The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[toppys]

May be pakistan can declare azad kashmir really azad for a start. Then we will be in pressure to reciprocate.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

as India gets economically stronger, they will have more options to deal with this strife of theirs

I beg to differ…if anything, occupied Kashmir is proof that the economics of hindustan have little bearing or impact over the attitudes or sentiments of the common Kashmiri.

Maybe it did only to pundits who ran away on their own will. Not to Kashmiris of Kashmir, who were born in Kashmir, live in Kashmir, and will likely die honourably in Kashmir.

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.

a lot of the protestors are employed, and or students; i guess either its too difficult to travel because of the constant curfews; or they see no hope for livelihood and sustainability as long as unwelcome forces are in their lands causing problems

Asking for "freedom" these days is just such an unusual thing that no one can relate to this.

Ask this to patriotic, God-fearing Afghans who were around during soviet occupation

 

[toppys]

pandits ran on their own will! May be they like running a lot. No wonder we dont have a good solution.

 

[Jackdaws]

I beg to differ…if anything, occupied Kashmir is proof that the economics of hindustan have little bearing or impact over the attitudes or sentiments of the common Kashmiri.

Maybe it did only to pundits who ran away on their own will. Not to Kashmiris of Kashmir, who were born in Kashmir, live in Kashmir, and will likely die honourably in Kashmir.



a lot of the protestors are employed, and or students; i guess either its too difficult to travel because of the constant curfews; or they see no hope for livelihood and sustainability as long as unwelcome forces are in their lands causing problems




Ask this to patriotic, God-fearing Afghans who were around during soviet occupation

"Maybe it did only to pundits who ran away on their own will."

Indeed. Who would not want to give up homes, work and ancestral places to live in refugee camps ?

 

[RamGorur]

i hope you can let us know.

You claimed not to be a fan of someone, and now you are telling me that you don’t even know who you are talking of. Hilarious.

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:


In short:



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?

So what does Indian Independence Act, 1947 say about the Princely States? O wait. It doesn’t say anything about it. Because, 3rd June plan had nothing to do with Princely States. It was India Act, 1935 that governed the fate of Princely States, not Indian Independence Act, 1947.

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!

Didn’t you say earlier:

Lastly, just because the ruler was a Singh wouldnt automatically imply that he would decide the fate of a state.

…and in the next paragraph

Hari being the ruler would never had meant that the "cat belong to somebody else"(read india).

Btw, didn't I say the same thing:

The ruler decided this, as per law.

You are either one confused Pakistani or you just have a memory of a goldfish. Possibility of being both is even higher.

What was the end result in Junagadh's case? [1]

Did Pakistan send in forces as was done in case of Kashmir when indian forces occupied it? [2]

Wasn't a referendum organized in Junagardh which is still pending in Kashmir since the last 6 decades...??!! [3]

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..?? [4]

india should have shown that moral ascendancy (that it always try to portray) by rejecting Hari singh's IoA. [4]

[1] The end result in Junagadh is irrelevant because if Jinnah had refused to accept the IoA, following what you think was the guiding principle of accession of Princely States; i.e. communal hue of the population, Junagadh wouldn’t have begun in the first place.

[2] Jinnah, as was the Nawab of Junagadh, was hell bent on sending troops to Junagadh. Pakistan couldn’t because Pakistan was unable to do so. So these days, even incompetence is a matter of pride in Pakistan?

[3] Referendum in Kashmir was made subject to Pakistan’s withdrawal from Kashmir and returning of law and order. Those conditions remain unfulfilled. Hence no referendum. No such hassle arose in case of Junagadh and hence referendum could be completed there. Duh!!!

[4] I have never implied Jinnah’s acceptance of IoA of Junagadh was wrong par law. I have implied that if you are right then Jinnah was wrong. You can't have it both ways, can you?

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..?

Your inability to grasp an argument is epic. Jinnah’s acceptance of IoA of Junagadh wasn’t wrong par law. It was wrong because it was against the understanding that was reached between Congress and ML, and vetted by Mountbatten. The understanding was that contiguity of Princely States with the Dominions should be considered while accepting IoA. Junagadh was not contiguous to Pakistan. Kashmir was.

Rhetorical!

Do you even know what a rhetorical point means?

 

[RamGorur]

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!!

A quick question. If accession of Junagadh was valid by reason of execution of IoA by the ruler, in favour of Pakistan, why is then, accession of Kashmir invalid by same reason i.e. execution of IoA, by the ruler, in favour of India?

 

[RamGorur]

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. [1] & [2]

- Why a squadron of eight Tempest aircraft was stationed at Rajkot and additional companies of Armed Forces were deployed at Rajkot? [2]

- What was 'Kathiawar Defence Force' (formed by the Government of India) required for? [3]

- Why three warships were anchored at the port of Porbandar. [2]

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'!! [4]


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

Yes, masterji. Your wish is my command and I am going to make spoon feeding you, my day job.

[1] Lies. India did no such thing. Immediately as the news of accession spread across Junagadh, the people started a massive civil disobedience movement, which in no time spiraled into complete chaos. There were communal riots and severe plundering. The Nawab, to cover up his legendary incompetence (I understand now that this is a matter of pride), squarely blamed it on India – that India had stopped movement of goods and transport. Regarding cutting off of postal services, pray tell if postal services were cut off, how did the Nawab kept sending telegrams and communiqués to Pakistan on regular basis.

[2] Because all the States surrounding the Princely State of Junagadh had acceded to India and therefore security of those States vested in India. You are not suggesting that we place our air force and armed men all around Bangladesh because we are preparing an invasion.

[3] Kathiwar defence force was not formed by India.

[4] You are clueless about the revolt of citizens of Junagadh. Actually the revolt in Junagadh was more severe than in Kashmir, because in case of Junagadh, it was all across the State, while in case of Kashmir, it was just a local revolt in a couple of districts – Poonch and the other one I forgot. Add to that, it was on the invitation of the Dewan, that IA had entered Junagadh; and was actually led by Major Harvey Jones, the officer-in-charge of State forces; and IA took control of the situation without firing a single shot. Now compare that to Kashmir.

 

[Xeric]

So what does Indian Independence Act, 1947 say about the Princely States? O wait. It doesn’t say anything about it.

Yeah it didnt say anything at all about the princiley states, see it did not:

Indian Independence Act 1947
Principal points

Passed on 15 June 1947, the Act stipulated that:

* Two independent dominions, India and Pakistan shall be set up in India .
* The dominions would be set up on a fixed date: the fifteenth of August 1947.
* The responsibility as well as suzerainty of the government of the United Kingdom shall cease on fifteenth of August 1947.
* That all Indian princely states shall be released from their official commitments and treaty relationships with the British Empire, and will be free to join either dominion.
*........


Another one:

Salient features of the act

11 ...........
12 ............

13. 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........


So, as you have contemplated, the Indep Act '47 makes no effort to decide the fate of the Princely States whatsoever!!

What a @!#$

Because, 3rd June plan had nothing to do with Princely States. It was India Act, 1935 that governed the fate of Princely States, not Indian Independence Act, 1947.

Like i said you are an idiot.

i wrote two posts to make myself clear over your deliberated doubt regarding the fate of princely states by providing you with the linkage between 3 June Plan, Indep Act 1947 and Atlee's Speech, but with a thickhead like you, we all can see that it was all in vain.

You are either one confused Pakistani or you just have a memory of a goldfish. Possibility of being both is even higher.

To me you look more of a kid with a pea size brain who finds it difficult to comprehend simple and logical arguments. So please dont overload your intellectual capacity or your sack may explode!

[1] The end result in Junagadh is irrelevant because if Jinnah had refused to accept the IoA, following what you think was the guiding principle of accession of Princely States; i.e. communal hue of the population, Junagadh wouldn’t have begun in the first place

[2] Jinnah, as was the Nawab of Junagadh, was hell bent on sending troops to Junagadh. Pakistan couldn’t because Pakistan was unable to do so. So these days, even incompetence is a matter of pride in Pakistan?

[3] Referendum in Kashmir was made subject to Pakistan’s withdrawal from Kashmir and returning of law and order. Those conditions remain unfulfilled. Hence no referendum. No such hassle arose in case of Junagadh and hence referendum could be completed there. Duh!!!

[4] I have never implied Jinnah’s acceptance of IoA of Junagadh was wrong par law. I have implied that if you are right then Jinnah was wrong. You can't have it both ways, can you?

So now anything that wouldn't serve your purpose would become irrelevant, right?

BTW, what exactly do you want to tell us?

Are you wronging Qaid's acceptance of IoA or the Nawab's decisions to join Pakistan or that referendum basing on which you acceded Junagadh?

Please make your mind ASAP. After seeing your quality to vacillate between choices and the fact that your are haunted with intuitions it seems to me that you must be standing before that mirror for hours before you decide which tie you want to wear!

Shifting poles is another of your quality. You have shifted your poles you much that you just have lost your start-point with such a margin that you wont reach it even if Garmin comes to help!!

You are just another e-warrior who likes to quote nothing and spew all of his 'knowledge' assuming that he alone knows it all.

Your inability to grasp an argument is epic.

i wish you had put forth an argument for me to grasp. All you did was to run in circles and produce ostentatious points which were intellectually vacuous.

And yours to put forth an argument is too Jinnah’s acceptance of IoA of Junagadh wasn’t wrong par law. It was wrong because it was against the understanding that was reached between Congress and ML, and vetted by Mountbatten. The understanding was that contiguity of Princely States with the Dominions should be considered while accepting IoA. Junagadh was not contiguous to Pakistan. Kashmir was.

Yeah carry on. Keep on licking your own spit.

Do you even know what a rhetorical point means?

How would i know. You are the only genius around here. The only genius who is lost in 3 June Plan, who cant sift the essentials out of Indep Act '47 and who fails to stick to one argument of his own - the Junagadh case!

 

[Xeric]

A quick question. If accession of Junagadh was valid by reason of execution of IoA by the ruler, in favour of Pakistan, why is then, accession of Kashmir invalid by same reason i.e. execution of IoA, by the ruler, in favour of India?

Hey smartass, i asked you the same a few posts ago.

Asking a question in response to a questions shows nothing but your ineptness.

 

[Xeric]

Yes, masterji. Your wish is my command and I am going to make spoon feeding you, my day job.

Thankyou, but you failed. Jack must be disappointed.

[1] Lies. India did no such thing. Immediately as the news of accession spread across Junagadh, the people started a massive civil disobedience movement, which in no time spiraled into complete chaos. There were communal riots and severe plundering. The Nawab, to cover up his legendary incompetence (I understand now that this is a matter of pride), squarely blamed it on India – that India had stopped movement of goods and transport. Regarding cutting off of postal services, pray tell if postal services were cut off, how did the Nawab kept sending telegrams and communiqués to Pakistan on regular basis.


[2] Because all the States surrounding the Princely State of Junagadh had acceded to India and therefore security of those States vested in India. You are not suggesting that we place our air force and armed men all around Bangladesh because we are preparing an invasion.

[3] Kathiwar defence force was not formed by India.

India's bismarck, Sardar Vallabhbhai ... - Google Books

[4] You are clueless about the revolt of citizens of Junagadh. Actually the revolt in Junagadh was more severe than in Kashmir, because in case of Junagadh, it was all across the State, while in case of Kashmir, it was just a local revolt in a couple of districts – Poonch and the other one I forgot. Add to that, it was on the invitation of the Dewan, that IA had entered Junagadh; and was actually led by Major Harvey Jones, the officer-in-charge of State forces; and IA took control of the situation without firing a single shot. Now compare that to Kashmir.

Nothing more than brain farts!

i'll rest till you come up with some (neutral) links to support your yaps.

As by now we all know about your credibility, why dont you stop with the rants and give us something tangible?

 

[RamGorur]

Yeah it didnt say anything at all about the princiley states, see it did not:

Indian Independence Act 1947
Principal points

Passed on 15 June 1947, the Act stipulated that:

* Two independent dominions, India and Pakistan shall be set up in India .
* The dominions would be set up on a fixed date: the fifteenth of August 1947.
* The responsibility as well as suzerainty of the government of the United Kingdom shall cease on fifteenth of August 1947.
* That all Indian princely states shall be released from their official commitments and treaty relationships with the British Empire, and will be free to join either dominion.
*........


Another one:

Salient features of the act

11 ...........
12 ............

13. 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........


So, as you have contemplated, the Indep Act '47 makes no effort to decide the fate of the Princely States whatsoever!!

What a @!#$

Right.

A State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty has signified his acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof……… [Sec 6(1) of India Act, 1935]

‘State’ refers to the Princely States. It is by virtue of this section that Princely States were given the right to accede to any one of the Domains. And it is not the Indian Independence Act, 1947.

Like i said you are an idiot.

i wrote two posts to make myself clear over your deliberated doubt regarding the fate of princely states by providing you with the linkage between 3 June Plan, Indep Act 1947 and Atlee's Speech, but with a thickhead like you, we all can see that it was all in vain.

The accession of Princely States was still governed by India Act, 1935.

To me you look more of a kid with a pea size brain who finds it difficult to comprehend simple and logical arguments. So please dont overload your intellectual capacity or your sack may explode!

Then you must be spending an awful lot of time before your mirror. You have now begun to see yourself in everyone. But it is nice to know how you keep your sack intact. It really explains a lot. Seriously.

So now anything that wouldn't serve your purpose would become irrelevant, right?

Wrong; anything that is not relevant to an argument will always remain irrelevant.

BTW, what exactly do you want to tell us?

Are you wronging Qaid's acceptance of IoA or the Nawab's decisions to join Pakistan or that referendum basing on which you acceded Junagadh?

Didn’t I make it clear – if you are right, i.e. accession of Princely States was to be based solely on the basis of 'Muslim/Hindu majority/population' or, as you later claimed that the ruler didn't 'automatically' have the right to take the decision of accession, then Jinnah was wrong by accepting the IoA of Junagadh.

If Jinnah was right, then you are wrong.

Please make your mind ASAP. After seeing your quality to vacillate between choices and the fact that your are haunted with intuitions it seems to me that you must be standing before that mirror for hours before you decide which tie you want to wear!

That’s right. It was me who first insinuated that accession of Princely States was supposed to be on the basis of 'Muslim/Hindu majority/population'; then claimed that the rulers of the State were not 'automatically' entitled to take the decision of accession; and then changed my mind and claimed that the ruler was indeed entitled to make such accession.

No wait. That was you, all the way you.

Shifting poles is another of your quality. You have shifted your poles you much that you just have lost your start-point with such a margin that you wont reach it even if Garmin comes to help!!

You are just another e-warrior who likes to quote nothing and spew all of his 'knowledge' assuming that he alone knows it all.



i wish you had put forth an argument for me to grasp. All you did was to run in circles and produce ostentatious points which were intellectually vacuous.


Yeah carry on. Keep on licking your own spit.



How would i know. You are the only genius around here. The only genius who is lost in 3 June Plan, who cant sift the essentials out of Indep Act '47 and who fails to stick to one argument of his own - the Junagadh case!

 

[RamGorur]

Hey smartass, i asked you the same a few posts ago.

Asking a question in response to a questions shows nothing but your ineptness.

O wise one, can you point to this lesser mortal where you have asked the same question?

 

[RamGorur]

Thankyou, but you failed. Jack must be disappointed.

As long as you are happy, who cares about Jack and Jill.

Nothing more than brain farts!

Sure. I don't doubt your ability to smell out one. After all, all that practice of smelling your own must mean something.

i'll rest till you come up with some (neutral) links to support your yaps.

UN meetings 257 & 264.

As by now we all know about your credibility, why dont you stop with the rants and give us something tangible?

You wouldn't know anything tangible, even if it sat on your face, farted and took a huge dump.

PS: That book doesn't contradict what I wrote. Try again next time.

 

[Xeric]

Right.

A State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty has signified his acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof……… [Sec 6(1) of India Act, 1935]

‘State’ refers to the Princely States. It is by virtue of this section that Princely States were given the right to accede to any one of the Domains. And it is not the Indian Independence Act, 1947.


The accession of Princely States was still governed by India Act, 1935.

i supposed '47 comes after '35.

But then it is useless to argue with you. '35 and '47 both make connection to the States, but we were discussing the latter and there was no need to bring in '35. It was just an attempt by you to confuse the issue as you couldnt get something better to chew on.

Then you must be spending an awful lot of time before your mirror. You have now begun to see yourself in everyone. But it is nice to know how you keep your sack intact. It really explains a lot. Seriously.

Yeah right!

Didn’t I make it clear – if you are right, i.e. accession of Princely States was to be based solely on the basis of 'Muslim/Hindu majority/population' or, as you later claimed that the ruler didn't 'automatically' have the right to take the decision of accession, then Jinnah was wrong by accepting the IoA of Junagadh.

See, you have mixed it all up, again.

My only concern have been the following fact; the ruler decides, but if it is disputed by the population it needs to go by the will of the people. The same thing that happened in case of Junagadh but which india failed to implement in Kashmir. And yes, stop the BS of withdrawing of forces from Kashmir for a referendum to take place, india is equally responsible for the unfulfillment of the requirement.

We were discussing the scenario where the ruler had already exercised his power to join Pakistan or india i.e. the post IoA scenario (in both the case - Kashmir and Junagadh). Now, as per the procedure, the people's wish was to be catered for, which india did in case of Junagadh (as it suited her) and did not do in case of Kashmir (as it did not suite her). The issue of bringing in the truth that the ruler had the right to decide was only needed as you brought in Junagadh as if Jinnah committed a sin by accepting Nawab of Junagadh's IoA!!

See, like i said, you are dumb!

If Jinnah was right, then you are wrong.

That's what you have been miserably failing over and again to prove. Better luck next time!

That’s right. It was me who first insinuated that accession of Princely States was supposed to be on the basis of 'Muslim/Hindu majority/population'; then claimed that the rulers of the State were not 'automatically' entitled to take the decision of accession; and then changed my mind and claimed that the ruler was indeed entitled to make such accession.

No wait. That was you, all the way you.

Eat that spit!

Must be tasty.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

"Maybe it did only to pundits who ran away on their own will."

i stand by my words, because that's how things really did transpire

i have no sympathy at all for those poor ''oppressed'' 'pundits'

Indeed. Who would not want to give up homes, work and ancestral places to live in refugee camps ?

people with honour and pride never abandon their ancestral homelands while their neigbhours, friends & families suffer......they fled for purely economic reasons and are now integrated into hindustany society. More power to them; but they dare not call themselves ''Kashmiris'' anymore since they pledged allegiance to hindustan, the very entity that is oppressing Kashmiris today.

we can see what this oppression is leading to; a lot of anger and resentment


for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction