Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

[vineshvk]

@janab-e-ali

So what if there were separate electorates?

Exercise some basic common sense please. Pakistan wasn't carved out of any Hindu majority areas...every square inch of land that went into Pakistan had a clear Muslim majority to begin with, who almost unanimously supported Partition. The fact that a clear majority of the people in what is now Pakistan/Bangladesh voted to leave India makes the Pakistan movement a popular, democratic one...no matter how much you Indians whine to the contrary.

You divide a country not based on one community. It was a segregated system with skewed religious tones.

@janab-e-ali

No, the double standard came into play when India invaded Junagadh, and held a plebiscite there to legitimize the Indian take-over...but then cried bloody murder when Pakistan attempted the exact same stunt in Kashmir. When the Nawab of Junagadh's instrument of accession went against the will of the 85% Hindu population of the state, India had no problem tossing it aside and taking over...but in Kashmir's case, you people still babble on endlessly about how the Maharaja had final authority, even though it clearly went against the will of most of the population. Nothing more than an Indian Hindu double standard...plain and simple.

Oh come on, wasnt Pakistan too pleased to see Junagadh join them. Didnt they recognize Junagadh and welcomed them into their fold. Pakistan thought it could get everything. It entered into stand still agreement with the Maharajha and then went ahead to cut off all supplies to Kashmir, the only road to india had gone through Pakistan. Pakistan was forcing the king to surrender to Pakistan. When this did not work, they abated the Pathans to enter Kashmir precipitating the situation.

@janab-e-ali

Assam and the northeastern states all supported Congress over the British and joined India of their own free will...and yet, India had to bludgeon down various independence movements in that area for decades.

And so what does that got to do with Baluchistan. :)

@janab-e-ali

First off, don't ever call me sweetheart again.

So you arent a sweet heart. :)

@janab-e-ali

As for the viability of an independent Kashmir, if small, landlocked countries like Nepal, Tajikistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan can survive and maintain their independence despite having powerful neighbors, so can we.

They depend heavily on their neighboring countries my friend. I cant say about other states without much research, but Nepal depend heavily on India.

[janab-e-ali]

You divide a country not based on one community. It was a segregated system with skewed religious tones.

I repeat, in the areas that became Pakistan, a clear majority of the population indicated its desire to separate from the rest of British India and become independent. That makes it a popular democratic movement...period. The rest of the world doesn't seem to have a problem with such popular movements...countries like East Timor were created based on the will of the population of the territory in question alone...even though the rest of Indonesia was dead against it.

Tell me, when did the entire British Empire get a chance to vote on whether or not India should get its independence? How could the Indians divide the Empire without the approval of everyone else?

Oh come on, wasnt Pakistan too pleased to see Junagadh join them. Didnt they recognize Junagadh and welcomed them into their fold. Pakistan thought it could get everything. It entered into stand still agreement with the Maharajha and then went ahead to cut off all supplies to Kashmir, the only road to india had gone through Pakistan. Pakistan was forcing the king to surrender to Pakistan. When this did not work, they abated the Pathans to enter Kashmir precipitating the situation.

India blockaded Junagadh (and Hyderabad) in an attempt to economically strangle both territories. When that failed, it invaded. At worst, Pakistan's actions in Kashmir are analogous to India's in Junagadh...and yet, the very same Indians who foam at the mouth when condemning the Pathan invasion of Kashmir don't seem to have any problem with the Indian conquest of Junagadh.

And so what does that got to do with Baluchistan. :)

Go reread your initial post. You were trying to claim that the Balochis must not have been consulted about joining Pakistan since certain Balochi groups are demanding independence now. I was simply pointing out that they're hardly the only group with separatist elements despite having been given the opportunity to decide on the future of their state in 1947.

They depend heavily on their neighboring countries my friend. I cant say about other states without much research, but Nepal depend heavily on India.

Nepal is still fully independent of India, and manages all of its own international trade, defense and foreign relations. Bhutan "depends heavily" on India...Nepal just has close/friendly relations. The same goes for the other countries

In any case, any independent Kashmiri state would almost certainly have close relations with the government of Pakistan so its hardly as if we'd be without allies.

[aam_bandha]

No, the double standard came into play when India invaded Junagadh, and held a plebiscite there to legitimize the Indian take-over...but then cried bloody murder when Pakistan attempted the exact same stunt in Kashmir. When the Nawab of Junagadh's instrument of accession went against the will of the 85% Hindu population of the state, India had no problem tossing it aside and taking over...but in Kashmir's case, you people still babble on endlessly about how the Maharaja had final authority, even though it clearly went against the will of most of the population. Nothing more than an Indian Hindu double standard...plain and simple.

Well well well so finally someone agreeing to the fact that Pakistan tried to take Kashmir, otherwise all you hear is that the lcoal population was responsible for it ...... anyway they have tried this stunt many a times and you know the reason they failed all time ..... the local kashmiri population had nothing to do with them. Otherwise it took India 14 days to create Bangladesh out of east pakistan. And the major factor was that the local bengali population had been isolated to an extent that there was no turning back.

I like Indian " Hindu" double standard ........you have only seen that wait till you see Indian " muslim / christian / sikh / parsi / jain ......" double standards ...

Better sense has dawned on the leadership of Pakistan and they have realized that fighting with your neighbour is not going to be of any use to them. Hence the talk to sitting and talking about the problem ....... not to threaten 100 year wars........

After all the question of dispute about Kashmir is about going to India or Pakistan ....... period........ But with the change in stance by Pakistan a section of the sepratist have become lost they don't know what to say or do ....... so they are harping on independence.

This is a Pakistani forum ..... so let people on this forum say would they like Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas gain independence from Pakistan.

Of course you have a large section of population in balochistan who want to ....... but then that is another matter and we would not want to broden the discussion at this moment.

[janab-e-ali]

Well well well so finally someone agreeing to the fact that Pakistan tried to take Kashmir, otherwise all you hear is that the lcoal population was responsible for it ...... anyway they have tried this stunt many a times and you know the reason they failed all time ..... the local kashmiri population had nothing to do with them. Otherwise it took India 14 days to create Bangladesh out of east pakistan. And the major factor was that the local bengali population had been isolated to an extent that there was no turning back.

Go pick up a book.

The local population in what is now Azad Kashmir/the Northern Areas did rebel and had already declared themselves independent of the Maharaja...the Pathans simply joined forces with them.

As for why Pakistan has repeatedly failed to take Kashmir, I've already addressed that issue in other posts. Briefly, if Pakistan had just sent its regular army in during a homegrown rebellion (1947 or 1989), then India wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in Kashmir at the very least. The problem was that Pakistan relied exclusively on unpopular, undisciplined, irregular militant outfits in both cases. The Mukti Bahini, with all their backdoor Indian support, would never have been able to win their independence on their own. It took the full Indian army to do that.

[vineshvk]

I repeat, in the areas that became Pakistan, a clear majority of the population indicated its desire to separate from the rest of British India and become independent. That makes it a popular democratic movement...period. The rest of the world doesn't seem to have a problem with such popular movements...countries like East Timor were created based on the will of the population of the territory in question alone...even though the rest of Indonesia was dead against it.

I repeat, creation of a nation based solely on religious lines cannot sustain itself. This is true for Isreal and east timur or whatever.

@janab-e-ali

Tell me, when did the entire British Empire get a chance to vote on whether or not India should get its independence? How could the Indians divide the Empire without the approval of everyone else?

If they had allowed indians to vote (including Muslims and Hindus) India would have been independent long before 1947 :).
Besides it was British parliament that decided to give India independence voted in by equal franchise .

@janab-e-ali

India blockaded Junagadh (and Hyderabad) in an attempt to economically strangle both territories. When that failed, it invaded. At worst, Pakistan's actions in Kashmir are analogous to India's in Junagadh...and yet, the very same Indians who foam at the mouth when condemning the Pathan invasion of Kashmir don't seem to have any problem with the Indian conquest of Junagadh.

You admit then that Pakistan was not so keen to see which side the people belong to when it agreed to accept Junagadh into their domain. Admit it, loosing junagadh was a big blow, if they had allowed for peacefull settlement then Kashmir issue would have been solved long back.
You can leave Hyderabad out of it, as things happened one year after junagadh or Kashmir.

@janab-e-ali

IGo reread your initial post. You were trying to claim that the Balochis must not have been consulted about joining Pakistan since certain Balochi groups are demanding independence now. I was simply pointing out that they're hardly the only group with separatist elements despite having been given the opportunity to decide on the future of their state in 1947.

The question was specificaly a pakistan issue. Since pakistan now days are so much interested in giving rights to Kashmiris to decide, then it would be nice for them to decide on Baluchis as well.

@janab-e-ali

Nepal is still fully independent of India, and manages all of its own international trade, defense and foreign relations. Bhutan "depends heavily" on India...Nepal just has close/friendly relations. The same goes for the other countries

Defense, and trade goes extensively with India. Since its a landlocked country India controls its trade. Any price rise in India affects adversly the people of Nepal.

@janab-e-ali

In any case, any independent Kashmiri state would almost certainly have close relations with the government of Pakistan so its hardly as if we'd be without allies.

Exactly this is the big problem my friend. Soon your state would not be an independent entitiy (aka POK, they changed the demographics there already). You have to depened extensively on Pakistan and its not as if they are going to give you something without taking something out of you.
India will not like to see its arch enemy enjoying higher heights and gaining territory.
Unless the relation between India and Pakistan improve drastically and threat of terrorism in India and pakistan subsides, kashmir cannot have a peacefull existance. Then I dont mind your state be a seperate nation or join Afghanistan(secular hopefully).

[janab-e-ali]

@vineshvk

I repeat, creation of a nation based solely on religious lines cannot sustain itself. This is true for Isreal and east timur or whatever.

Your personal opinions on the sustainability of a state based on religious nationalism are a separate issue entirely, and have absolutely nothing to do with the popular, democratic nature of the Pakistan movement.

@vineshvk

You admit then that Pakistan was not so keen to see which side the people belong to when it agreed to accept Junagadh into their domain. Admit it, loosing junagadh was a big blow, if they had allowed for peacefull settlement then Kashmir issue would have been solved long back.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Pakistan actually wasn't particularly keen on taking Junagadh precisely because of the demographics of the state, and its distance from mainland Pakistan. The government was so reluctant that even though the Nawab signed over his state on August 15, the Government of Pakistan refused to accept his instrument of accession for well over a month. The Indian authorities, on the other hand, had started pressuring the Maharaja of Kashmir to sign his state over to them even before independence...going so far as to meddle in the state's internal affairs (it was Gandhi himself who had the pro-independence PM Ram Chandra Kak fired and replaced by the staunchly pro-India Mehr Chand Mahajan in early Aug 1947). Hypocrisy through and through.

I've already repeatedly mentioned the fact that the Maharaja's armies had massacred over 200,000 Muslims in Jammu well before the Pathan invasion...so its not as though the situation in the state was "peaceful" before Pakistan got involved either.

@vineshvk

You can leave Hyderabad out of it, as things happened one year after junagadh or Kashmir.

Why? The economic blockade and gradual strangulation of the Hyderabadi state began immediately after Partition.

@vineshvk

The question was specificaly a pakistan issue. Since pakistan now days are so much interested in giving rights to Kashmiris to decide, then it would be nice for them to decide on Baluchis as well.

The most of the Balochis were already given 1 opportunity to decide.

@vineshvk

Exactly this is the big problem my friend. Soon your state would not be an independent entitiy

So in your world, countries like Nepal and Armenia are not "independent entities?"

[Get_smart]

Re: Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

Nothing gets under the skin of mischief-mongers and India haters such as Janab, as facts. She talks about history, yet doesn’t want to learn the true history because such history comes from Hindu literature. She calls it mythology yet will subscribe to the mythology of her prophet getting revealations!

And then after much going back and forth, in the thread ‘Independent Kashmir’ she had to admit her preference that Pakistan should ahve annexed Kashmir…thus proving her loyalty to Pakistan and once and for all showing all this ‘Kashmiri’ stuff she’s been writing about is just eyewash.

Finally, I also note that any valid arguments anyone posts debunking her hallucinations, she simply tries to ignore or dismiss as ridiculous.

How truly pathetic such people are, relegated to a life time of wailing and chest beating but it is their own chosing, to have taken the wrong notions!

Meanwhile, Kashmir is getting ready for elections. I bet that will get more mouthfoaming from Janab and co anxious that people don’t go out and vote.

[_Lahore_Ka_Cheetah]

Re: Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

What tactis do the Indian authorities use for forced-voting?

[vineshvk]

@janab-e-ali

Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Hope you know what you are talking about.

@janab-e-ali

Pakistan actually wasn’t particularly keen on taking Junagadh precisely because of the demographics of the state, and its distance from mainland Pakistan. The government was so reluctant that even though the Nawab signed over his state on August 15, the Government of Pakistan refused to accept his instrument of accession for well over a month. The Indian authorities, on the other hand, had started pressuring the Maharaja of Kashmir to sign his state over to them even before independence…going so far as to meddle in the state’s internal affairs (it was Gandhi himself who had the pro-independence PM Ram Chandra Kak fired and replaced by the staunchly pro-India Mehr Chand Mahajan in early Aug 1947). Hypocrisy through and through.

I dont know if it was demography that they were worried about. Pakistan had insisted that it was the Kings prerogative to decide where to join. They were sure that many of the 500 princely state would join them, as India had made it clear that they would dissolve the princely states, and kings and sultans have to live like ordinary citizens. Pakistan accepted the instrument of accession on Septembe 5 1947. Just 20 days after independence.
Note: I thought Shah Nawaz Bhutto was the dewan when Junagadh joined Pakistan.

@janab-e-ali

I’ve already repeatedly mentioned the fact that the Maharaja’s armies had massacred over 200,000 Muslims in Jammu well before the Pathan invasion…so its not as though the situation in the state was “peaceful” before Pakistan got involved either.

But you always fail to mention how many Hindus died at the hands of Pathan invaders with local support of Muslims in poonch and other areas now known as POK.

@janab-e-ali

Why? The economic blockade and gradual strangulation of the Hyderabadi state began immediately after Partition.

Not till they start hobnobbing with Pakistan. Nawab, one of the richest person in the country was using his money to bankroll the pakistani exchequere.

@janab-e-ali

The most of the Balochis were already given 1 opportunity to decide.

The India Independence Act left the princes theoretically free to accede to either dominion. … The khan of Kalat in Balochistan declared independence on August 15, 1947, but offered to negotiate a special relationship with Pakistan. Other Baloch sardar (tribal chiefs) also expressed their preference for a separate identity. Pakistan took military action against them and the khan and brought about their accession in 1948.

Pakistan Kalat Annexation 1947-1948

@janab-e-ali

So in your world, countries like Nepal and Armenia are not “independent entities?”

In a limited sense yes. India could easily chock Nepal if it wishes.

[vineshvk]

Re: Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

Nawab, now you will not have a problem I suppose for the land deal, as
**Amarnath Shrine Board gives up claim on forest land
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEL20080629050419&Page=L&Title=B+R+E+A+K+I+N+G++++N+E+W+S&Topic=0
**

[janab-e-ali]

@vineshvk

I dont know if it was demography that they were worried about.

Pure speculation on your part.

@vineshvk

Pakistan had insisted that it was the Kings prerogative to decide where to join. They were sure that many of the 500 princely state would join them, as India had made it clear that they would dissolve the princely states, and kings and sultans have to live like ordinary citizens. Pakistan accepted the instrument of accession on Septembe 5 1947. Just 20 days after independence.

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.

@vineshvk

But you always fail to mention how many Hindus died at the hands of Pathan invaders with local support of Muslims in poonch and other areas now known as POK.

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.

I don't think anyone, Kashmiri or otherwise, denies that the Pathans did plenty of looting and killing during their invasion. You Indians, on the other hand, love to keep your heads in the sand when it comes to the massacres that precipitated the whole invasion.

@vineshvk

Not till they start hobnobbing with Pakistan. Nawab, one of the richest person in the country was using his money to bankroll the pakistani exchequere.

The India Independence Act left the princes theoretically free to accede to either dominion. ... The khan of Kalat in Balochistan declared independence on August 15, 1947, but offered to negotiate a special relationship with Pakistan. Other Baloch sardar (tribal chiefs) also expressed their preference for a separate identity. Pakistan took military action against them and the khan and brought about their accession in 1948.

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.

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.

[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.

[janab-e-ali]

@vineshvk

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.

Considering the fact that most instruments of accession were accepted by India/Pakistan within a day or two (J&K included), a month long delay (Pakistan accepted on Sept 13, 1947) is indeed a sign of reluctance. If that's not enough, there's also the fact that Liaquat Ali Khan and the Government of Pakistan agreed to settle the state's final status by referendum...India, acting in bad faith as always, decided it couldn't wait and invaded the state.

@vineshvk

You are sensationalising the people who are killed. Hence I asked you what happened to the Hindus in POK.

Pointing out the context under which the Pathans invaded to Indians who apparently are in complete denial about the situation in the state hardly counts as "sensationalizing."

@vineshvk

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.

The rebellion was actually began as a result of the Maharaja's oppressive taxation policies.

@vineshvk

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.

Ummm...which PM was Pakistani? Mir Laik Ali was a native Hyderabadi businessman. As for "killing subjects"...I'm assuming you're talking about the Nizam's response to the Telangana Rebellion. If that's enough to justify an Indian invasion, then its *beyond hypocritical *(not that I'm surprised) of you to condemn any of Pakistan's actions in J&K. Not only did the Maharaja fire his Kashmiri PM at Gandhi's insistence, and replace him with a Punjabi Indian...but he also proceeded to use his personal army (and that of Patiala state) to massacre at least 200,000 of his subjects.

[Get_smart]

Re: Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

Hm. These tactics have been tried before, by some very illustrious Pakistanis themselves. Needless to say all such attempts failed miserably and in many cases the mischiefmonger ended up with a black face.

Here is an example.

Though the Instrument of Accession executed on October 27, 1947 between the ruler of Kashmir and the Governor General of India was a legal act, Pakistan chose to refute it more than once almost from day one. Thus, on November 1, 1948, in his meeting with Lord Mountbatten, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's founder, claimed that the accession of Kashmir to India was based on violence. Mountbatten replied, 'the accession had indeed been brought about by violence, but the violence came from tribesmen, for whom Pakistan, not India, was responsible.'

[teggy]

Re: Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

The issue seems to have been settled. Amarnath Shrine Board has given up the claim on Forest Land after reassurance from J&K Govt. that pilgrims will be facilitated properly.

[Get_smart]

Re: Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

That's what is good about "election" years....

[teggy]

Re: Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

The issue seems to have been settled. For further updates, please open new thread. As of right now the forest land claim has been discarded by A. Shrine Board.

Thread Closed.