sensible-indian Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 From what I understand the it was up to the ruler to decide what to do 1947 14/15 August: Independence of the British India into India and Pakistan. Kashmir signs Standstill Agreement with Pakistan. Rulers of Princely States are encouraged to accede their States to either Dominion - India or Pakistan, taking into account factors such as geographical contiguity and the wishes of their people. The Maharaja of Kashmir delays his decision in an effort to remain independent. 22 October: Pakistan precipitates the first Indo-Pakistani War (1947–48) a few weeks after independence by launching tribal lashkar (militia) from [Waziristan] in an effort to wrest Kashmir from India. Thousands of Pashtuns from Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, recruited covertly by Pakistani Army, invade Kashmir, along with the Poonch rebels, allegedly incensed by the atrocities against fellow Muslims in Poonch and Jammu. The tribesmen engage in looting and killing along the way. Maharaja of Kashmir asks India for help while the tribals halt in [baramulla] to loot and plunder 26 October: The Maharaja of the State of Jammu and Kashmir signs the Instrument of Accession (IOA), acceding the 75% majority Muslim region to the Indian Union. India accepts the accession, regarding it provisional until such time as the will of the people can be ascertained by a plebiscite, since Kashmir was recognised as a disputed territory. 27 October: The Indian army enters the state to repel the invaders. Sheikh Abdullah endorses the accession as ad-hoc which would be ultimately decided by a plebiscite and is appointed head of the emergency administration. 1947/1948: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947: Pakistan disputes that the accession is illegal and the first war over Kashmir breaks out. UN Resolution Part A A - RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER 1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours: (a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State LINK - Kashmir conflict timeline Dominion of Pakistan In Junagarh, from what I recall, the ruler wanted to join Pak but Ind asked Junagarh to conduct plebiscite where 99% voted to join Ind :isalute: .... While, there are reports that Pak forced Chitral to join Pak Thanks for the post mate. Really helpful. I am going through the stuff. So basically looks like (from what I understand): 1. Maharaja was delaying the accession because he wanted Kashmir to remain independent. 2. Pak invaded. 3. Maharaja asked India for help acceeding 75% of the region to India (in a provisional way - plebiscite was eventually to be conducted) 4. Indian army accepted it. Sent its forces. 5. War. 6. India takes up the issue to UN 7. Ceasefire. India held some Kashmir land while Pak held some. 8. UN resolution passed - Pak didn't remove troops hence we didn't conduct plebiscite - later Shimla agreement happened. Post the 1947 Kashmir war, I feel we have done everything according to rules. The issue is bit grey before it. Basically a few issues: 1. Why did Maharaja withheld accession to India or Pak. He had to conduct a plebiscite right? Or for princely states, it wasn't a necessity? Cos logically if plebiscite was conducted, people would have voted Pakistan cos there were more Muslims than Kashmir pundits even at that time. Rulers of Princely States are encouraged to accede their States to either Dominion - India or Pakistan, taking into account factors such as geographical contiguity and the wishes of their people. The Maharaja of Kashmir delays his decision in an effort to remain independent. 2. When Maharaja gave 75% accession to India in a provisional way - was it within rules? Was he allowed to do that at that time? Was India allowed to accept an agreement like that to send out its troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalebi_bhai Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 2. When Maharaja gave 75% accession to India in a provisional way - was it within rules? Was he allowed to do that at that time? Was India allowed to accept an agreement like that to send out its troops? Definitely. I mean, Pakistan themselves breached the rules to begin with their attempt at trying a hostile take-over. Also, Maharaja acceded the whole kingdom of J&K to India, not just 75%. Conducting a plebiscite wasn't mandatory for any of the princely state rulers. It was more about getting widespread approval & consent. I believe a part of the Kashmiri defence forces were in Damascus at the time Kashmir was being attacked. Hari Singh and his PM had to flee to Jammu, from Srinagar. They were desperate to stop the violence. So when VP Menon went to get the instrument of accession signed, Hari Singh said that he'll sign it if Menon signs Article 370. So more or less, both parties got what they wanted. There is yet another side to the tale that, simultaneously, a representative from Pakistan was to meet one of Hari Singh's relative (nephew I think) to sign an agreement for Kashmir to accede to Pakistan. However, the weather was really bad and the plane carrying the rep crashed. This I heard in a talk conducted by Maroof Raza (it's on youtube) Edit no2.: I heard the Maroof Raza video again. It was the other way around. Hari Singh's relative was flying to Lahore to get the IOA signed. His plane did crash. The problem with the whole Kashmir issue begins with Nehru going to the UN without the cabinet's approval. While Sardar Patel and VP Menon were responsible for integrating the ROI, Nehru, being a Kashmiri himself, wanted to take charge of Kashmir's integration. He was also good friends with Sheikh Abdullah, and that made him even more confident. We know how well that worked out. By going to the UN, Nehru got Kashmir labelled as a disputed territory, which it really wasn't. No treachery involved. Just Nehru's obsession with being a world statesman. The likes of S. Patel wanted to militarily kick out the rest of the Pakistani forces and completely rid J& K of militants. The signing of the Shimla agreement 1971 made the UN resolution null and void, as it more or less declares Kashmir to be a bi-lateral issue. But in those 24 years before the signing of the Shimla agreemet, Pakistan was able to gain a foothold in present-AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan. Edit: When Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession, he offered VP Menon a document that would later become article 306-A and then article 370. I'm trying to find out what that document was called exactly. Just wanted to specify that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Post the 1947 Kashmir war, I feel we have done everything according to rules. The issue is bit grey before it. Basically a few issues: 1. Why did Maharaja withheld accession to India or Pak. He had to conduct a plebiscite right? Or for princely states, it wasn't a necessity? Cos logically if plebiscite was conducted, people would have voted Pakistan cos there were more Muslims than Kashmir pundits even at that time. Rulers of Princely States are encouraged to accede their States to either Dominion - India or Pakistan, taking into account factors such as geographical contiguity and the wishes of their people. The Maharaja of Kashmir delays his decision in an effort to remain independent. 2. When Maharaja gave 75% accession to India in a provisional way - was it within rules? Was he allowed to do that at that time? Was India allowed to accept an agreement like that to send out its troops? As per rules: 1. No, Plebiscite was not a necessity 2. Yes, it was his state so the Maharaja was allowed to do so. He acceded 100% Kashmir which includes both J&K and POK. Instrument of Accession was accepted by Lord Mountbatten, the Governor-General of India. Once the IOA was signed by Kashmir, it was Ind's responsibility to drive away the invaders But there would always be arguments such as - Ideally, the Maharaja should have conducted a plebiscite. But the fact is that he probably wanted to remain independent. Since he was not joining either countries, Pak attacked Kashmir. And because Pakistan attacked Kashmir, the events were set in motion It would not be fair to assume that the entire 75% of the Muslim population would have wanted to join Pak. We are forgetting that there are 3 options - a) remain independent, b) join Ind, and c) join Pak. And then there are 25% others, so it is hard to say there would have been a clear majority for any one option. To reflect this you only have to look at Azad Kashmir - at least symbolically it is defined as Free and not Pakistan's. Let's not forget, Ind's first PM was a Kashmiri Pandit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guldozer Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 As per rules: 1. No, Plebiscite was not a necessity 2. Yes, it was his state so the Maharaja was allowed to do so. Instrument of Accession was accepted by Lord Mountbatten, the Governor-General of India. Once the IOA was signed by Kashmir, it was Ind's responsibility to drive away the invaders But there would always be arguments such as - Ideally, the Maharaja should have conducted a plebiscite. But the fact is that he probably wanted to remain independent. Since he was not joining either countries, Pak attacked Kashmir. And because Pakistan attacked Kashmir, the events were set in motion It would not be fair to assume that the entire 75% of the Muslim population would have wanted to join Pak. We are forgetting that there are 3 options - a) remain independent, b) join Ind, and c) join Pak. And then there are 25% others, so it is hard to say there would have been a clear majority for any one option. To reflect this you only have to look at Azad Kashmir - at least symbolically it is defined as Free and not Pakistan's. Let's not forget, Ind's first PM was a Kashmiri Pandit Surely 2 in 3 of the Muslims would have chosen to be with Pakistan, giving Pakistan a majority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Surely 2 in 3 of the Muslims would have chosen to be with Pakistan' date=' giving Pakistan a majority?[/quote'] Thanks for pulling out the stats from the unofficial and secret poll that Pak conducted in 1947 :P Anyways, 2 in 3 Muslim = 66% of 75%, which is 49%. So we can further deduce that the remaining 51% would have voted for Ind ----> No wonder Pak attacked Kashmir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalebi_bhai Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Surely 2 in 3 of the Muslims would have chosen to be with Pakistan' date=' giving Pakistan a majority?[/quote'] You can only assume that. Sheikh Abdullah was very good friends with Nehru and had assured him that the valley would join India. Jinnah, on the other hand, didn't give a hoot about S. Abdullah. Had Pakistan not attacked, maybe the Kashmiri Muslims would've? I think Pakistan attacked because they were worried that Hari Singh wouldn't conduct a plebiscite as he didn't have to. Even if he did, Sheikh Abdullah would've then urged the people in the valley to vote in favor of India. I see no other other logical reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Thanks for pulling out the stats from the unofficial and secret poll that Pak conducted in 1947 :P Anyways, 2 in 3 Muslim = 66% of 75%, which is 49%. So we can further deduce that the remaining 51% would have voted for Ind ----> No wonder Pak attacked Kashmir I wonder the % of Muslims who moved from Independent India to Pakistan. Was it 2/3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandeep Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 move this crap to non-cricket forum please.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guldozer Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Thanks for pulling out the stats from the unofficial and secret poll that Pak conducted in 1947 :P Anyways, 2 in 3 Muslim = 66% of 75%, which is 49%. So we can further deduce that the remaining 51% would have voted for Ind ----> No wonder Pak attacked Kashmir 2 in 3 off 75 is exactly 50 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 move this crap to non-cricket forum please.... There is a thread on Kashmir which I started in the politics section, if the mods want to move this to it :dontknow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 2 in 3 off 75 is exactly 50 lol But 66% of 75% is 49% :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonas10 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Wrong forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guldozer Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I wonder the % of Muslims who moved from Independent India to Pakistan. Was it 2/3? That's different because those in Kashmir wouldn't have to leave their homes. So considering so many from present day India moved to Pakistan it wouldn't be hard for 2 in 3 Muslims to vote to be in Pakistan. Anyway...this isn't the thread for this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Why is the assumption that 2 in 3 Muslim kashmiris would vote to join Pakistan ?. Fyi Khyber-pakhtunkwa never voted to join Pakistan either. Their tribal chiefs agreed to join Pakistan nominally and the region is virtually lawless. Kashmir could've easily voted to stay independent. Either way, the Maharaja stalled effectively because leh and ladakh are hard to connect back then and he used a 3/4 year window as his benchmark for getting his **** together for plebiscite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The logical conclusion is simple. India has 100% right to maintain all of Kashmir as per original events. The Maharaja legally acceeded to India and Pakistan had illegally occupied it. That is the bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't know about Kashmiris. But 2 in 3 Pakistanis are definitely regretting creation of Pakistan. It has so far been a royal mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger80 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 These people are really crazy, they are threatening to nuke India because of cricket :hysterical: -4zy7XxPr4o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 These people are really crazy, they are threatening to nuke India because of cricket :hysterical: As per the secret files of ISI, only Pak and North Korea have reliable nukes, therefore these two are the only ones who are chest thumping about it. Other countries are are waaaay behind and don't have the ability to even show off :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Book_Worm Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 From what I understand the it was up to the ruler to decide what to do 1947 14/15 August: Independence of the British India into India and Pakistan. Kashmir signs Standstill Agreement with Pakistan. Rulers of Princely States are encouraged to accede their States to either Dominion - India or Pakistan, taking into account factors such as geographical contiguity and the wishes of their people. The Maharaja of Kashmir delays his decision in an effort to remain independent. 22 October: Pakistan precipitates the first Indo-Pakistani War (1947–48) a few weeks after independence by launching tribal lashkar (militia) from [Waziristan] in an effort to wrest Kashmir from India. Thousands of Pashtuns from Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, recruited covertly by Pakistani Army, invade Kashmir, along with the Poonch rebels, allegedly incensed by the atrocities against fellow Muslims in Poonch and Jammu. The tribesmen engage in looting and killing along the way. Maharaja of Kashmir asks India for help while the tribals halt in [baramulla] to loot and plunder 26 October: The Maharaja of the State of Jammu and Kashmir signs the Instrument of Accession (IOA), acceding the 75% majority Muslim region to the Indian Union. India accepts the accession, regarding it provisional until such time as the will of the people can be ascertained by a plebiscite, since Kashmir was recognised as a disputed territory. 27 October: The Indian army enters the state to repel the invaders. Sheikh Abdullah endorses the accession as ad-hoc which would be ultimately decided by a plebiscite and is appointed head of the emergency administration. 1947/1948: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947: Pakistan disputes that the accession is illegal and the first war over Kashmir breaks out. UN Resolution Part A A - RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER 1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours: (a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State LINK - Kashmir conflict timeline Dominion of Pakistan In Junagarh, from what I recall, the ruler wanted to join Pak but Ind asked Junagarh to conduct plebiscite where 99% voted to join Ind :isalute: .... While, there are reports that Pak forced Chitral to join Pak Hi Thanks for all the info and details. Do have knowledge about hyderabad. The ruler was muslim right. One pakistani told me that the ruler wanted to join Pak but indian govt did not allow or forced or something like that. I did tell him that Hyderabad is in south and geographically impossibe to be a part of pakistan. he argued that according to the terms and conditions the ruler had the right to decide. Coming back to kashmir i would blame the maharaja. He should have been decisive and opted to remain independent. Would have saved us a lot of headache. Also would it be correct to assume that the present day kashmir muslims were hindus/pandits before? I read up on allama iqbal on wiki seems like his grandparents were kashmiri pandits!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalia_Test Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Hi Thanks for all the info and details. Do have knowledge about hyderabad. The ruler was muslim right. One pakistani told me that the ruler wanted to join Pak but indian govt did not allow or forced or something like that. I did tell him that Hyderabad is in south and geographically impossibe to be a part of pakistan. he argued that according to the terms and conditions the ruler had the right to decide. Coming back to kashmir i would blame the maharaja. He should have been decisive and opted to remain independent. Would have saved us a lot of headache. Also would it be correct to assume that the present day kashmir muslims were hindus/pandits before? I read up on allama iqbal on wiki seems like his grandparents were kashmiri pandits!! That is cr@p...The Nizam wanted to be independent. He never wanted to join Pakistan. It has to be remembered that Hyderabad had its own currency, airline, telecommunication, army,etc and was a huge and prosperous area with many districts of current Maharashtra and Karnataka part of it. The ruler was a muslim and he was the richest man in the world at that time. However, the state of Hyderabad was >83 or 84% hindu. There was a one year standstill agreement between Nizam and Union of India but it was very risky to have a powerful independent "dominion" inside the central heart of India so Union of India ( under leadership of Sardar Patel ) initiated police action ( called Operation Polo ) where Hyderabad state was surrounded on all sides by Indian army and Nizam conceded defeat. He appealed to UN and British Parliament also but nothing came out of it. Pak tried to poke its finger by appealing to UN but no one cared. I can provide more details. There were quite a few issues with how Union of India acted ( you might remember that TRS MP - daughter of CM of Telangana recently even made a controversial statement that Telangana was forced into India and it is partly true ) but the only link to Pak is that many Hyderabadis migrated to Karachi after Hyderabad became part of India and became "mohajirs". There are lot of muslim families in Hyderabad who have relatives in Karachi,etc and marriages between them is also very common - I think Sania Mirza is a relatively famous case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts