The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[TIBERIUMMAN]

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
George Bernard Shaw

 

[TIBERIUMMAN]

True love comes quietly, without banners or flashing lights. If you hear bells, get your ears checked.
Erich Segal

 

[Xeric]

Then Why u r criticising the plebiscite??? Ruler Sing does not imply the state belong to India....similarly a most of the population muslim does not imply it belongs to pakistan.

Oh yes it did!

i am sorry, if you cant comprehend the partition mechanism (as proposed in 3 June Plan), it is useless to continue debating with you. i cant teach you indo-pak history over and again.

BTW, if you missed, the 3rd June Plan was already influenced by Nehru himself before it was even put on paper, so you dont have any grounds to reject it

 

[RamGorur]

i am not quite a fan of his, but it seems as if you are quite obsessed with the guy. Dont worry, that's natural.

Exactly who are we talking here?

It was a princely state, but as you lacked the knowledge about the partition mechanism regarding those areas which formed part of india before partition, i dont have to think much to conclude that you also lack the info regarding how the fate of princely states was to be decided as per the 3rd June Plan.

I admit, I am a student. I learn a little bit, everyday. For example I learned today that the 3rd June plan, popularly known as Mountbatten plan, was applicable to Princely States. Surely Mountbatten himself was not aware of this. Why else would he, on 25th July, 1947, go to great lengths to spell out the modalities of accession of Princely States; to the Princes; at the Chamber of Princes. Probably he was drunk.

Makes me wonder why Jinnah accepted Junagadh's accession. Could it be that he too was.....

Seriously, the Plan was not that difficult to comprehend. Moreover, a princely state or not, it doesnt exactly matter when india had no right to occupy it whatsoever - the partition happened because of the people and was to take place according to their will, period.

India had no right to occupy it. Right. That's why India didn't occupy it. Pakistan did. India went there only after it became a part of India.

I understand that this is rocket science.

Which points?

That since partition of India was on the basis of religion, India shouldn't be in Kashmir. Jinnah also forgot this point while accepting Junagadh's IoA.

It wasnt, but then who were you to decide this?

The ruler decided this, as per law.

The decision was of the people who belonged to the land. But then who can better understand this from someone who hails from the 'largest democracy'..??!!

Is that why Jinnah didn't accept the principle of vox populi while accepting Junagadh's accession? After all, he was not from the largest democracy.

 

[Jackdaws]

Oh yes it did!

i am sorry, if you cant comprehend the partition mechanism (as proposed in 3 June Plan), it is useless to continue debating with you. i cant teach you indo-pak history over and again.

BTW, if you missed, the 3rd June Plan was already influenced by Nehru himself before it was even put on paper, so you dont have any grounds to reject it

Read the June 3 plan again. The Princely states were free to remain independent. India had no intention of touching those which were on the periphery - they would serve as a buffer against China which is why India did not bother with Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim and Kashmir. As it is, the former 3 are Hindu/Buddhists - so why didn't we take them over? If you had not invaded Kashmir, perhaps Kashmir would have fallen into Pakistan hands anyway. You jumped the gun and Hari Singh signed Treaty of Accession. Now deal with it.

 

[RamGorur]

i cant teach you indo-pak history over and again.

Thanks for the comic relief.

 

[Xeric]

Exactly who are we talking here?

i hope you can let us know.

I admit, I am a student. I learn a little bit, everyday. For example I learned today that the 3rd June plan, popularly known as Mountbatten plan, was applicable to Princely States. Surely Mountbatten himself was not aware of this. Why else would he, on 25th July, 1947, go to great lengths to spell out the modalities of accession of Princely States; to the Princes; at the Chamber of Princes. Probably he was drunk.

Ahh...

So just because the Plan does not specifically make any mention of the princely states you assumed (as you have been since long) that the 3 June Plane had to connection or application over the princely states. Voila!

if you missed, there's a thing known as Indian Independence Act which indeed was the implementation of the 3rd June Plan: The Indian Independence Act 1947 was the implementation of June 3 Plan.

Moreover the Pretext of the Indian Independence Act was the following:

3 June Plan

The British government proposed a plan on announced on 3 June 1947 that included these principles:----------

Attlee’s announcement

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Clement Attlee, announced on 20 February 1947 that:-----

In short:

Princely States of India: there were a total of 562 princely states in India. Mountbatten in his press conference on 4 June 1947 gave the framework on their fate:

1. Indian States were independent in treaty relations with Britain
2. On 15 August 1947 the paramountancy of British Crown was to lapse
3. Consequently the princely states would assume independent status
4. The states would be free to choose one or other constituent assembly

Conclusively, the British parliament passed the Indian Independence Act 1947 on 11 July 1947 giving the native states three choices: to remain independent or to accede to either of the two new dominions, the Union of India or the Dominion of Pakistan.

So tell me, which part of 'to remain independent or to accede to either of the two new dominions, the Union of India or the Dominion of Pakistan' you did not understand?

3 June, 11 July, 25 July or whatever, my concern was regarding that fact that it was the (princely) states' decision to take, not india's o Pakistan's to send in boots and OCCUPY the land!

Makes me wonder why Jinnah accepted Junagadh's accession. Could it be that he too was.....

Like i asked earlier, are you dumb or what?

You cherry-picked THE part that suited you and skipped that didnt.

What was the end result in Junagadh's case?

Did Pakistan send in forces as was done in case of Kashmir when indian forces occupied it?

Wasn't a referendum organized in Junagardh which is still pending in Kashmir since the last 6 decades...??!!

BTW, if you consider Pakistan's/Jinnah's acceptance of IoA in case of Junagardh 'wrong' what the heck did india did the same wrong by accepting Kashmir's IoA..??

india should have shown that moral ascendancy (that it always try to portray) by rejecting Hari singh's IoA.

As it is said: Do, do or choprian..??

Seriously, you people have no (moral and legal) right/authority to discuss Junagadh with us!

India had no right to occupy it. Right. That's why India didn't occupy it. Pakistan did. India went there only after it became a part of India.

I understand that this is rocket science.

Would this have been true and right in case of Junagadh also..??

If you are so pained by Jinnah's acceptance of Muhammad Mahabat Khanji's (Nawab of Junagadh) IoA in case of Junagadh, why would you do the same mistake twice (Kashmir case)?

Or may be, the largest democracy is the holy cow spared from every sin..?

That since partition of India was on the basis of religion, India shouldn't be in Kashmir. Jinnah also forgot this point while accepting Junagadh's IoA.

Rhetorical!

 

[Xeric]

The ruler decided this, as per law.

Is that why Jinnah didn't accept the principle of vox populi while accepting Junagadh's accession? After all, he was not from the largest democracy.

For you kind info, though the princely states were given three choices:

to remain independent or to accede to either of the two new dominions, the Union of India or the Dominion of Pakistan.

Most importantly, the accession was to be chosen by the ruler of the state and not by the population—though, in practice, there were exceptions to this rule.

Also pertinent to mention is the following statement by Lord Mountbatten of Burma, the Governor-General of India, who on conditionally accepting the Instrument of Accession wrote: "consistently with their policy that in the case of any state where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state.

Mountbatten of Burma - Cuil

So,

though Pakistan honored this in case of Junagadh (though this statement by Mountbatten was post Junagdh issue), but india committed double crime, first by negating the law (dishonoring the decision of Junagadh's Nawab as allowed to him by the Indian Independence Act 1947) and then by failing to fulfill Mountbatten's 'instruction' regarding disputed accessions!!

Probably, you people want us to believe that india can do wrongs and project them as right, but on the other hand we can't even talk about our legitimate rights...

Ain't happening!

 

[Jackdaws]

For you kind info, though the princely states were given three choices:

to remain independent or to accede to either of the two new dominions, the Union of India or the Dominion of Pakistan.

Most importantly, the accession was to be chosen by the ruler of the state and not by the population—though, in practice, there were exceptions to this rule.

Also pertinent to mention is the following statement by Lord Mountbatten of Burma, the Governor-General of India, who on conditionally accepting the Instrument of Accession wrote: "consistently with their policy that in the case of any state where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state.

Mountbatten of Burma - Cuil

So,

though Pakistan honored this in case of Junagadh (though this statement by Mountbatten was post Junagdh issue), but india committed double crime, first by negating the law (dishonoring the decision of Junagadh's Nawab as allowed to him by the Indian Independence Act 1947) and then by failing to fulfill Mountbatten's 'instruction' regarding disputed accessions!!

Probably, you people want us to believe that india can do wrongs and project them as right, but on the other hand we can't even talk about our legitimate rights...

Ain't happening!

You are right. Since the Treaty of Accession was signed by the ruler of Junagadh and accepted by Jinnah, it should have been part of Pakistan. So why didn't Pakistan take this matter to the U.N.? Was it because most of the citizens of this protectorate of Pakistan were Hindus and thus Pakistan from 1947 itself did not care about its Hindu citizens? Why hasn't Pakistan ever disputed this Indian wrong?

 

[Xeric]

Read the June 3 plan again. The Princely states were free to remain independent. India had no intention of touching those which were on the periphery - they would serve as a buffer against China which is why India did not bother with Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim and Kashmir. As it is, the former 3 are Hindu/Buddhists - so why didn't we take them over? If you had not invaded Kashmir, perhaps Kashmir would have fallen into Pakistan hands anyway. You jumped the gun and Hari Singh signed Treaty of Accession. Now deal with it.

Ask this from ramgour, he's quite fond of Junagadh, perhaps he could explain you the following:

- why Indian forces encircled Junagadh and stopped the movement of goods, transport and postal articles.

- Why a squadron of eight Tempest aircraft was stationed at Rajkot and additional companies of Armed Forces were deployed at Rajkot?

- What was 'Kathiawar Defence Force' (formed by the Government of India) required for?

- Why three warships were anchored at the port of Porbandar.

Atleast we can say; in case of Kashmir unrest was due to uprising by the locals but in Junagadh's case it was an blatant act of aggression by the regular indian forces - the would be 'largest democracy'!!


i am sure he will help you by explaining you the above mentioned.

 

[RollingStones]

Ask this from ramgour, he's quite fond of Junagadh, perhaps he could explain you the following:

- why Indian forces encircled Junagadh and stopped the movement of goods, transport and postal articles.

- Why a squadron of eight Tempest aircraft was stationed at Rajkot and additional companies of Armed Forces were deployed at Rajkot?

- What was 'Kathiawar Defence Force' (formed by the Government of India) required for?

- Why three warships were anchored at the port of Porbandar.

Atleast we can say; in case of Kashmir unrest was due to uprising by the locals but in Junagadh's case it was an blatant act of aggression by the regular indian forces - the would be 'largest democracy'!!


i am sure he will help you by explaining you the above mentioned.

Kashmir discussion is going around in circles with no end in sight. Right now, it appears that there is really no global support for this movement.

 

[Xeric]

Kashmir discussion is going around in circles with no end in sight. Right now, it appears that there is really no global support for this movement.

And that's the best your intellect can come up with?

Dont jump (to conclusions just because the issues went past your tiny brain).

BTW, you got tired of Kashmir just after 105 pages, we are on it since last 6 decades (and would continue for another 6). You gotta build some stamina ASAP.

 

[RollingStones]

And that's the best your intellect can come up with?

Dont jump (to conclusions just because the issues went past your tiny brain).

BTW, you got tired of Kashmir just after 105 pages, we are on it since last 6 decades (and would continue for another 6). You gotta build some stamina ASAP.

BS...you are just a preacher. That style, if you didnt know, went out of style some years ago. Anything that comes out as preachy will not get any support these days. The problem for anyone advocating Kashmir is that as India gets economically stronger, they will have more options to deal with this strife of theirs. Right now, the Kashmiri "freedom" cries are from a bunch of unemployed youth in very limited areas - some thing that can be related more toward lack of jobs than anything else. Asking for "freedom" these days is just such an unusual thing that no one can relate to this.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

BTW, you got tired of Kashmir just after 105 pages, we are on it since last 6 decades (and would continue for another 6). You gotta build some stamina ASAP.

 

[Xeric]

BS...you are just a preacher. That style, if you didnt know, went out of style some years ago. Anything that comes out as preachy will not get any support these days. The problem for anyone advocating Kashmir is that as India gets economically stronger, they will have more options to deal with this strife of theirs. Right now, the Kashmiri "freedom" cries are from a bunch of unemployed youth in very limited areas - some thing that can be related more toward lack of jobs than anything else. Asking for "freedom" these days is just such an unusual thing that no one can relate to this.

Advice ignored..!