmir.
regards

pray and tell me why maharaja would relinquish his kingdom if there is no threat to it?

No threat to it, that was funny. locals standing agaisnt the state. GB scouts standing against the state. then again i state i was not sure...

I don't know why you bent it towards Gilgit. Gilgit is a slightly separate case. It was under lease given to the British. It's history is somewhat asynchronous with that of the valley.

How so..it was never under the influence of Pakistan..I only mentioned GB to state what the outcome of the valley would be if locals get to choose.

There was a plebiscite there ?

The state of Gilgit Baltistan acceded to Pakistan by the mirs of the valley, by the wishes of the people. All mirs signed such accession papers and gave them to the established Gilgit government at the time and it was forwarded to Pakistani state.

Have more of such images, but will have to dig them up. It is to note they were not forced to sign or etc, etc. In fact there were celebrations in Gilgit Bazar, Chilas and Hunza for many days....
Then of course this happened...
How Gilgit-Baltistan got liberated . | Page 6

 

[SarthakGanguly]

For us Jammu and Kashmir is no longer an issue. Pakistan can take as long a time it wants to come to terms with reality.

 

[The-king]

It matters little, but the thread would be poorer without your inputs. However you pejorative.....

I am just here to learn more about the history of Kashmir Conflict straight from friends across the border and not from dry and dusty old books. All kind of views are welcome.

In that case i would like to add what is the best i have stay with me i would post some thing interesting and informative for you. Basically Kashmir was / is a unfinished agenda of the partition (well said by chief) as you know that Pakistan was created on the basis of two nations theory and Mr. Jinnah was staunch supporter and advocate of this am i right? if yes then Kashmir and rest of the states with Muslim majority is the main concern of Mr. Jinnah but at that time there was some conspiracy done by Mr. Nehru with Lady mount baton which force Mr. Lord Mount baton to leave disputed issues for near future and Kashmir was / is part of that issues since Kashmir was a princely state and Maharajah of Kashmir shows that he was not in the state to make any decision so this trick Mr. Jinnah he was busy with other issues and not want any more delays for partition agrees on the basis that Kashmir and other Muslim majority states which are disputed mutually discuss later but what happen you know India annexed Kashmir with the help of Maharajah and the issue remains open wound for both India and Pakistan.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Avoid the attacks, we can have a debate in a better manner. Thank you for teaching this wise lesson to me @nForce ..
To answer you post, sir so does India, read the whole resolution. India has to keep enough to maintain law and order and nowhere does it state that India has to take over the whole of Kashmir to hold referendum-something our Indian friends usually mention. We will have to keep local forces to maintain law and order-such as GB scouts or etc, etc...
Plus we can't take this step without formal understanding with India, say we remove our forces and turns out India doesn't follows what it has to do; or that it attacks Pakistan. There has to be formal 'talks' between the two countries before any steps being taken. and India doesn't want to talk on Kashmir.
regards

How so..it was never under the influence of Pakistan..I only mentioned GB to state what the outcome of the valley would be if locals get to choose.

The state of Gilgit Baltistan acceded to Pakistan by the mirs of the valley, by the wishes of the people. All mirs signed such accession papers and gave them to the established Gilgit government at the time and it was forwarded to Pakistani state.

Have more of such images, but will have to dig them up. It is to note they were not forced to sign or etc, etc. In fact there were celebrations in Gilgit Bazar, Chilas and Hunza for many days....
Then of course this happened...
How Gilgit-Baltistan got liberated . | Page 6

Where is the countersign of the Maharaja of JnK?