Azad Kashmir claim on Gilgit Baltistan

[Joe Shearer]

West Pakistan was not some weak entity that could be so easily beaten down. infact during the conflict the war machinery was entirely spent on the western theater and India was not marching all over West Pakistan nor could it have continued the conflict indefinitely to bring west Pakistan down especially considering that what you desire would have required the conflict to go for months on end perhaps years and then occupy the region to make sure that all the military capability is completely removed. Panzerkiel talked about military capability as the hidden war objective of all wars and whether Pakistan and India especially India had the capability to even cordinate such a massive operation.

The answer is 'Yes', but there is no point in dragging that out and offending people, so let it stay as you have stated.

 

[Saithan]

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

That is quite a lot of Maharajas, but were they all rulers of their own lands like the Maharaja of K/J ?

Or were they Maharaja in name only ?

Because what I was implying or trying to say was if the intent of India was to remove the Maharaja as the ruler. Then surely the Maharaja of K/J would have known this, yet he still signed a treaty with India.

I would say this treaty is also what complicated things further. Because as I understand it K/J becomes member of a "United States of India".

I understand pulling Abdullah out of prison or whatever and making him PM, but that was in an attempt to gain control over the whole area under the India umbrella.

What's the way forward from here ? I am not sure solving it from the past/beginning is going to work.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Holding trials? really? Under what legal authority? you could have brought them to ICJ or demanded a trial by the UN but as long as they were POWs, India could not legally hold anything and i keep hearing that with 90k prisoners we should have asked them to do everything from giving up kashmir to disbanding the army itself.
You guys keep blaming Indira for this and that but frankly i dont see how she could have done it any differently save for forcing Pakistan to accept the LOC as IB and ending the conflict once and for all.

Precisely.

The point of decision was when India decided to take the 65,000 military personnel and 28,000 civilians into custody. That completely closed the possibility of trials for war crimes.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If India could have defeated us on the west they would have but there was no way India would have won. We must keep in mind the Pakistan military strategy was "defence of Pakistan lay in west" and accordingly only limited military resources were placed in Bangla. If you look at the forces deployed we had two skeleton divisions which had left most of their heavy gear behind. The real fist was kept in Pakistan on the western front. And thus we saw negligible success by India Army on the western front.

That is a different matter, and if you - or somebody else - were to open a separate thread, we could discuss this in detail.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is a joke in our military history books that for the better part of the century, the army was not even aware of the navy's existence.

"As far as GHQ was concerned, it was aware that there was such a service (the Navy) and that it operated somewhere in the region of Karachi."

Lt. Gen. Gul Hassan, Memoirs.​

 

[Joe Shearer]

I would ask you to take up the matter with Panzerkiel. He has given quite a different appraisal of the situation if India decided to push after defeating 1 army given concept of getting an army split into 2 to defeat 1 at a time. He spoke to me and Joe on it couple of times even, what he would have done if he was in India's shoes....purely matter of fact in the way he likes to do...even telling us how long it would have taken India to move its eastern theatre forces to be deployed in the west to bring it to bear there.

LOL.

I was saving this up for a detailed discussion! Damn!!

 

[Joe Shearer]

hmmm i havent seen those posts. I blame @Joe Shearer on this. He kept asking him to work with him on 1971 but joe was missing in action.

I was pissed off by then by the 101 Dalmatians: the Pan-Islamic Pakistan, PakistanForever bunch.

 

[Joe Shearer]

That is quite a lot of Maharajas, but were they all rulers of their own lands like the Maharaja of K/J ?

Or were they Maharaja in name only ?

Because what I was implying or trying to say was if the intent of India was to remove the Maharaja as the ruler. Then surely the Maharaja of K/J would have known this, yet he still signed a treaty with India.

I would say this treaty is also what complicated things further. Because as I understand it K/J becomes member of a "United States of India".

Here goes:

1. Identical. States comparable to J&K were Mysore, Baroda and Hyderabad. Smaller states were just as powerful, internally; there was no constitutional difference.
2. It was never the intention of India to remove any individual prince as ruler. However, each prince was brought into the Union of India through terms and conditions negotiated painstakingly one at a time. The last to give in, due to military intervention, was Hyderabad. A useful guide to the process is "The Transfer of Power in India", by V. P. Menon.
3. The Maharaja only handed over Defence, Foreign Relations and Communications to India. The Indian Army intervened in exercise of the first devolved power, defence.
4. The Maharaja also safeguarded the rest of his rights and powers by appointing a Constituent Assembly to draw up a Constitution for his State, separate from the Constitution being drawn up for India.
5. All acceded states did, in fact, become part of the Union of India, constituted of the original five provinces and these 562 - 17 princely states. The states were brought into a common constitutional provincial pattern gradually, by around 1956. One hold-out was Sikkim, a protectorate, that continued to be autonomous until decades later.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I understand pulling Abdullah out of prison or whatever and making him PM, but that was in an attempt to gain control over the whole area under the India umbrella.

LOL.

Abdullah had been leading the democratic movement from the 1930s; there was no one comparable. The breakaway Muslim Conference in Muzaffarabad had nothing democratic about it, and was a tribal group, that did not like the secularism of the Sheikh. He was not a puppet.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What's the way forward from here ? I am not sure solving it from the past/beginning is going to work.

I don't have a clue.

Nobody has a clue.

 

[Saithan]

I was pissed off by then by the 101 Dalmatians: the Pan-Islamic Pakistan, PakistanForever bunch.

Sorry to hear that. We have our own issues surrounding disputes.

Considering the sad events that led to K/J current situation. The displacement of so many who ended up living in Jammu region, forgotten.

What can be done, if a referendum isn't a solution ? How can K/J heal their wounds ?

I mean look at Karabakh 27 years displacement 450k+ Azerbajcanis and remaining Armenians numbers less than 150k, and most of them came from Armenia forced by their own governemnt. Currently 90k of them fled back to Armenia where they came from. A referendum would require displaced ppl to come back and vote. And we all know the outcome of that voting process.

Same goes for Syria. 4 mio in Turkey, 3+ mio in Idlib alone, 1 mio Jordan (maybe more) and ½ mio in Egypt. 1-2 mio in EU ?

I know some western powers and affiliated groups/allies may have engineered such things like refugee crises to destabilize neighbouring countries, but these ppl need to go back and mend wounds of the past.

I think a herculean task is ahead of us to invest billions to help ppl move back and rebuild and make amends, preach peace and love and such, and generally just keep the people happy and help them stand on their feet. (work, production etc.). a Future.

 

[Nilgiri]

I am merely narrating the case, not seeking to impose a solution.

It was my misunderstanding. It is much clearer to me now the manner you approach this thread, which I have learned much from reading (earlier I just skimmed through and missed a bunch) and am in your debt again on this topic.

I will hopefully have to revisit the thread again (hit all the likes I missed too) and properly make some notes for myself for further independent study.

I just forgot where I am, certain inertias of earlier gathering will take a while to fully dissipate.

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.

Yes my friend. I cannot forget some of your earlier conversations regarding this.

I can never feel what you do...as it hits me in different way to you living and growing up well downstream....in areas removed from the rawness (away from subcontinent itself) and making good friend and acquaintance with Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in those settings without too many clouds of fear and animosity....and it strikes me (and I am sure it does them) in quieter moments what could have been....and maybe it is so in an alternate reality somewhere....with no brother wars...

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.

Yes this was a mistake by me. 3 days into the war or so was when we recognised BD...not when an assortment of them declared such over their radio network (this is theire independence day I believe)

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.

It is not my view (on this specific matter). Mine is very close to yours...there was a clear standstill agreement that was broken and you have explained it all here much better than I ever could with appropriate detail and logic.

What I was saying is the filtering of the situation to make sense is not unwarranted given how it happened all through human history...of all different scales and distance of time (my lip was not in good shape after heavy biting from visiting the Japanese war museum in Tokyo)

I have honestly not come across one Pakistani so far (willing to talk about this subject) that accepts this course of events you give (as close to the reality as they may be) ...but then again I am not well read on their best historians literature on it either. Maybe you can point me to one that is somewhat like ours?

Each time I bring it up with them, the narrative of (one-sided) heavy atrocities needing intervention pops out...and a full issue-ownership is given to the muzaffarbad rebel-tribals as the only true representatives of the matter (as the other side becomes too inconvenient for reasons you state).

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.

Couldn't say it better myself. But the issue I am getting at is the very genesis of the version of events to base that rule of law and overall approach upon.

If there is no common accepted understanding of it (of the parties involves), to the outsider it comes across just like the movie Rashomon.

We then all simply have to recount the events as we know and understand them, and the interested parties then have to reflect upon our relative credibility and/or seek out the underlying sources and material for themselves.

This is why I went astray here with the 1971 stuff as there is a whole lot of things that happened in the interim that reduce the credibility of one party involved using the underlying argument they themselves assert (and others seem to take for granted or for sake of some argument).

Like the fact that 77% or whatever the muslim population was in united J&K being some be all end all for the place to go to Pakistan and that Pakistan was simply "impatient". It is patently false imo (even going past the directly pertinent stuff you have explained)...and shown to be ever more so now....given a whole wing of Pakistan (formed in the same majoritarianism) would never have separated away in the end.

The impulses of might=right (with no democratic consultation of the people involved or even their own people) on the basic assumption that governed both actions are strikingly similar too...especially given the periods of unchallenged military rule

This leaves a huge toxic remnant to this day on basic trust and colours a huge deal of Pakistans own internal situation and repressed/activated political + resistance movements and all the official narrative governing that much more intensely than I feel is the case on our end.

As far as I am concerned there was absolutely no good reason for Pakistan to send in forces (putting aside the sham of standstill they signed)....using their own later argument of there needing to be a democratic solution. What exactly have they to show credibly on this basic matter?

If they did, they would have never invaded J&K and instead let it to come to them by democratic means (and be content if it didn't)... they would not have a series of coups and constitutional crisis (undermining constitution and democracy each time)....they would not have a wing that broke away...especially in the unnecessary bloody way it did (again thanks to military rule and total overreach on response).....and most of all they would have a much better relationship with India.

The paranoia and other illogical complexes rode thick with powerful there at crucial formative time of the region....and now we are stuck with the downstream stasis at great detriment to 100's of millions of people given resource and attention diversion to it. That is my conclusion.

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.

Yes I explained as much to many Bangladeshis....but a large number of them feel done in by it (and I give them benefit of doubt since they know lot more people involved at the time)...and many give the India bogeyman element too (well at PDF anyway).

Either issues they have with BAL and SMR not being totally (esp morally) representative of the ground reality at the time....and the 195 PA officers they say were heavily involved in the planning of the clampdown and atrocities (which were apparently released w.r.t Simla with the promise a tribunal would be set up by Pakistan under the Bhutto admin to look into the war crimes etc...but which never happened given Hamoodur findings itself was never released to extent needed for this).

I am unsure of how much you know about this...I have not read much into it, I base mostly on what I have heard from BD friends.

It is going off topic anyway...maybe a later thread/juncture will be more appropriate for this.

I am not proof reading any of this post, there could be mistakes/errors again.

 

[Kaptaan]

65,000 military personnel and 28,000 civilians into custody.

Thanks for the more realistic figures ~ regular PA was about 55k. The total size of PA in Bangla was barely 2 full divisions. In fact it was ad-hoc mixture of forces cannibalized from their parent units in Pakistan. There was precious little heavy equipmemt. Military, para-military and mostly infantry made the backbone of the PA force. There was just skeleton PAF presence.

By way of comparison NATO had over 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan yet failed to hold the ground and they did not have a outside army - like say Russian attack them. If you look at the logistics of supply PA it was a nightmare with over 3,000 miles of sea sailing along Indian mainland.

 

[Nilgiri]

The total size of PA in Bangla was barely 2 full divisions.

65k troops is not 2 full divisions. It would be about 4 full divisions or maybe 3 full divisions with a lot of independent brigades.

The PA divisions on ground (at varying strength, some adhoc) were:

9th
14th
16th
36th (this was just 93rd brigade though it seems)
39th

There was an independent brigade (97th) at CTG too.

 

[Saithan]

Like the fact that 77% or whatever the muslim population was in united J&K being some be all end all for the place to go to Pakistan and that Pakistan was simply "impatient". It is patently false imo (even going past the directly pertinent stuff you have explained)...and shown to be ever more so now....given a whole wing of Pakistan (formed in the same majoritarianism) would never have separated away in the end.

This is also what I'm trying to say, but it could have joined Pakistan. anyway I think the problem of Pakistan is and will always be connected to the rivers.

https://jammukashmir.pscnotes.com/geography-jk/rivers-of-jammu-and-kashmir/

I do not think the problem of K/J can be solved unless Pakistan has full control over the mentioned river that is like the lifeblood of a nation deprived of other rivers of magnitude.

If possible landswapping to such a degree that Pakistans control over the river is established, would that help ? Even if it is a thin sliver of land ?

I know there was a treaty saying rivers of indus must run free blah blah, but any such treaty can be used as toilet paper, thus I believe PAF will never accept standing down.

Perhaps have one side of Indus governed by Pakistan and the other side by India, if neither has full control then neither can abuse ?

 

[Kaptaan]

not 2 full divisions

Regular PA was 55k. A full sized division in 1960s was about 20k men. So that is about 2.5 divisions. Most of the divisions you listed were NOT at strength. Many of their heavy components were left behind. Pak logistics is weak today leave alone 50 years ago. Ask the Turks how well they would do in deploying armies to France while fightng off all of Europe?

Did you know over 20,000 British soldiers were deployed in Ulster which is riight next door to Britain - holding down a population of 1.5 million which is not even a typical Bangla medium sized city.

 

[Saithan]

I would love to know more about the issues that resulted in a sovereign Bangladesh, but perhaps a separate thread would connec the dots more easily

 

[Nilgiri]

This is also what I'm trying to say, but it could have joined Pakistan. anyway I think the problem of Pakistan is and will always be connected to the rivers.

https://jammukashmir.pscnotes.com/geography-jk/rivers-of-jammu-and-kashmir/

I do not think the problem of K/J can be solved unless Pakistan has full control over the mentioned river that is like the lifeblood of a nation deprived of other rivers of magnitude.

If possible landswapping to such a degree that Pakistans control over the river is established, would that help ? Even if it is a thin sliver of land ?

I know there was a treaty saying rivers of indus must run free blah blah, but any such treaty can be used as toilet paper, thus I believe PAF will never accept standing down.

Perhaps have one side of Indus governed by Pakistan and the other side by India, if neither has full control then neither can abuse ?

I don't get the river argument, would it also have extended to the ganges and brahmaputra given East Pakistan's reality?

There are ways to settle river water sharing peacefully....that is exactly what was done with the IWT.

Besides J&K coming to Pakistan (democratically) being a sure bet would have solved that too using Pakistan's own logic. Either that or it wasn't a sure bet.

If the standstill agreement was honoured, how exactly could the Maharaja (while there was no civilian govt set up yet) not honour free flow of water to Pakistan downstream anyway?...given what this means (i.e continue as is with what you did regarding the British dominion earlier on matters relating to that dominion).

It was a matter to scrap and renege upon in just 1 week? There might be a case if you let many years transpire and a totally unfavourable govt comes to power in J&K, and you botch negotiations with them (and all international arbitration involving great powers and great financiers like the WB which helped with the IWT) and they for some odd reason take it to level of water wars with all the heavy civil engineering of later decades that needs.

Like you would need that precise hypothetical to play out for it to stand....otherwise its another "we say so and thats how it would have been".

They'd have told you 2-wing Pakistan would last a 1000 years too at that time too. Muslim majoritarianism nationhood is just that concrete binding of a matter...whatever other issues exist.

 

[VCheng]

If all this was inevitable, then why chide @VCheng when he feels certain things now are inevitable too?

Chide all you want, it still will not change the inevitability of what I state clearly.

 

[Saithan]

I don't get the river argument, would it also have extended to the ganges and brahmaputra given East Pakistan's reality?

There are ways to settle river water sharing peacefully....that is exactly what was done with the IWT.

Besides J&K coming to Pakistan (democratically) being a sure bet would have solved that too using Pakistan's own logic. Either that or it wasn't a sure bet.

If the standstill agreement was honoured, how exactly could the Maharaja (while there was no civilian govt set up yet) not honour free flow of water to Pakistan downstream anyway?...given what this means (i.e continue as is with what you did regarding the British dominion earlier on matters relating to that dominion).

It was a matter to scrap and renege upon in just 1 week? There might be a case if you let many years transpire and a totally unfavourable govt comes to power in J&K, and you botch negotiations with them (and all international arbitration involving great powers and great financiers like the WB which helped with the IWT) and they for some odd reason take it to level of water wars with all the heavy civil engineering of later decades that needs.

Like you would need that precise hypothetical to play out for it to stand....otherwise its another "we say so and thats how it would have been".

They'd have told you 2-wing Pakistan would last a 1000 years too at that time too. Muslim majoritarianism nationhood is just that concrete binding of a matter...whatever other issues exist.

No I think that EP (isn't that Bangladesh, why not call it that ?) issue is different now, also I think the rivers from Bangladesh could if ever channelled through pipes solve the water crises in Pakistan

https://jammukashmir.pscnotes.com/geography-jk/rivers-of-jammu-and-kashmir/

I am trying to follow up on some points from the documentary (I've been saying that a lot), and apart from K/J being blessed lands fertile and all that, the rivers running through it are like the lifeblood for what lays down the stream.

Surely if the current stand off is because of land alone, then I would still argue like I did previously (post 111 atm).

Mending wounds, healing the land and people.