Search results

A misreading of the history. The subsidiary principality of Jammu and Kashmir was a successor of the domain of the Raja of Jammu, a tribute-paying feudatory of the Maharaja of the Punjab, at Lahore, and one of the great officers of state. The first Raja of the current line, Gulab Singh, came to...

I cannot disagree more. That is a disagreement with more than one element of your formulation.

It is a little dismaying to see more than one member confusing Gilgit with Baltistan, both completely distinct social, cultural, religious and political zones.

This is a huge misunderstanding of the situation. The movement towards democracy was led by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah and his political organisation, the Muslim Conference, renamed the National Conference to signify its essentially secular outlook. It published its vision of economic, social...

One point that I have never made and never will given the present intellectual climate is that India consists of nine river civilisation; however, you are right in saying that the supreme position was always that of the Ganga. The nine are: The Brahmaputra; The Mahanadi; The Godavari; The...

No, no, not that. It goes back further, into the 19th and the 18th centuries.

True, but only if the so-called 'revolutionary government' was the sole authority. It was not; it governed only a token borderland, and had claims to another part of the former state controlled that, as you have so eloquently explained, did not recognise its authority.

The glaring flaw in this whole exercise is that the superior claims of the Azad Kashmir, ruling over a sliver of territory, over the claims of the bulk of the Muslim Conference, known as the National Conference , that had made its point by repelling aggression and by receiving the mandate of the...

I have to point out that they were not securing the region but attacking and conquering the territory of Baltistan.

Reasonably argued, and I would agree without quibbling, except for the unfortunate fact that in the Vale, the majority part of the National Conference had already received the endorsement of the Maharaja. Further, its relations with its associated and absorptive Dominion was marked at all times...

Again, two different situations arise: one, if the Maharaja's rule was legitimate, another if it was not. That has been explained in an earlier message.

Good Heavens, why on earth should I? Given an opportunity to explain the untenable position to someone with an insight into jurisprudence and constitutionalism, I will do my best to grind the point home.

Precisement, monsieur.

Any addition to this is superfluous. Further that the 1974 Constitution is a piece of constitutional engineering by hindsight, as fallible as our own idiots declaring Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution inoperative, is self-evident.

Considering that the successor government was not clearly defined nor recognised except by one of the interested parties, how can this be anything but a constitutional piety?

How can a part become representative of the whole, when the other parts of that whole had their own independent ideas of how matters should be settled? How did that Azad government and the rump Muslim Conference, the majority of whose members were now the National Conference, decide that all...

This is addressed to your post, and there will be a separate post for others as appropriate. We cannot, if the editorial 'we' is permitted, have our cake and eat it too. Pakistan either recognises that the Maharaja's rule was legitimate or it does not. The consequences are simple - starkly...

V. P. Singh was a wrecker; nothing more to be said about the creepy little creature.

Amartya Lahiri? Did you mean my much disliked batchmate from Presidency, Ashok Lahiri?

A fascinating thread, and a wonderful opportunity to discuss it in civilised company without fanatics jumping in. I already answered, in a flippant kind of mood brought on by severe bodily pain, to @Saiyan0321, who had posted on PDF. Over here, there are very interesting points raised by...