Search results

Trust me, it had got to a point where both Kashmiri Pandits (a tiny minority of Hindus in the Vale, but politically very vocal and assertive) and Kashmiri Muslims (among whom I have a great many friends) had asked me to write a definitive account of those days and what came before. I refused...

562. Around 17 opted for Pakistan, or were compelled to opt for Pakistan (in one case). Even if zero, which was emphatically not the case, the rest of your conclusion is difficult to understand. Please do elucidate what you imply by saying that

With the greatest kindness, I suggest that you delve into the facts further. The duress that led to the accession to India was applied not by India but by Pakistan. If you wish, I can walk you through the whole narrative. He was very much in Srinagar, and thereafter, in his alternate capital...

K/J, the term that you have used, had no influence except in the very thin sliver of territory that today constitutes Azad Kashmir. So it is difficult to understand how they should have imposed democratic rule on other parts that were already well along the path, further along it than they...

It might seem that animosity was promised rather later, once the rioting started. Or even later, once the matter progressed from civil strife to military conflict. The Indian perspective on that is quite clear. There was nothing in the Act, forced on the situation by the Muslim League, for good...

Leaving aside the elided portion, I have nothing to say about this, which is entirely an internal matter for Pakistan and Pakistanis. Considering that her whole position has always, in each and every case, been dependent on clandestine action and surprise attacks, it is merely an academic matter...

Let us not anticipate these juicy details. Not just yet. It is, of course, a commonplace that the cheating and the duplicity that Pakistan repeatedly resorted to - you will forgive my plain speaking; no offence is intended - is on record, and is amply acknowledged by Pakistani principals and...

India may; I do not. I am responsible here only for my own arguments for and against, and I am also aware of the fact that these cannot be connected, except to make a counter-balancing cases. If we were to treat each separately, we will find that there is a lot of daylight between the two...

LOL. Slightly misplaced; Pakistan did so, as far as she thought she could get away with it. Lamenting the weakness of the moment in which clandestine force was used, first, and failed, and wishing that overt means had been used instead is, perhaps, a slightly devious justification, is it not?

I believe that the personalities of the individuals concerned had less influence than is necessary to bring up. If we were to do so, I need to point out that the duplicity of the subsequent redressal of grievances does not do credit to the other personalities, on the other side.

That may be a practical, village patwari view of the situation, but constitutionally, I beg to submit, there were clear definitions of the role of the sovereign rulers of these states. The division of territory between Muslim-majority and Hindu-majority regions as Pakistan and India...

I would agree; that was after the conquest of Skardu (or rather, in terms of time-line, parallel to the siege of Skardu), and counts for nothing but the submission of a conquered people to the demands of the conquerors, and post-facto glorification of their enforced role.

The difference being that the Azad Kashmir Government had claims to a revolutionary status, whereas the Maharaja was recognised by the constitutional authority that had itself created the Dominion of Pakistan. So while the Azad Kashmir Government making a claim is understandable, the Government...

I see this as two equal parties fighting on the same grounds for recognition, with the added refinements that one party was a break-away faction of the other, and that the other party had the support of the still-existent and still-ruling former constitutional authority. Let us not forget that...

Oh, no argument with the essence of those doctrines. However, if the Soviet Government had claimed jurisdiction over Poland and Finland in 1919, that would have rung hollow; that is also precisely the reason why the PRC claims to Tibet/Xijang and East Turkestan/Xinjiang ring hollow, and why also...

That is precisely the point. It was not possible to argue so speciously that the Azad Kashmir government was the sole representative of the people. The headache is that of Pakistan. If a state seeks to claim at one and the same time legitimacy in terms of constitutional provisions made by a...

These were independent states, on the face of it; that wholly ignores the inconvenient fact that this independence did not come about in a vacuum. The princes had been involved in discussions on the devolution of power, and had voluntarily come together under the leadership of the Aga Khan, that...

Umm, just curiosity: isn't that more or less self-certification as being a legal and valid constitutional entity? Recognition by the Government of Pakistan, a rather deeply interested party, however deep and sincere, really doesn't quite cut it, does it?

That is very fine, but amounts to saying that we are doing so and so in 2020 because in 1947, we thought of 2020, and acted such and such.

There remains, of course, that the people of Kashmir did not revolt; the people of Sudanauti and the people of Gilgit did. No one else. No one in Jammu, no one in Baltistan, and no one in Ladakh. Minor matter of semantics, of course.