Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

[vineshvk]

@janab-e-ali

Pure speculation on your part.

None of this changes the fact that GOP was in no way pushing the Nawab of Junagadh to sign his state over to them...in fact, it's pretty clear that they were reluctant to even accept his state. India, on the other hand, was greedily eying J&K since before independence.

Pretty clear!! I havent seen what you wrote is clear. August 15 nawab hands over the state, within 20 days Pakistan accepts it. Pakistan went to UN complaining about Indias military action and does not recognize the plebiscite.

@janab-e-ali

I love how everything is a pissing contest with you Indians. Instead of recognizing the horrible reality of the fact that nearly 40% of Jammu's Muslim population was massacred by the Maharaja's armies and the RSS...you people just ignore/deny/defend it and shift the topic to the number of Hindus killed later on during the Pathan invasion.

Frankly, I haven't seen any numbers published in the international media...I'm sure thousands were killed, which is no doubt an absolute travesty. But since this is apparently a contest for you...given the fact that the total pre-Partition Hindu/Sikh population of what is now Azad Kashmir was around 130,000 (~15% of 900,000...and a little over half the number of Muslims butchered in Jammu), I have a hard time believing that the Pathans matched the Dogras on the genocide front.

You are sensationalising the people who are killed. Hence I asked you what happened to the Hindus in POK.
Dogra army might have commited heniuous crime and hindus would have also joined in the violence. But rebelion was a direct result of hindu-muslim division. Mulsims at that point, you would also agree, were not fighting the Dogra army against independence rather than the urge to join their muslim brothers in Pak land. Hence such crimes have to be considered as the result of partition. Both Hindus and Muslims suffered, talking about numbers doesnt make sense.

@janab-e-ali

More Indian hypocrisy. India was justified in economically strangling (and ultimately invading) the independent state of Hyderabad because the Nizam had friendly relations with Pakistan, and saved the GOP from bankruptcy when India (as always acting in bad faith) tried to bring the country to its knees by refusing to release Pakistan's share of the national exchequer.

So that justifies Nizam having a pakistani as a prime minister and using his private army to intimidate and kill his subjects. This isnt equidistant.

@janab-e-ali

But its a travesty when Pakistan absorbs Kalat (which, BTW, is only a small part of modern day Balochistan...the rest of the state joined Pakistan willingly) after the Khan violates the treaty he had already signed with the GOP, and, much to the horror of his subjects, starts secretly negotiating with Nehru about handing his state over to India. Never mind the fact that much of the pressure to join Pakistan came from the local Balochis themselves...horrified by the prospect of an Indian takeover.

But you said everything was very clear in Baluchi accession. Still there seems to be some tribes that doesnt fall in that jirga that you talk about.