Azad Kashmir claim on Gilgit Baltistan

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
What if i told you the current generations dont see it as such and some claim that their ancestors played part in the attack on leh
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.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Ultimately Kashmir by any measure should have gone to Pakistan. Geographically, historicaly and demographically. In 1947 just one unpaved road connected India with Kashmir. Everything about the state flowed into and out of Pakistan.
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 respectively had no bearing on the princely states. This is a point that is repeatedly obscured and glossed over. It was in the first instance for the Maharaja to decide, and certainly, those objecting to that decision would have, first, the right to contest that decision constitutionally, within that State, and thereafter to seek redressal of their grievances through recourse to arms, entirely on their own strength or with the assistance of others.

But that is not what happened.

One party to a dispute that was never articulated ab initio pre-empted the situation and took to arms (I am clear that there were independent armed uprisings both in Sudanauti and in Gilgit, and am not referring to those, but to the injection of external armed forces into the situation). It is not open to that party to plead constitutionalism under any fig-leaf, thereafter.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Thanks to the cheating and duplicity of that cuckold Lord Mountabatten and guile of Nehru that one road was given to India so that she could make a grab for Kashmir. I am sure you have heard of the Gurdaspur and Ferozepure districts being given to India under the most dubious grounds. The fact is Pakistan was cheated by Mountbatten who proved to be nothing but a low down merchant of deciet.
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.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
I can also add the critical failure by Muslim leadership including Jinnah to address this issue given the obvious Mountbaten/Nehru friendship which was to prove to be so deadly. This is a subject that deserves another thread whiuch I will open some time. But we can see how India used naked military force top invade, annex the State of Hydrabad. This is what Pakistan should have done with Kashmir. But alas.

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?
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
And I always find it amusing that Indian's justify the invasion of Hydrabad State because [> please fill this up with excuses <] but cry on about Pakistan's infamy with regards to Kashmir.
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 positions. But that, as the good Colonel in Irma La Douce declares, is another story.

India's infamous behaviour in Hyderabad does not in any way, in the slightest degree, ameliorate Pakistan's infamous behaviour in Kashmir.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
By the way the true scale of the cheating and duplicity by Mountbatten who was supposed to be impartial arbiter on behalf of HM government will come out over time as archives are opened up. The British state has intentionally suppressed this aspect in order to hide it's role in creating the mess in South Asia. And Mountbatten is the culprit here.
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 major players themselves. While we wait for the unfolding of the unseen narrative, this is also worth a thought.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
owever and this is where my anger reaches boiling point with Muslim League leadership. Life is not always fair. Leadership is always about contesting, reshaping events that maybe working against you. Jinnah [he can be partly excused as he was ill] but Liaqat het 100% blame. He failed to address the clear conspiracy and there is no other way to put it that was hatched by Mountbatten in close alliance with Nehru to cheat Pakistan of Kashmir.

This failure or negligence by ML leadership to handle Kashmir the way Patel handled Hydrabad and other princely states that India gobbled up was known up close by Akbar Khan and would fester away leading him to join the the Rawalpindi Conspiracy.
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 for someone from the other side, even given a willingness to listen to the Pakistani point of view, and to sympathise with her current problems of national identity.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Anyhow the animosity was promised the moment the independence Act 1947 was brought forth.
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 reasons or bad, that predicated violence, but it is equally true that the demand for partition was fraught with the built-in prospect of violence. Nobody could have predicted the scale; but the occurrence should have come as no surprise.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
K/J etc should have used the uprising or democratization process to thoroughly remove the maharajas powers, or at least have stated transition to democracy and democratric rule thereby indicating that the Maharaja would no longer hold any power.
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 themselves (presumably you mean the Muslim Conference in Muzaffarabad).

Incidentally, one of the conditions of Nehru in accepting accession to India, that was a condition that the most widely accepted democratic leader, Sheikh Abdullah, should be formally installed as the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir concurrently with the accession. So the Maharaja, the Government of India, and the democratic forces of Jammu and Kashmir were all on the same page, and acted in conjunction.

The Maharaja, to take the theme further, handed over three of his rights to the Government of India; the remainder, he handed over to a Constituent Assembly brought together, not by him, not by the Government of India, but by the National Conference. In effect, he devolved all his powers through that process, and into what would later become the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

You don't get much more democratic than that.

If you read @Saiyan0321 on the politics and constitutional processes going on in Pakistan and in Azad Kashmir and in G-B, you will find the gap.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Still the Maharaja handed over K/J to India under durress, hereby I mean after fleeing the seat of power (I assume this part). After signing and then being forced to abdicate I think the Maharajas signing of the treaty has become obsolete... IMO.
With the greatest kindness, I suggest that you delve into the facts further.
  1. 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.
  2. He was very much in Srinagar, and thereafter, in his alternate capital, Jammu, when he signed.
  3. He did not abdicate. In fact, he was the head of state as the Raj Pramukh, with Sheikh Abdullah as his Prime Minister, for months more. He abdicated in favour of his own son after constituting a Constituent Assembly.
It is difficult to understand your conclusion that the Maharaja's signing of the accession agreement (not a treaty) was obsolete.
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,676
Reactions
37 19,813
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
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 themselves (presumably you mean the Muslim Conference in Muzaffarabad).

Incidentally, one of the conditions of Nehru in accepting accession to India, that was a condition that the most widely accepted democratic leader, Sheikh Abdullah, should be formally installed as the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir concurrently with the accession. So the Maharaja, the Government of India, and the democratic forces of Jammu and Kashmir were all on the same page, and acted in conjunction.

The Maharaja, to take the theme further, handed over three of his rights to the Government of India; the remainder, he handed over to a Constituent Assembly brought together, not by him, not by the Government of India, but by the National Conference. In effect, he devolved all his powers through that process, and into what would later become the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

You don't get much more democratic than that.

If you read @Saiyan0321 on the politics and constitutional processes going on in Pakistan and in Azad Kashmir and in G-B, you will find the gap.

Yes I recall that is also mentioned in the documentary (perhaps it's a documentary made by India, still timelines and events match with your explanation).

But what I was hinting towards was actually ending the Maharajas powers, so he couldn't hand over 3 of his powers to India.

I am a bit confused on where the "Capital" was where the Maharaja had his seat of power. I only remember that he had to leave for Jammu region or so to sign the treaty with India.

As I see it mistakes were made, and that led to the Maharaja jumping into the arms of India.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
How many Maharajas did India have when K/J Maharaja signed the treaty, if zero, then isn't it safe to say the signing of the treaty was obsolete from the get go as the Maharaja would effectively not be in power anymore even after joining India.
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

the signing of the treaty was obsolete from the get go as the Maharaja would effectively not be in power anymore even after joining India.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
I do not believe looking back and trying to solve the issue from the past is going to benefit K/J, I think it's more important to allow the current population to make a referendum. But I do not believe India would allow that.

Forgive me for simplifying things I did watch a documentary and everything you've said was also mentioned in the documentary.
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 unless I had access to a set of books, as a narrative without references and citations would merely be a political tract; the persons pledged failed to fulfill their pledges, and that account never got written.

Please be sure that there is very little in the documentary that will contradict what I am saying, if it has been made with any skill at all.

That sounded terribly arrogant; it was not my intention, and I apologise for that.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Joe, in the end this whole matter is kind of splitting hairs I feel....we are just going to go in circles and get dizzy I feel...since there is a significant chasm in political divide too that has now set into firm concrete into the very ethos of these nations I feel.
I am merely narrating the case, not seeking to impose a solution.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
The worst poignant divides happen in a (former) family...it is not without reason I refer at times to the 100 years war and US civil war when referencing the rawness of this south asian reality in many aspects (which as bad as it has been and still is.... all things considered could likely have turned out way way worse if we are to extrapolate similar raw conflicts of history both far and near to our population scales...which we often forget)

Actions happen and set consequences on ground, then you often backwork a legal justification with whatever filters you need apply...especially with a time duration and weighty narrative set in.

How honestly you challenge all that as a country (i.e introspection on yourself as well), is correlated to how robust and credible you are as one. Most countries do it piecemeal, very selectively or not at all.
Nothing to say to all this.

Only, when you gentlemen make references to these aspects of the situation, do bear in mind that I am a descendant of parents who were from Dhaka and Barishal respectively, that now lie in Bangladesh. If I have chosen to put those wounds behind me, and speak in favour of liberal Pakistani opinion, that does not entitle anyone to airbrush those aspects away.

That is said more in sadness than in anger.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Speaking of which, we also recognised+hosted BD govt in exile early...as representative of their whole in a very unclear position at the time as to what defined concrete course we were going to take with that. Many matters were of completely different scale and of a proven established nature of course...but some of this stuff cuts all ways to some degree in the end.
Please check.

Our demand, right to the end, was that Pakistan should take back the 10 million refugees that had taken refuge in India. It is not what you have stated above.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
So Pakistan doing so (in pure application/extension of the argument) is not totally unwarranted...given they (and many over course of history) justify a part can represent a whole and there was intervention needed etc claimed atrocities being done by the Dogras and other mobs in the pangs of partition all around.
I am very happy to acknowledge your strikingly different point of view, and to accept that you are entitled to it, with no rancour whatsoever. But it is not my view.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
It is simply their version of events now. After all what is the total absolute neutral reference point to use here anyway?....everyone is involved in it and has downstream reality to shore up from it...since we are living it. We can make our best arguments possible with the accounts and analysis we have, but not many opinions change across such chasm in the end on such fundamentally "set in" things.
When I think of that situation, and of today's, in my own country, it is completely dominated by my belief in the rule of law; in other words, in constitutionalism.

That holds true of other, parallel situations, also. I am more than willing to explain those, basing my arguments on the same tenets.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
After all esp with 20/20 hindsight regd. East Pakistan...we should have gone all the way with the root problem (in the western wing) at that window of time. But we were timid...and also needlessly arrogant to the Bangladeshis in how we didn't have a proper tribunal at the end either. Allies and Soviets would have been happy to confine the 3rd reich and imperial japan to borders they started out with, replete with their cabals intact?...after all that they did?...and with no investigation + prosecution of Axis forces captured outside where they perpetrated such things (Poland, USSR and China notably...but also the closer parallel of inside Germany too starting out). I say this knowing just how flawed and limited Nuremberg itself was in the end.
Sorry, but that was not very clear. At best, a non-sequitur. It was for the Bangladeshis to set up a tribunal, and it was for them to agree or to disagree with the provisions of the Simla Agreement, the terms of which were shared in scrupulous detail with them before the agreement was signed.

Please remember that the Bangladesh authorities were more than happy to give their consent for cogent reasons, and that had nothing to do with needless arrogance.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
So to break the impass you either need a 100 year war or something less drastic like referandum.
A six-month war would be sufficient.

The fact is, there is no longer any real possibility of one side finding a military solution, or of the other seeking one. If war were to happen, there is not much that will go well for the first; every year distances the two sides even more.

A referendum is not possible, for reasons that I can explain in detail if you wish.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom