What's new

'They were determined to strangle Pakistan at birth'

This is nothing more than as self serving article for pakistanis. At independence india was the biggest and strongest of two by 1950 but india never invaded pakistan or try to occupy it. They are more pissed of bcos patel stemmed the violence and made india a unified country.

Pakistanis have been flogging this existential threat for last 60 years and repeatedly attacked india. They should grow up and understand that pakistanis themselves are greatest to their country than some one from outside.
 
.
So Pak started it? And you guys are angels since birth? And in the end 4 Lac muslims died in 47 as compared to 2 Lac sikhs etc? Fuk you guys love playing victims !
Nobody knows how many died so the figures your quoting are fictional. And "victim card", Irony..

You misunderstood my post (or I wasn't clear, which is just as likely) - my intent was not to assign blame for the communal riots, but to highlight how the events of the time played into the Pakistani leadership's distrust, anger and eventual policy making.

Much of the Western analysis of Pakistan's actions and policies at that point in history doesn't really get into the interplay of all these factors and India-Pakistan exchanges at the government level and how those events shaped the perceptions of Pakistan towards India and fostered legitimate concerns of threats to her existence (only a few days old at that point) as a nation-State.
Thanks for clarifying, but my confusion is how can the then pakistani administration not see reaction in delhi in the backdrop of its own action? it is same in each and every instance, like hyderabad liberation is used to justify kashmir aggression forgetting that kashmir aggression is what lead india to harden its stance against junargarh and hyderabad... sasme as point massacres of innocent muslim by mainly hindus to justify pakistan but forgetting massacres of hindus by muslim armies through history is what lead to hindu anger/mistrust against muslims....I know there is no justification for riots and killings but one side need to introspect before pointing fingers on the other side...
 
.
Nobody knows how many died so the figures your quoting are fictional. And "victim card", Irony..


Thanks for clarifying, but my confusion is how can the then pakistani administration not see reaction in delhi in the backdrop of its own action? it is same in each and every instance, like hyderabad liberation is used to justify kashmir aggression forgetting that kashmir aggression is what lead india to harden its stance against junargarh and hyderabad... sasme as point massacres of innocent muslim by mainly hindus to justify pakistan but forgetting massacres of hindus by muslim armies through history is what lead to hindu anger/mistrust against muslims....I know there is no justification for riots and killings but one side need to introspect before pointing fingers on the other side...
Are you sure nobody knows how many died?????

This is nothing more than as self serving article for pakistanis. At independence india was the biggest and strongest of two by 1950 but india never invaded pakistan or try to occupy it. They are more pissed of bcos patel stemmed the violence and made india a unified country.

Pakistanis have been flogging this existential threat for last 60 years and repeatedly attacked india. They should grow up and understand that pakistanis themselves are greatest to their country than some one from outside.

Written by an indian author... Patel's vile statements & historic facts also give testimony to this article.
 
.
At independence india was the biggest and strongest of two by 1950 but india never invaded pakistan or try to occupy it.
Indian intervention, first via non-State proxies and then direct military, in Junagadh and Munavadh negates that assertion,
They are more pissed of bcos patel stemmed the violence and made india a unified country.
Offering analysis with some shred of factual basis as support would be far more constructive - right now you're just lashing out irrationally and claiming to know what Pakistanis on this forum 'secretly think'. I'm open to discussing this assertion of yours if you can offer some rational and factual basis for it.
Pakistanis have been flogging this existential threat for last 60 years and repeatedly attacked india.
The events over the last 60 years justify the 'flogging of an existential threat by India'. India attacked Pakistan when it supported proxies, invaded and annexed Junagadh, it indirectly attacked Pakistan when it stoked communal riots in Hyderabad to justify yet another military intervention and annexation of a Princely State whose ruler was at least favorably disposed towards Pakistan. India attacked Pakistan by supporting tens of thousands of Mukti Bahini terrorists in East Pakistan to fan the flames of unrest and trigger violence and a refugee exodus that was then used as a pretext for military invasion (tactics identical to those pursued by India in Junagadh and Hyderabad).

The events of the last 60 years justify Pakistan's threat perceptions of India, and the current genocidal maniac in charge of India, with a mouth bigger than the chest size he brags about, has only heightened those threat perceptions.

The problem with Indians such as yourself is reflected in the first comment of this post I responded to - your inability to view, let alone analyze or understand, Pakistan outside the narrow confines of the Indian Establishment narrative results in irrational outbursts such as 'Pakistan is jealous of Patel for stopping the partition riots'. The mindset here is so 'brainwashed' and stuck on 'demonize Pakistan mode' that you probably don't even realize the kinds of allegations you're spouting. And yes, Pakistan has it's own brand of citizenry that mirrors these Indian attitudes, the Zaid Hamids, Ahmed Quraishis and religious conservatives active in politics, but they tend to invite ridicule from a large number of Pakistanis.

like hyderabad liberation is used to justify kashmir aggression forgetting that kashmir aggression is what lead india to harden its stance against junargarh and hyderabad.
You've got the timelines mixed up. The Indian and Pakistani governments were exchanging cables (with India refusing to recognize the accession of Junagadh) before the tribal invasion of Kashmir. Reports about the unrest in Junagadh (supported by India) from Pakistani government representatives in Junagadh were already sending up red flags about Indian intentions in Junagadh, especially given the Indian position on Munavadh.

Communal riots and reports of the Indian government's less than stellar handling of the violence with respect to protecting Muslims (again, this is just referencing reports from Pakistani and Western representatives in India at the time to highlight the kind of information Pakistan was basing its policy making on, and not a declaration of guilt against one side or the other) fed into the general atmosphere of danger, distrust and threat levels. In J&K the Maharaja had launched his own brutal crackdown, largely on communal lines.

Pakistan's leadership, especially keeping in mind the fact that India had significantly greater economic and military resources than Pakistan at the time of partition, was justified in choosing to act offensively, covertly and overtly, to protect her interests in J&K. India had already used local unrest as a pretext for military intervention in Junagadh, and if the Pakistani leadership interpreted reports of communal violence against Muslims in India as suggestive of tacit endorsement by the GoI, then it didn't take a genius to figure out that J&K would be India's next target.
 
.
'They were determined to strangle Pakistan at birth' - Rediff.com India News


Upon the Partition of the former British Indian empire in August 1947, terrible sectarian massacres swept across the divided Punjab province. As millions fled in both directions across the new border seeking safety, the Indian capital of Delhi swelled with tens of thousands of angry and traumatised Hindu and Sikh refugees. The riots spread to Delhi in early September, paralysing the government for several days and raising real fears that both India and Pakistan were devolving into chaos:

Initially none of the Indian leaders doubted that Sikhs, who had played a central role in the Punjab violence, had spearheaded the Delhi attacks, too. Over 200,000 non-Muslim refugees from the Punjab had squeezed into the capital, and plenty of them thirsted for revenge.

Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel called in local Sikh leaders and threatened to toss their followers into concentration camps if the violence did not cease. He also gave the Army a 'free hand' to go after Sikh troublemakers. Commanders ordered their troops to shoot rioters on sight. Though the military could not admit openly to targeting any particular community, Governor-General Lord Louis Mountbatten joked grimly, 'The object would have been achieved if in 48 hours' time the local graves and concentration camps were occupied more fully by men with long beards than those without.'

Very quickly, however, Patel's assessment of the threat changed. The problem was not just the Sikhs. Earlier police reports had also warned of a brewing Muslim uprising in the capital. Most of the city's ammunition dealers were Muslim, as were most of its blacksmiths. The latter had supposedly converted their workshops to churn out bombs, mortars and bullets. Patel had been worried enough about the threat to issue licenses to several new Hindu arms dealers in Delhi. He had 'been giving arms liberally to non-Muslim applicants' for self-defence, he reassured a colleague.

Some Delhi Muslims were indeed armed. They fought back against the police as well as the Hindu and Sikh gangs; among reported gunshot victims non-Muslims actually outnumbered Muslims 45 to 20. Though evidence of any conspiracy is scant, quite a few Delhi-ites seemed to believe that the city's Muslims posed as great a threat as the death squads, if not greater.

During the riots, officials trying to rescue Muslims often found the public less than eager to help. Owners of private cars and trucks removed key parts so that the authorities couldn't requisition the vehicles. Volunteer drivers pretended to get lost or to develop engine trouble when asked to deliver aid to Muslim areas. (Eventually the government enlisted idealistic students to ride along and watch over them.) Even four days into the rioting, the American military attache witnessed Army troops standing by as Muslim women and children were clubbed to death at Delhi's railway station.

Patel was more in tune with the popular mood than India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. While the principle that Hindus and Muslims should be able to live together remained central to Nehru's vision for India, the Sardar was less sentimental. He did not trust that all of India's Muslims, many of whom had until recently supported Jinnah, had switched loyalties. If they did not think of themselves as Indians, he believed, then they belonged in Pakistan.

Nehru would almost certainly have lost an open fight with his deputy. Horrified by the casualty reports, the prime minister tried to ban Sikhs from wearing their ceremonial knives, known as kirpans. Patel pushed back, saying the decree discriminated against the Sikh faith.

'Murder is not to be justified in the name of religion,' Nehru protested. Yet after a 'violent disagreement' between the two men, the Sardar triumphed. Sikhs regained the right to carry their daggers after a 48-hour pause.

Nehru seemed to believe he had a better chance of quelling the unrest singlehandedly than by working through his own administration. He went 'on the prowl whenever he could escape from the (Cabinet) table, and took appalling personal risks,' Mountbatten's chief of staff Lord Hastings 'Pug' Ismay recalled.

Nehru would angrily face down mobs himself, rushing from trouble spot to trouble spot. A veritable tent city, filled with Muslim refugees, sprouted on the lawns of his York Road bungalow.

One night a Muslim friend named Badruddin Tyabji showed up at Nehru's door to alert him to an especially troubled area -- the Minto Bridge, which Muslims fleeing their Old Delhi neighbourhoods had to cross to reach the safety of refugee camps in New Delhi. Each night, Tyabji said, gangs of Sikhs and Hindus lurked nearby and sprung upon the defenceless Muslims as they trudged past.

Nehru immediately bolted from his seat and dashed upstairs. He returned a few minutes later holding a dusty, ungainly revolver. The gun had once belonged to his father Motilal and hadn't been fired in years. He had a plan, he told Tyabji. They would don soiled and torn kurtas and drive up to Minto Bridge themselves that night.

Disguised as refugees, they'd cross the bridge, and when the thugs tried to waylay them 'we would shoot them down!'

The stunned Tyabji was able to persuade the leader of the world's second-biggest nation 'only with great difficulty' that 'some less hazardous and more effective method for putting an end to this kind of crime should not be too difficult to devise.' Mountbatten feared Nehru's impulsiveness would get him killed, and assigned soldiers to watch over him.

Nehru's individual heroics evoked great admiration in men like Ismay and Mountbatten. But they did little for Delhi's Muslims. After the initial wave of attacks, thousands had fled their homes. Authorities almost immediately started evacuating the rest, claiming they could not guarantee the safety of residents if they remained where they were.

Muslims were dumped in guarded sites by the truckload -- places which it would be generous to describe as refugee camps. Within a week, over 50,000 were crammed into the Purana Qila, a ruined fort. They huddled pitifully on the muddy ground with no lights, no latrines, and hardly any water or food. The Pakistan government flew in shipments of cooked rice and chapatis all the way from Lahore to feed them.

Ismay melodramatically compared the scene at the Purana Qila to 'Belsen' without the gas chambers. Dignified Muslim professors and lawyers were squashed next to cooks and mechanics, longtime Gandhians next to stranded, would-be Pakistan bureaucrats. Wounded and sick moaned without medical attention; babies were born in the open. Armed Sikhs patrolled the one choked entrance, taking down the license plate numbers of Europeans driving in to deliver food and supplies to their friends and former servants.

With the help of Gurkha and South Indian troops -- who were less vulnerable to the sectarian passions roiling their northern counterparts -- authorities managed to control the worst of the violence within a week.

Volunteers began to clean up the streets, and ration shops reopened. Nehru asked the governors of other Indian provinces to take in tens of thousands of Punjab refugees, to get them out of the capital.

But the riots fatally undermined any trust Pakistani leaders may have had in their Indian counterparts. Nehru's estimate that 1,000 victims had died in the rioting was generally considered 'ridiculous,' according to US Ambassador Henry Grady. He figured the true toll to be at least five times higher; others said 20 times.

At the height of the violence, Pakistan's founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah was inundated with hysterical reports from his ambassador in Delhi, Zakir Hussain. Hundreds of Muslim refugees had carpeted the grounds of his house, Hussain reported, and the embassy's food supplies were running out. He described the Indian government as either intent upon eliminating the capital's Muslim population, or indifferent to their fate. Army troops were openly gunning down innocent Muslims. In one particularly florid cable Hussain warned, 'The entire Muslim population of India is facing total extermination.'

A conviction was taking hold among Jinnah and his lieutenants that India had launched an 'undeclared war' on the weaker Pakistan. The Indian leaders seemed incapable of transferring Pakistan government servants to the new capital Karachi, or of protecting them in their Delhi homes. Cargo trains full of equipment and supplies meant for Pakistan were being derailed and torched in the Punjab. At least some members of the Indian Cabinet appeared to be winking at the Sikhs' murderous activities. 'It is obvious that their orders are not carried out,' one of Hussain's cables said of the Indian leaders, 'or at least different members of the government are following conflicting policies.'

In mid-September, Ismay spent three days in Karachi trying to convince Jinnah that the Indian government bore Pakistan nothing but goodwill. Jinnah was dismissive. He was convinced that Sikh and Hindu militia leaders had planned the violence in the Punjab as well as Delhi. Though intelligence had given some inkling of their plans over the summer, they had been allowed to walk free.

With her vast resources and powerful military, Jinnah believed, India could even now have suppressed the Sikhs if only Nehru had had the necessary 'will and guts.' Instead he could not even guarantee the safety of Muslims in his own capital.

Ismay returned to Delhi profoundly depressed. In a secret codicil to his report, meant for Mountbatten's eyes only, he warned that Jinnah had begun speaking in dangerously warlike tones. In the very first hour of their talks the Pakistani leader had struck Ismay 'as a man who had given up all hope of further cooperation with the Government of India.'

All that had happened in the month since Independence just 'went to prove that they were determined to strangle Pakistan at birth,' Jinnah had told Ismay grimly. 'There is nothing for it but to fight it out.'

Nisid Hajari is a member of the Bloomberg View editorial board and the author of Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition, from which this is excerpted.

If there is one villain in all this, it is Mountbatten. He was the point man in all this. Sadly Mountbatten allowed himself to be won over by Nehru. Jinnah failed here. In the most critical point of our history the man at the helm was in Nehru's pocket. Also Mountabatten seemed to intent on rushing rather than doing the job properly. In the process as long as he did the job in the least time possible if tens of thousands died he could not care less.

Why for example did Mountbatten not first divide British India in two administrative units. Then Mountabtten could have begun to devolve power to these two units. One ran by Nehru and the other by Jinnah. He could have done this slowly over period of six months. Then once these two administrative units were functioning smoothly he could began to pass more functions over. The last one could have been the military at which point independance could have been declared and full powers passed to both administrations units which would become Pakistan and India.

Also over this last six month period bring in 50 thousand British soldiers to provide the impartial backbone to his authority. All this would have taken maybe another six months. Considering the British had been there for nearly 200 years they owed us to do this properly.

Alas it was not to be. It was a reckless pullout and in the chaos Mountbatten did everything to f*ck up Jinnah and Pakistan. So far as I am concerned Mountbatten got his just deserts when the IRA blew him up in 1980s.

Ps. When Western Allies took over the defeated Germany they divided it into three zones. The American, British and French zones all being run by separate commands but all answering to the unified supreme allied head quarters. Later on the French, British and American zones were united into West Germany.This could have been done in British India in reverse order and then over period of six months various functions in a orderly manner devolved until full independance.

1024px-Map-Germany-1945.svg.png
 
Last edited:
.
Partition was a bloody disaster.
Everyone in the sub continent lives under the shadow of partition. The shadow is atomic.
 
.
Indian intervention, first via non-State proxies and then direct military, in Junagadh and Munavadh negates that assertion,

On September 15, 1947, Nawab Mohammad Mahabat Khanji III of Junagadh, a princely state located on the south-western end of Gujarat and having no common border with Pakistan, chose to accede to Pakistan ignoring Mountbatten's views, arguing that Junagadh could access Pakistan by sea. The rulers of two states that were subject to the suzerainty of Junagadh — Mangrol andBabariawad — reacted by declaring their independence from Junagadh and acceding to India. In response, the nawab of Junagadh militarily occupied the two states. Rulers of the other neighbouring states reacted angrily, sending troops to the Junagadh frontier, and appealed to the Government of India for assistance. A group of Junagadhi people, led by Samaldas Gandhi, formed a government-in-exile, the Aarzi Hukumat ("temporary government").

Offering analysis with some shred of factual basis as support would be far more constructive - right now you're just
Sardar patel was indias bismarck who united all the kingdoms in india. He was the one person whose actions got most of the kingdoms into indias fold like junagadh,hyderabad etc which were coveted by pakistan. (either way most of them would have broken away just like bangladesh). It is case of sour grapes and patel is the wicked villian for the pakistanis.

India attacked Pakistan when it supported proxies, invaded and annexed Junagadh, it indirectly attacked Pakistan when it stoked communal riots in Hyderabad to justify yet another military intervention and annexation of a Princely State who was at least favorable towards Pakistan

stoked communal riots? Historical indicators show that invaders routinely indulged in gross violence for centuries and you are upset that could not be continued. Communal violence today is attributed and associated rightly or wrongly to one particular religion around the world. Look around your ummah it is painted in different shades of red like it did for ages before.

Here is the shenanigans of what happened in hyderabad,
"From the beginning of 1948 the Razakars had extended their activities from Hyderabad city into the towns and rural areas, murdering Hindus, abducting women, pillaging houses and fields, and looting non-muslim property in a widespread reign of terror".[30] "Some women became victims of rape and kidnapping by Razakars. Thousands went to jail and braved the cruelties perpetuated by the oppressive administration. Due to the activities of the Razakars, thousands of Hindus had to flee from the state and take shelter in various camps".[31] Official sources stated that three to five thousand people were killed by the Razakars.[4]

History and generations have witnessed the barbarism emanating across the hindukush( monumental witness to the barbarism perpetrated) for ages . India has put an end to the barbarism that went for centuries together and you can cry a river in your own souped up logic.
 
.
As a Kid my Grandpa could tell me that if Sardar Patel was not their India could had seen 7 more Partitions Because Nehru and Gandhi were only concerned of their Public image and not their plight.

One Truth and Reason why Netaji and Patel were True Heros of India. not Nehru and Gandhi.
Patel was...the real hero why nehru could stand.
 
.
Partition was a bloody disaster.
Everyone in the sub continent lives under the shadow of partition. The shadow is atomic.

It need not have been. The British are good at administration. They had conquered India with the gun and sword from one corner to the other corner. They had fought battles after battles but I think in doing so less blood had been spilled. However how is it that in dividing it they spilled more blood? It was Mountbatten who made a right mess of it either intended or through criminal neglect.

As I said before. Why not bring 50k British soldiers in. Divide it into two admin units. Have them up and running. Then slowly start passing over functions. Start with basic like irrigation, postal system, education. Then move up into taxation, revenue. Then near the end police. Then place British Army on standby. Then divide Brirish Indian Army and pass them over to both units. Then wind down his own office and declare independnce. Each unit becoming a independant republic ith no chaos. Instead what should have done slowly over one year was squeezed into one week. Also minimum investment was made.No additional British units were brought in.

The result was chaos and mass murder.
 
Last edited:
.
@Atanz
When you outline the possibilities as you did, in terms of how the British could have handled partition better, you leave me no choice but to retract my earlier comment about not blaming them for the violence and chaos that ensued.
 
.
Are you sure nobody knows how many died?????

I am. All we have are estimates. Whole families were wiped out.. there weren't anybody even to report missing persons..

You've got the timelines mixed up. The Indian and Pakistani governments were exchanging cables (with India refusing to recognize the accession of Junagadh) before the tribal invasion of Kashmir. Reports about the unrest in Junagadh (supported by India) from Pakistani government representatives in Junagadh were already sending up red flags about Indian intentions in Junagadh, especially given the Indian position on Munavadh.

Communal riots and reports of the Indian government's less than stellar handling of the violence with respect to protecting Muslims (again, this is just referencing reports from Pakistani and Western representatives in India at the time to highlight the kind of information Pakistan was basing its policy making on, and not a declaration of guilt against one side or the other) fed into the general atmosphere of danger, distrust and threat levels. In J&K the Maharaja had launched his own brutal crackdown, largely on communal lines.

Pakistan's leadership, especially keeping in mind the fact that India had significantly greater economic and military resources than Pakistan at the time of partition, was justified in choosing to act offensively, covertly and overtly, to protect her interests in J&K. India had already used local unrest as a pretext for military intervention in Junagadh, and if the Pakistani leadership interpreted reports of communal violence against Muslims in India as suggestive of tacit endorsement by the GoI, then it didn't take a genius to figure out that J&K would be India's next target.

You answered you own question, India refused to recognize Junargarh accession, but respected it's boundaries until pak violated J&Ks.. Questioning something isn't crime...you can't start "pre-emptive" war and cry hoarse when it escalates further.. you need to maintain any conflicts in same level.. My point is that it is complete madness to blame others while you yourself started it.. same thing happened in 1971.. without "pre-emptive" attack, war would have turned in favor of pakistan..
What steps were being taken by pakistan govt to safeguard minorities (hindu/sikh) in its area?
 
.
On September 15, 1947, Nawab Mohammad Mahabat Khanji III of Junagadh, a princely state located on the south-western end of Gujarat and having no common border with Pakistan, chose to accede to Pakistan ignoring Mountbatten's views, arguing that Junagadh could access Pakistan by sea. The rulers of two states that were subject to the suzerainty of Junagadh — Mangrol andBabariawad — reacted by declaring their independence from Junagadh and acceding to India. In response, the nawab of Junagadh militarily occupied the two states. Rulers of the other neighbouring states reacted angrily, sending troops to the Junagadh frontier, and appealed to the Government of India for assistance. A group of Junagadhi people, led by Samaldas Gandhi, formed a government-in-exile, the Aarzi Hukumat ("temporary government").
Even as sanitized as that excerpt is, it validates the argument that India actively encouraged unrest and rebellion in Junagadh and its principalities - and don't leave out this little gem illustrating India's active role in destabilizing the State:

"In the meanwhile, there were exchanges between the governments of India and Pakistan. Pakistan told the Indian Government that the accession was in accordance with the Scheme of Independence announced by the outgoing British and that Junagadh was now part of Pakistan. While this exchange of correspondence was going on, India closed all its borders to Junagadh and stopped the movement of goods, transport and postal articles"

The similarities between Junagadh and later Hyderabad and East Pakistan cannot be ignored, and paint a clear picture of an expansionist Indian State, utilizing both non-state proxies and illegal military force to achieve territorial gains.
Sardar patel was indias bismarck who united all the kingdoms in india. He was the one person whose actions got most of the kingdoms into indias fold like junagadh,hyderabad etc which were coveted by pakistan. (either way most of them would have broken away just like bangladesh). It is case of sour grapes and patel is the wicked villian for the pakistanis.
You're talking about two different things now - your initial accusation revolved around Pakistanis being 'secretly jealous of Patel's for successfully quelling the riots', whereas your contention now is that we're 'secretly jealous because Patel was the brains behind the Indian government policy to support non-State actors and illegal military intervention and occupation in various Princely States whose ruler had acceded to Pakistan'.

Which hare-brained theory do you want to pick?
stoked communal riots? Historical indicators show that invaders routinely indulged in gross violence for centuries and you are upset that could not be continued. Communal violence today is attributed and associated rightly or wrongly to one particular religion around the world. Look around your ummah it is painted in different shades of red like it did for ages before.
I'm not interested in 'historical indicators' going back thousands of years to some nonsensical 'Mythical Ancient Indian civilization that had mastered intergalactic travel'. I'm referring specifically to the actions (leading up to Operation Polo) of the contemporary Indian State created in 1947 - actions that involved the participation of Indian Armed forces in communal violence as part of a plot to destabilize the state and use the instability as a means of pressure on the ruler and an excuse for military intervention and eventual annexation. We see the same Indian blue-print over and over again, from 1947 on.
 
. .
You answered you own question, India refused to recognize Junargarh accession, but respected it's boundaries until pak violated J&Ks.. Questioning something isn't crime...you can't start "pre-emptive" war and cry hoarse when it escalates further.. you need to maintain any conflicts in same level.. My point is that it is complete madness to blame others while you yourself started it.. same thing happened in 1971.. without "pre-emptive" attack, war would have turned in favor of pakistan..
What steps were being taken by pakistan govt to safeguard minorities (hindu/sikh) in its area?
I didn't ask a question, I pointed out a flaw in your position, one that you still haven't corrected. Your timelines are still wrong.

The invasion of J&K by Lashkar members commenced in force on October 22, 1947 - prior to that the situation involve small scale 'harassing attacks' along the peripheries of the State (as far as the participation of individuals not resident in the State was concerned). The Indian military and police deployments to enforce blockades of Junagadh and its principalities were initiated between late September to early October, and India's diplomatic exchanges till that point had made clear that it was not going to accept Junagadh's accession.

I seriously agree with all your opinion/argument.
There's that mental block again, that inability to get past the Indian Establishment's narrative, especially when that narrative has holes poked into it.
 
.
It's a version based on significantly more facts than is customary in traditional Western analysis of South Asia. It's an attempt to take into account the actions of both India and Pakistan to understand how they might have impacted Pakistan's policy making and makers at that point in history.
Again whose facts ?? your facts remains only your facts till it doesn't passes the scrutiny of some third party.
Unlike some rather 'unFair commentators' who seem to forget that India existed as an entity whose actions played a role in shaping Pakistani policies and actions (and I haven't even mentioned Afghanistan's extremely destabilizing role here yet) given the complete absence, or minimal presence, of analysis (in their various works demonizing Pakistan) of the impact (on Pakistan's policies) of the communal tensions/violence in the region and India's own expansionist and actively obstructionist policies in 1947.

So you feel you are free to deem who is fair and who is unfair commentator,actually that's being very convenient for you . That's not very fair. Actually it was other way round , it was Pakistan's actions (which obviously started from Kasmir annexation and for obvious reasons you don't see that as expansionist), which defined India's foreign policy making and forget action , we only reacted . And don't even try to mention Afghanistan since you will get busted over there.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom