First of all...let me just point out how, in your haste to throw together a response, you've completely contradicted yourself. If Pakistan did indeed eventually accept Junagadh's accession so it could be used as a bargaining chip, then its entire case would depend on rejecting the will of the rulers in favor of plebiscite (thereby letting India have Junagadh and claiming Kashmir). I repeat...such an arrangement would necessitate rejecting the will of the ruler...which pretty much flies in the face of your absurd claim that LAK wanted to uphold the will of the rulers over the will of the people. It also doesn't make sense given the fact that in early October, 1947, the GOP issued the following statement in reference to the Junagadh situation: *"The Pakistan Government has also informed the Government of India of their willingness to discuss the conditions and circumstances in which a plebiscite should be taken by any state or states."
*India, on the other hand, upholds the concept of the plebiscite in Junagadh...and the instrument of accession in J&K...pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Wow, good imagination. Let me ask you one thing, why did pakistan finally 20 days after decide to accept junagadh if it ever wanted the will of the people to override the will of the ruler. This is your contradiction or for that matter Pakistans contradiction. They wanted junagadh but were not sure weather they can keep it. Hence they wanted it as a bargaining point with India on Kashmir. I dont understand how this can be a contradiction. You are just wobbling here with your reasoning.
Can you stop issuing statements about the guppies and just write facts.
I will not deny that those were killed. In many princely state there was atrocities of equal nature. Including many in my home state kerala, did you ever here of mappila revolt. Nobody keeps a count of how many people killed. Nobody did a body count did they.
Began may be, but the will to join their western brothers was quite evident in their revolt. Much of the rebellion were lead by people decommissioned from the royal indian army.
kak had put Sheikh in prison, even Nehru was not allowed to come to Kashmir to plead for the release of Sheikh. Do you think if a deal was struck Sheikh would like to see Kak still holding office.
Oh great, it was the same Sheikh abdullah when he was put to jail, kashmiris went on a complete strike. The same man was hailed by you know who as the sheiri kashmir . Now you say he was also treacherous. So who represent kashmiri people, YOU.
But your lord Sheikh thought that way my dear.
So what did they want actually. Who was one to determine that. India gave too much importance to Sheilkh abdullah as he was the only leader in kashmir of any repute.