What if the Subcontinent was ONE country?

[Imran Khan]

Yeah and they will let you Migrate

so migration will be not allowed too ? show some humanity man . let me go to somewhere in enjoy my life .

 

[Indus Pakistan]

...
Jinnah told Mountbatten on 1 November that he “could not accept a formula if it was so drafted as to include Hyderabad.”

However, precisely around this time, Hyderabad emerged as a divide between Nehru and Patel as well. Nehru was obsessed with Kashmir. Patel’s concern was to secure Hyderabad. Chaudhri Mohammed Ali narrates the parleys on 8 and 27 November in his memoirs. On 8 November, “I was told that Mountbatten and Sardar Patel agreed to such a plan, but not Nehru, and I was advised to see him” which he did; in vain[29]

The formula of 27 November – which prompted Jinnah’s Notebook entry three days later – envisaged that “a plebiscite should be held in Junagadh to decide its future.” But Nehru was set against a plebiscite, he writes and proceed to record “In one of the discussions between the two Prime Ministers, at which Patel and I were also present, Liaquat Ali Khan dwelt at length on the inconsistency of the Indian stand with regard to Junagadh and Kashmir. When Liaquat Ali Khan made these incontrovertible points, Patel could not contain himself and burst out ”Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir, and we could reach an agreement….Patel’s view at this time and even later was that India’s effort to retain Muslim majority areas against the will of the people was a source not of strength but of weakness to India. He felt that if India and Pakistan agreed to let Kashmir go to Pakistan and Hyderabad to India, the problems of Kashmir and of Hyderabad could be solved peacefully and to the mutual advantage of India and Pakistan.” There was a second round of talks between the two Prime Ministers in Lahore on 8 December, but they also produced no results, Nehru even backed out of the agreed proposal for a joint request to the UN to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir.[30]

Prof. R.J. Moore points out that Mountbatten’s proposal of 1 November “conceded most of his (Jinnah’s) demands” and “by refusing to probe the possibilities of diplomacy Jinnah overplayed his hand.”[31]

On 27 November 1972, President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto told a tribal jirga at Landikotal that India’s first Home Minister and Minister of States, Sardar Patel, had, at one stage, offered Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Junagadh and Hyderabad. But, he added, Pakistan “unfortunately” did not accept this offer with the result that it not only lost all the three native States but East Pakistan as well. He was right. Patel publicly confirmed his offer in his speech at a rally in Junagadh on 13 November while there was time for Pakistan to accept it. Patel said that Pakistan raised Junagadh as a counter to Kashmir. “Our reply was that we would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad. Pakistan, however, pointed out that they had no say in the matter. Nevertheless, whenever Hyderabad had been in difficulties, there is always a trek of the leaders of the Iteehad-ul-Muslemin to Mr. Jinnah.”[32]

...

http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/bilateral-negotiation-on-kaskmir-unlearnt-lesson/

Really appreciate that. I feel like spitting at the graves of these leaders of Pakistan. So to put it bluntly Patel offered -

• Pakistan gets Kashmir
• India gets Hyderabad/Junagadh

But the great Pakistan leaders ended up losing everything with the sliver of Kashmir freed by natives/tribal Pakhtuns. Wtf? Why is this fact hidden away and is it taught in Pakstan History?

 

[Cat Shannon]

Why is this fact hidden away and is it taught in Pakstan History?

Cause you're taught to be a mard-e momin. who takes everything by force like the arabs did, or the afghans did in your history. in YOUR history. so, you teach yourself the story you want to hear. that you got a great deal but jinnah got greedy. for more. for better than a moth balled pakistan. which you didn't deserve to get in the first place.

 

[M. Sarmad]

So to put it bluntly Patel offered -

• Pakistan gets Kashmir
• India gets Hyderabad/Junagadh

But the great Pakistan leaders ended up losing everything with the sliver of Kashmir freed by natives/tribal Pakhtuns. Wtf? Why is this fact hidden away and is it taught in Pakstan History?

Yes, Patel was willing to let Pakistan take Kashmir if India got Hyderabad and Junagadh. Mountbatten too was okay with it. Nehru, however, was not much interested in the offer.

Liaquat Ali Khan failed us.

As for Jinnah, he was a lawyer. He proposed an outright exchange of Kashmir for Junagadh as both states were mirror image of each other in many ways. Kashmir was a Muslim majority state whose Non Muslim ruler had acceded his state to India. Junagadh was a Non Muslim majority state whose Muslim ruler had acceded his state to Pakistan. Jinnah argued that as Junagadh had become a part of Pakistan legally, he being the governor general of Pakistan, had the right to discuss the future of the state with India. But as the ruler of Hyderabad had not acceded his state to Pakistan, he had no right to discuss the future of the state or coerce the ruler of Hyderabad to accede his state to India against his will.

We ended up losing all three because of our incapable leadership, the naked Indian aggression, and refusal of the then Commander in Chief of Pakistan Army to obey Jinnah's orders of military action against Indian offensive. Rest is history

 

[Corona]

Jinnah, unlike Patel and Co., was a man of principles. He refused Patel's offer stating that he could not coerce the ruler of Hyderabad, an independent princely state, to accede his state to India against his will.

They say hindsight is 20/20

i will migrate to somewhere else then may be some island where beef alcohol and dance allowed

That's Kochi right there.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Very bad idea.We got a good deal in partition.Every pragmatic person recognizes this.If you observe the result from a callous communal angle the muslim population of subcontinent was divided subsequently into 3 parts - a fact which only kalam azad understood,which individually are incapable of mortally threatening the 'hindus'/bharatis as many here like to call it.Pakistan can at best defend itself and be of nuisance value(lets face it a thousand cuts is a hopeless strategy against a country with manpower base of 1.3 billion people,maybe it could work on israel),the other 2 parts are rendered irrelevant in terms of political power.India's geostrategic central position gives it a commanding position.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Cause you're taught to be a mard-e momin. who takes everything by force like the arabs did, or the afghans did in your history. in YOUR history. so, you teach yourself the story you want to hear. that you got a great deal but jinnah got greedy. for more. for better than a moth balled pakistan. which you didn't deserve to get in the first place.

You just go to offer Puja in the Ganga that the British came and made India for you. They even built a nice capital, New Delhi and including a fancy Viceroy house to be used as future Indian presidency.

 

[Cat Shannon]

You just go to offer Puja in the Ganga that the British came and made India for you. They even built a nice capital, New Delhi and including a fancy Viceroy house to be used as future Indian presidency.

don't get triggered. you asked. i told you the right answer. up to you. Relax !

 

[Indus Pakistan]

don't get triggered. you asked. i told you the right answer. up to you. Relax !

I am very relaxed. Thanks to a tough gym regime I have pulse of 58, pressure at 75/120 which is ideal and I am chilled as chill [even if I have flu] with a view of the glorious English countryside.

I just muzzled you with facts ...

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Yeah I know. They can hate it all they want. But geography is apolitical. What is the definition of Subcontinent of India? A British colonial one? A Mughal one? A ancient Persian Empire one? A Dharmic one?
Geography is apolitical. We can go by rivers instead, so that only Eastern Pakistani is in India....?

I also don't like the arrogance shown by various Muslim dynasties towards the native peoples in India (Subcontinent) and I do not like the geographic term Hindu being now solely used as a religious term.

It is this sort of arrogance that prevented India (Subcontinent) from becoming majority Muslim. It was only due to men like Moinuddin Chisti (may God be pleased with him)(Orthodox Sufis) that many Indians accepted Islam..

Very bad idea.We got a good deal in partition.Every pragmatic person recognizes this.If you observe the result from a callous communal angle the muslim population of subcontinent was divided subsequently into 3 parts - a fact which only kalam azad understood,which individually are incapable of mortally threatening the 'hindus'/bharatis as many here like to call it.Pakistan can at best defend itself and be of nuisance value(lets face it a thousand cuts is a hopeless strategy against a country with manpower base of 1.3 billion people,maybe it could work on israel),the other 2 parts are rendered irrelevant in terms of political power.India's geostrategic central position gives it a commanding position.

well stated. Pakistan actually has a pretty strategic geographical position, but they shot themselves in the foot by getting involved with Afghanistan's internal affairs. Now pakistan is geographically isolated from central asia surrounded by a hostile afghanistan. India on the other hand lies in the center of south asia and controls the arabian dea, the bay of bengal, the strait of malacca, and large amounts of the Indian ocean, all of which are some of the worlds most important waters for international trade. In addition we share a land bordee with ASEAN, one of the largest regional bloques with a fast growing economy, and have easy acess to north central asia via our allies iran and afghanistan. India truly comes closest to having the best of all worlds.

 

[Cat Shannon]

I am very relaxed. Thanks to a tough gym regime I have pulse of 58, pressure at 75/120 which is ideal and I am chilled as chill [even if I have flu] with a view of the glorious English countryside.

my oh my..I would just need a mild sativa to go with such a beautiful place.

my advice, leave this trollfest and take up a hobby and teach that to your children/grandchidren.

I just muzzled you with facts ...

nah you didn't.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

my advice, leave this trollfest and take up a hobby and teach that to your children/grandchidren.

My advice. Go find a Gangoo forum and rub off on how the wonder that was India -

• went to Mars in 5,000BCE
• invented nuclear power in 10,000BCE
• the entire globe tilts on India
  
• etc

 

[Jackdaws]

But then how would the idiots spend their resources on buying weapons? They would be forced to spend on education, water, Healthcare and sanitation. It is in the interest of the leaders to keep their citizens poor, ignorant dumb and hateful. And the leaders are doing a stellar job.

 

[Cat Shannon]

My advice. Go find a Gangoo forum and rub off on how the wonder that was India -

• went to Mars in 5,000BCE
• invented nuclear power in 10,000BCE
• the entire globe tilts on India
  
• etc

nah, I come to this forum to do that. That is the level of this forum. For discussing things of that level. I really don't know what a "Gangoo" forum is ? You mean, Indian ? We don't waste bandwidth on such things as listed above on the proper Indian forums. We talk defence quite seriously. or what you mean on a "Gangoo" forum.

 

[Nilu Pule]

But then how would the idiots spend their resources on buying weapons? They would be forced to spend on education, water, Healthcare and sanitation. It is in the interest of the leaders to keep their citizens poor, ignorant dumb and hateful. And the leaders are doing a stellar job.

Lol. Another consipracy theorist kutpiece.

Very bad idea.We got a good deal in partition.Every pragmatic person recognizes this.If you observe the result from a callous communal angle the muslim population of subcontinent was divided subsequently into 3 parts - a fact which only kalam azad understood,which individually are incapable of mortally threatening the 'hindus'/bharatis as many here like to call it.Pakistan can at best defend itself and be of nuisance value(lets face it a thousand cuts is a hopeless strategy against a country with manpower base of 1.3 billion people,maybe it could work on israel),the other 2 parts are rendered irrelevant in terms of political power.India's geostrategic central position gives it a commanding position.

No. It was a bad deal. There should have been a total exchange of population.

If there were no Indian Muslims in present India. Then crime would be very low. Sexual violence would be very low. No terrorism. No overpopulation. No riots.