The Forgotten Chunk of Pakistan-Junagarh

[Jackdaws]

i dont make absurd claims like you bakhts!!

kahan say atay hain fact --- Modi ki g say mass manufacturing hai mitrrronnn!

I've given facts with sources. You stick to smelling farts and enjoying yourself.

 

[newb3e]

I've given facts with sources. You stick to smelling farts and enjoying yourself.

source?? what source?

 

[vishwambhar]

Thanks brother,its a shame we gave away(forgot) this splendour so cheaply.
Junagarh Fort.

Tombs of the Nawabs

Inner Palace

One of the city gates

View of the palace

Reception Hall

A 42 gun salute to the Nawab of Junagarh who left all this for Pakistan.

Beautiful structure...... feel proud for this being in India.....

Not to mention Gir forest and lion population there.... it makes India only county in the world a house for both Tigers and Lions.....

Thanks for sharing and keep them coming....

 

[Piyush Arora]

I think he is talking about Jodhpur

Kolkata rightfully belonged to ours. Though it was Hindu Majority but it was surrounded by Muslim Majority areas hence should had been given to us

@FOOLS_NIGHTMARE @El Sidd I really want to see a Male Bengal Tiger confronting Asian Lions Pride

Pakistan was given East Bengal which was nearly double or the size of West Bengal.You Were unable to keep that province too.
What More are You complaining for.

why are you hostile to Bangladesh?

If India had hostile to bangladesh
It Would had been in india after 1971
India helped in liberation of Bangladesh


As a consequence, East Pakistan seceded and the independent state of Bangladesh, or Bengali nation, was proclaimed on March 26, 1971.

 

[Rahil khan]

Plebiscite was held in junagarh which had a majority of Hindu Population Ruled by a muslim leader.
The Muslim ruler of Hindu-majority Junagadh agreed to join to Pakistan, but later plebiscite was done which was clearly in favour of India.


Case of Junagadh was very much like kashmir
The ruler was Hindu in kashmir with a majority muslim population

and A Muslim in Junagadh with a majority Hindu Population.

In both cases, land and people belonged to India...pretty much might is right formula.

 

[Piyush Arora]

Not correct.

See existing discussions on the UNSC Resolutions on these threads and respond there:


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...agreement-sources.392233/page-10#post-7528125

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.7904/

So You are Saying The above links or the Neutral source which I had Given are not true?

Yes, the ruler of Bahawalpur was favourably disposed towards Pak, just as Hari Singh became after he realized what Pak Army regulars dressed as tribesman were doing to his state. So if favourable disposition is the yardstick then let it be so.

What did India agree to in '48? In Part III of the UN resolution it says that the future of J&K will be decided according to the will of the people. But the very next part of the sentence says that it is rests upon the acceptance of the truce agreement. Part IIA1 clearly states that since the presence of Pakistani troops in J&K constitutes a material change in the situation, Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops. Part IIA2 further states that Pakistan will try its best to ensure that tribesmen and Pak nationals withdraw from Kashmir. Pakistan has, to date, done neither of the two. The UN resolution cannot be enforced till Pakistan does what it is obligated to do under the resolution. The ball was always in our court. It is just that we never chose to see it that way.

The chronology of the resolution clearly depicts that our own obligations, which we never fulfilled, came first. Everything else was contingent upon that. Our best case scenario is agreeing that after all these years it doesn't matter and accept the LOC as the final resolution.

By the way, the resolution also implicitly shows that the Pakistani government had lied about the role of the Pak army in the entire episode. Why do we hold others to a yardstick which we ourselves are not bound by?

Thats The whole Thing I am trying to say.

 

[vishwambhar]

LOL. Are lions even found in Pakistan in the wild? Jinnah even tried to get some Hindu rulers in Rajputana to accede to Pakistan. Not to mention demanding that Calcutta be shared between the two countries. Kuch bhi mang lete ho.

Lions in Pakistan you can see only on television.... they have very poor wildlife with less than 4% of land under forests..... wild animals you can find are bears, deers, rabbits in birds peacock etc..... even their biggest forest is manmade not natural.... it's called Changa Manga.....

On the other hand India is one among the top 10 wildlife rich countries in the world with around 23% of land under thick dense evergreen rainforests.....and still growing..... we have almost all the deadly predators of the world in our forests and we are only county in the world to have Tigers and Lions both.....there's a reason even discovery channel has a program called WILD INDIA..... even such a densely populated Mumbai island has its own very rich wildlife with wild cats.....

Forestry in India is a significant rural industry and a major environmental resource. India is one of the ten most forest-rich countries of the world.Together, India and these other 9 countries account for 67 percent of total forest area of the world.[1]

 

[Piyush Arora]

Not correct.

See existing discussions on the UNSC Resolutions on these threads and respond there:


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...agreement-sources.392233/page-10#post-7528125

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.7904/

Not correct.

See existing discussions on the UNSC Resolutions on these threads and respond there:


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...agreement-sources.392233/page-10#post-7528125

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.7904/

The only unilateral requirement placed upon Pakistan is that of ensuring the withdrawal of Pakistani tribesmen. Section 2(A) of UNSC Resolution 47 then places a simultaneous condition upon India (once the process of withdrawal of tribesmen has been confirmed):

2. The Government of India should:
(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council's resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;
Pakistan has fulfilled the unilateral requirements placed upon it by UNSC Resolution 47 - the tribesmen have been withdrawn - the requirement of 'withdrawal of Pakistani Nationals not resident in the State' does not have to be fulfilled until the requirement placed upon India of developing a plan of withdrawal of her forces with the UN commission is fulfilled.

What has not occurred, despite subsequent resolutions and multiple UNSC Commissions and Rapporteurs appointed to negotiate between India and Pakistan, is that 'Indian plan for withdrawing their own forces from J&K'. That plan had to be agreed upon and put in place once the process of withdrawal of tribesmen had been confirmed (not completed). The process of withdrawal of tribesmen was completed decades ago, and India has constantly played the role of an obstructionist and refused to agree to any feasible withdrawal plan proposed by Pakistan or the UN Commissions and Rapporteurs appointed by the UNSC.

The ball is in India's court, in terms of taking the next steps to fulfill the requirements of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

Pakistan has fulfilled the unilateral requirements placed upon it by UNSC Resolution 47 - the tribesmen have been withdrawn - the requirement of 'withdrawal of Pakistani Nationals not resident in the State' does not have to be fulfilled until the requirement placed upon India of developing a plan of withdrawal of her forces with the UN commission is fulfilled.

This is wrong Modified Information brother.Pakistan was to withdraw both the tribesmen and the Army from the area , After this condition India was Required to reduce Its troops strength to minimum.

I have posted above links which are not the indian ones U can check them out.

 

[vishwambhar]

Imagine all those bordering states became part of Pakistan(Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Bhopal, Bikaner)!!!

Why are you so much greedy??? Dreaming of AKHAND PAKISTAN???

 

[TechMan]

Bro
UN mentioned 3 steps For the plebscite to take place in the valley

Pakistan was seen as an Aggressor at that time because it then illegally send its army and tribesmen in the valley

The first step, the withdrawal of Pakistan troops
The Second step was india reduced its tropps to the minimum level as prescribed by the UN
And the last step was the plebscite will be done in the presence of UN


PAkistan didn't Followed the first step so at that time plebiscite didn't happened



https://countercurrents.org/2019/02/why-un-supervised-referendum-couldnt-be-held-in


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1766582.stm

This resolution is old and has been replaced by resolution 80 which states both India and Pakistan withdraw troops simultaneously.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_80

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Thanks brother,its a shame we gave away(forgot) this splendour so cheaply.
Junagarh Fort.

Tombs of the Nawabs

Inner Palace

One of the city gates

View of the palace

Reception Hall

A 42 gun salute to the Nawab of Junagarh who left all this for Pakistan.

Alhamdullilah
Subhanallah
Masha Allah
Wallah Wallah

Dekhkar dil khush ho gaya. The beauty of Indian history. I know what all to see when I travel to Gujarat. Thank you.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

What's even the point, even if you had gotten it in 1947, it would have been the same case as Bangladesh - An enclave surrounded by hostile territory. You would have lost it sooner or later.

Its not just the Kathiawar region(Junagarh), the wasteland in between(Rann of Kutch) would have been/would be part of Pakistan as well.

 

[blueazure]

Moreover after partition the only jute mill was in Kolkata and east Pakistan was rich in Jute. How much loss they planned to make us suffer in our initial days

ill be making a thread on this topic soon ..

Its not just the Kathiawar region(Junagarh), the wasteland in between(Rann of Kutch) would have been/would be part of Pakistan as well.

i would request MODS to sticky this thread..


@FOOLS_NIGHTMARE bhai

thank you for this lesson.

please tell us more about gurdaspur ,ferozpur

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Gujarat and Rajasthan have been fully integrated into India. But thanks to the diplomacy of Sardar Vallabhai Patel and V.P Menon, they were a part of India in the first place.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Bro
UN mentioned 3 steps For the plebscite to take place in the valley

Pakistan was seen as an Aggressor at that time because it then illegally send its army and tribesmen in the valley

The first step, the withdrawal of Pakistan troops
The Second step was india reduced its tropps to the minimum level as prescribed by the UN
And the last step was the plebscite will be done in the presence of UN


PAkistan didn't Followed the first step so at that time plebiscite didn't happened



https://countercurrents.org/2019/02/why-un-supervised-referendum-couldnt-be-held-in


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1766582.stm

You couldn't be more wrong.

Firstly, Pakistan was never declared the Aggressor by the UN

Secondly, the obligation of Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the state of Jammu and Kashmir does not devolve until both sides conclude a truce agreement to govern the withdrawal of not only Pakistan forces but also the bulk of the Indian armed forces from the state

The first step, the withdrawal of Pakistan troops
The Second step was india reduced its tropps to the minimum level as prescribed by the UN
And the last step was the plebscite will be done in the presence of UN

A little Correction:

Step 1. A Truce Agreement is concluded
Step 2. Pakistan begins withdrawing its troops
Step 3. India too begins withdrawing its troops (to a minimum level) while Pakistani troops are being withdrawn
Step 4. Plebiscite by UN

A Truce Agreement was never reached because India rejected all demilitarization plans proposed by the UN. Pakistan accepted all.

As Truce Agreement could not be concluded, the Commission never notified Pakistan to begin withdrawing its forces.

Pakistan had made it clear to the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops as soon as the Commission notified it,

Pakistan went a step further and told the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops in favor of UN troops regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal ...


There's a reason for which the UN appointed official mediator (i.e Sir Owen Dixon) blamed India and not Pakistan for halting the process ...