Why Kashmiris didn't want to join Pakistan?

[313ghazi]

Contrary to popular myth in Pakistan, from all historical sources we get to know that Kashmiris in reality were not in favor of joining Pakistan. This isn't uniquely Kashmiri thing because many others in Pakistan used to think along same lines.

But why muslim leaders at that time couldn't get their message across? Jinnah used to go to every corner of Pakistan to convince muslim leaders and politicians but did he meet Kashmiris from valley? Maybe Kashmir being separate muslim majority state governed by Hindu played some role.

I think you didn't read OP. Kashmiris for some reason didn't rise up against Hindu raj unlike people in AJK/Gilgit. Jinnah didn't send army instead decided to send Tribals in to valley who obviously couldn't fight modern Indian army.

But apart from that tribals were blamed for looting etc And Kashmiris sided with Indians. What were Kashmiri leaders thinking back then? Did Jinnah or someone else tried to held talks with them before 1947?

I am Kashmiri and let me help you understand.

Firstly the rule of Hari Singh was not bad compared to British rule. There was no widespread oppression particularly because Kashmiri society was so rural, had so little demands and expectations from the ruling class. The people of Kashmir were also very much farmers etc. They were literate and often educated in classical subjects but it was not a modern society. Due to this demographic politics wasn't a big thing, it was a simple society.

Secondly Kashmir was a princedom not under British rule, Hari Singh repeatedly claimed he would keep it a seperate state, so the desire to form as part of Pakistan was not there because nobody was worried about becoming Indian - everyone assumed they'd remain Kashmiri.

Thirdly, Kashmiri people were not armed. We don't have the tribal society which carries weaponry (much to my dislike) and when the rola of partition started Hari Singhs forces went through village by village disarming people of even farming tools and axes (as a precaution as that snake knew what was coming). Without any leadership or organisation, our people gave them up to the police etc.

When the fighting did start some people still went to fight against the Indians but most fled. People were unarmed, villages were being burned 1 by 1, people had nothing with which to protect their families, they ran whilst bullets chased them.

----

Unfortunately when you become slaves (as our people had been during the era of partition and before that), this is what happens to you. If we had stuck to the sunnah and had a calipha rather than kings, what might have been? Had we stuck to the sunnah and every household had been prepared for conflict by being armed, what might have been. The path was set out for us, we didn't walk it. Even in good times there will no benefit for us if we don't walk on that path.

 

[Kambojaric]

Thirdly, Kashmiri people were not armed. We don't have the tribal society which carries weaponry (much to my dislike) and when the rola of partition started Hari Singhs forces went through village by village disarming people of even farming tools and axes (as a precaution as that snake knew what was coming). Without any leadership or organisation, our people gave them up to the police etc.

When the fighting did start some people still went to fight against the Indians but most fled. People were unarmed, villages were being burned 1 by 1, people had nothing with which to protect their families, they ran whilst bullets chased them.

----

This is a good point. The Pahari people of Poonch and Mirpur had been heavily recruited by the British for the world wars (like their kin across the border in Northern Punjab). When the Maharajah tried to disarm them following their return, they refused and rose up (with the support of their kin). They could do this because they had the arms and also tribal support from regional areas. Similarly the main military force in GB were the Gilgit Scouts, made up of local people of that region. When the conflict began they rose up as well. The Valley however was completely "pacified" and the people had no arms or support with which to rise up. By the time the Pashtun tribesmen arrived in the Valley, the Indian army was already arriving on the scene.

 

[Ocean]

To the best of my knowledge, the Valley was politically under the influence of Sheikh Abdullah, who believed that his secular leanings would convince Nehru and the Indians to at the very least grant complete autonomy to a semi-independent Kashmir within the Indian Republic, and even better grant outright independence whilst protecting a hypothetical independent Kashmir. Of course he was completely played over by Nehru who post 47 gradually started strengthening Indian rule over the valley culminating in the Sheikh's arrest). His views on Pakistan had softened as the decades went on after independence but as we all know, by this time the Indian state and army had already established a firm grip over the Valley.
It is hard to ascertain how the people of the Valley felt about Pakistan in 1947 and how they would have voted in a plebiscite. That will always go down in history as a "what if" event, with nobody able to give a clear answer. It is noteworthy though that unlike the other parts of the erstwhile Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, such as GB or what is today Azad Kashmir, that did rise up against the Maharajahs rule militarily ended up becoming part of Pakistan. The Valley however as said was politically under the influence of the Sheikh, and the Sheikh believed in a political resolution culminating in the independence or complete autonomy of his domain from both India and Pakistan.

Kashmir valley was around 14 pc geographical area of entire state. Did kashmiris want an independent country carved out of 14pc region?

if pakistan had not gained the region named ajk, what downsides do you think pakistan would have suffered? Is there any chance of revolt against pakistan in pakistan held kashmir?

 

[Kabira]

For the same piece of land Pakistan has so much ,half of a country lakhs dead and I don't see peaceful Pakistan either .we just have to see 4-5 districts having terrorist but is it the case with Pakistan.if you think you can pay the price and survive then India will do it even better just because of its size.

Its like blaming Nagaland and other dozen dalit tribal insurgencies on Kashmir.

Terrorism in Pak between 2008-2015 had little to do with Kashmir conflict.

Pak Kashmir is peaceful place, more so then any Indian province.

 

[The Eagle]

Let the Kashmiris have the freedom from the occupation, first then the time will come and that is the sole choice of our Kashmiri brothers though we must respect their chants as said "Kashmir banay ga Pakistan". Either Kashniris wants to join Pakistan or not, is their own choice hence, before committing ng to any conclusion without evidence and substance, how about to say that this is not worth discussing Luke this.