Precambrian Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I am happily enjoying trolling my Pakistani subordinates at office. :cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I am happily enjoying trolling my Pakistani subordinates at office. :cantstop: Be careful :winky: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 Would love to know from Sane Pakistan people when they are not defending themselves in front of Indians. Don't you feel embarrassed with where the country has gone and is headed. It is increasingly worrying tome that an alternate reality just to make one sleep at night. The level of denial is shocking among all sections of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guldozer Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Would love to know from Sane Pakistan people when they are not defending themselves in front of Indians. Don't you feel embarrassed with where the country has gone and is headed. It is increasingly worrying tome that an alternate reality just to make one sleep at night. The level of denial is shocking among all sections of society. I would feel embarrassed if the state is actually as bad as portrayed. Yes there are issues but they are blown out of proportion by the media. And I repeat, I'm not denying that there are issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 I would feel embarrassed if the state is actually as bad as portrayed. Yes there are issues but they are blown out of proportion by the media. And I repeat, I'm not denying that there are issues. I consider you as one of those sane people and believe me I follow lot of your news. Except maybe Najam Sethi who is considered a traitor,Nadeem Paracha and that lady military expert, Hassan Nissar and few others, the level of denial is shocking. I am not just talking in context of India. Even the understanding of history or contemporary events,is just so out of sync, I really fear that country is getting warped in its own versions of reality. Everytime reality hits,like Peshawar attacks,we saw another alternate reality being created just to comfort the blow. Somebody like Imran Khan, who was my childhood hero, educated from Oxford talking muck like Jahil and building conspiracies as he goes along is quite shocking There is fundamental problem.I agree it is not a failed state. But seeds are being sown for its failure. For its sake,I hope I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngindia Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 . 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? There were two parts- British india under direct rule of the british crown and princely states under british paramountcy or protectorate. The rules of princely states had to accede to Pakistan or india keeping in mind the population profile, geographical contiguity etc. BY the Vienna convention which defines international diplomacy , an instrument of accession is a legal way to accede to a new state India is the successor state to british India. Junagadh was pure trouble making by Pakistan since the state had no rhyme(hindu majority) or reason(lack of land contiguity) to join Pakistan The ruler of junagadh was a weak eccentric guy whom pakistan intimidated with the help of bhutto's father shah Nawaz Bhutto ,the dewan . India first appealed to Pakistan to reject the accession..when Pakistan accepted it, india rejected it as "obtained under duress". Pakistan similarly copied india's charge on Kashmir when the maharaja acceded to india when the tribals invaded. also there was a blockade around junagadh by land and sea. now junagadh was under severe pressure as the embargo as starting to bite and population started rebelling. Bhutto appealed to Jinnah for help but Pakistan had limited resources and at that time many people didn't know the tribal invasion was planned. once the situation was hopeless, Bhutto fled and later a plebiscite was held. Cos logically if plebiscite was conducted, people would have voted Pakistan cos there were more Muslims than Kashmir pundits even at that time. Communalism is one ideology in the public domain and not everyone's ideology. sometimes communalism comes to the forefront in po;ular imagination and sometimes it does not. However the politics in the muslim world is very different and heavily defined by religion The political traditions of the Islamic world is based on communalism and hence Islamism is always acceptable among sections of muslims.infact it is at its peak today unfortunately. for islamists, Pakistan would be the choice.but its about what was important to Kashmir at that time. shias generally are not exactly enamoured of a sunni dominated state and shia-sunni hostility can turn vicious as well. the maharaja's chief opponent at that time was sheikh Abdullah,national conference, who had no love for Pakistan and was no islamist.he was the popular guy at the time. Nehru's decisions was done with the help of Abdullah. 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? Through letters and word of mouth,mountbatten or Nehru had said the wishes of the people would be ascertained once order was restored. but legally Kashmir had acceded to india by international law.it was never conditional legally. The UN resolutions also come under chapter 6,which comes under " recommendations for solving a dispute" and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngindia Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 7. Ceasefire. India held some Kashmir land while Pak held some. the prized possession is the valley. the parts of Kashmir under Pakistan mostly speak Punjabi dialects and are prone to Pakistan influence. Pakistan is Punjab dominated. hence there is little use trying to occupy a hostile anti india populace. the kashmiris of the valley are different in language and culture. Also the mountainous areas around that region makes military offensives tedious and costly. we took kargil and poonch in the final stages of the war and pragmatically took a ceasefire. the areas under Pakistan were seized by the raiders in the intial invasion and also an engineered revolt in the northern areas by the gilgit scouts, due to the partisan role of a british soldier, led to the loss of northern areas. The state Kashmir forces vacated a few towns like bhimber and skardu but also captured other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts