J & K news and discussion

[Kakkaji]

Interesting article in dailypioneer.com about how the wind is blowing for Omar Abdullah. Posting in full:

Omar’s inertia has turned tables on J&K hopes

Khursheed Wani | Srinagar

When Omar Abdullah took over as the youngest Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir six months back, both his admirers and adversaries shared a good opinion of him: “He is young, energetic, plain-speaking and experienced. There is a lot of hope in him.”

But the gangrape and murder of two women in Shopian, an incident that was completely mishandled by his Government, and unrest over the mysterious killing of a young man in Srinagar have put a big question mark on his ability and credibility. Local newspapers might carry full-page advertisements highlighting Omar’s “half-year achievements”, but the common perception is that he has failed to instill a sense of security and dignity among the people on the street.

The implementation of a whopping Rs 60-crore road modernisation project in Srinagar and Jammu cities is a visible sign of development, but people are more concerned over justice for the perpetrators of crime in Shopian and Srinagar than driving on smooth roads.

Observers say that Omar started his innings with restraint and confidence but subsequently started fluctuating. “Timely corrections can stop his deviation or derail him,” says journalist Haroon Rashid, executive editor of a local newspaper.

A dignified life with safety and security is the biggest concern for the people of Kashmir, who have been churning in the cauldron of violence and anarchy for the past two decades. Infrastructural development and economic uplift comes later. Kashmir watchers say that Omar started with a bad omen when security forces shot a hearing-impaired person outside his residence at Gupkar Road two days after the oath-taking ceremony.

Incidentally, the slain youngster had arrived to felicitate Omar on becoming the Chief Minister. No one was punished for this killing, which was attributed to “mistaken identity”.

Omar, however, appeared confident and sincere while handling the Bomai incident, where Rashtriya Rifles troops shot three pilgrims returning from a local shrine in February. The Army camp was relocated and an action was initiated against the unidentified soldiers who “breached brief and used excessive force”.

Omar was using Bomai action as a USP for his governance style when the Shopian murder case surfaced. Ironically, the Chief Minister lost the track at the first step itself. During his controversial Press conference on May 1, Omar supported the “official version” that the two women had died due to drowning. Rape and murder were ruled out. His announcement to order a Commission of Inquiry was only to establish the truth through a non-partisan authority as people always doubted the veracity of official investigation.

Omar was subsequently proved wrong. The forensic science laboratory confirmed both rape and murder.

Several questions are asked about Government’s handling of the Shopian case. Why did Omar lie to the people in the first place? Who briefed him wrongly? Why no immediate action was taken against those who “misled” him? Who wanted to hush up the matter? Why was the action delayed against police officers who played a dubious role in handling the situation in Shopian?

The Muzaffar Jan Commission of Inquiry has finalised its report and is likely to submit it on Thursday. The initial findings have pointed the finger towards security forces. If the probe report is satisfactory and Omar takes stern action against the killers identified, it can get him another chance to enhance his credibility. Otherwise, the situation would go from bad to worse for him.

[ramana]

Great graph. Please do post in the geodynamics thread. And someone contact samuel.

[RamaY]

Great graph. Please do post in the geodynamics thread. And someone contact samuel.

ThanQ Ramanaji! Give me one more week and I will post the (relatively) accurate graph. IMO all those 000's of observations (database) will help us dissimate certain misconceptions on BR.

Sji is missing...

[ramana]

If we think about it Art 370 has been a hindrance to J&K development. By now it would have been much more developed. The leadership siphoned off most of the money that was allocated.

[RamaY]

If we think about it Art 370 has been a hindrance to J&K development. By now it would have been much more developed. The leadership siphoned off most of the money that was allocated.

I can understand Pakis, Unkil, UK, and even KMs keeping this issue Alive. What woud GOI gain from art 370? IMO our political class already proved that they can milk even an Ox, then what is their special interest in art 370? What way IMs get influenced by this and punish any Indian poltical party?

[Gerard]

J&K Police pick up 100 people for stone pelting

[satya]

Hmm Article 370 ....... well it was meant for western audience only so one day when PoK comes back to our fold & Article 370 ensuring ''special rights /status of J&K'' and us in its cover saying we have no intention other than to see the ''will'' of people of J&K prevail in free & fair elections only after all we did promise for referendum/ assembly election its one & same only ( whenever our MEA babus have taken this line ie election= referendum except in name many Goras have been found lost for words ) . Call it Nehru's Chankian move or his day-dreaming but this was the real intent of Article 370 & yes later on we found lot more benefits not only back home but also forced TSPians to not go for massive influx of Pakjabis into PoK , it happened but not on large scale that could have been ........

[ramana]

Thats an interesting take on the benefits of Art 370. However it hasnt stopped the massacres of the Baltis etc in POK.

My poit was that Indian private investment could have alos poured in to augment the GOI investment but for Art. 370 limitations and the end benefactors would have been the locals. Asl the Owasis of Hyd how much they are raking in due to the GHMC investment in Old Hyderabad in beautifying the Musi river banks.

[SSridhar]

satya, the difference between India and Pakistan was that India proceeded on the assumption that there would be a fair settlement of the J&K issue and PoK will return to India while Pakistan went along with the conviction that nothing of that sort would ever happen. Pakistan had the support of the UK & the US and was confident they would not allow such a thing to happen.

Ramana, Baltits were never clubbed with PoK as far as Pakistan was concerned.

[Rishirishi]

satya, the difference between India and Pakistan was that India proceeded on the assumption that there would be a fair settlement of the J&K issue and PoK will return to India while Pakistan went along with the conviction that nothing of that sort would ever happen. Pakistan had the support of the UK & the US and was confident they would not allow such a thing to happen.

Ramana, Baltits were never clubbed with PoK as far as Pakistan was concerned.

Let us be a bit truthful here. A "fair" settlement would have involved transferring all the areas with a Muslim majority to Pakistan (if we accept the idea of partition). Nehru was a kashmiri and wanted the area. Article 370 and the Indus water treaty were naive attempt to win over kashmir with Diplomacy. The article 370 would guarentee the ethnic mix and the indus water treaty would remove Pakistani insecurities. As we know India got nothing in return.

In particualr the Indus water treaty was stupid, where India gave up rights of water without getting anything in return.

If India want's to keep kashmir, it will have to follow an active policy of settling people in the vally, so that the vally starts to reflcet the ethnic mix of the country. Either do that or give up kashmir, no matter how hard rest of India wishes, the truth will not change. What is so wrong with presuing an active settlement policy in kashmir? After all, Kashmir is a part of India, and every Indian should have a right to settle there.

[negi]

Let us be a bit truthful here. A "fair" settlement would have involved transferring all the areas with a Muslim majority to Pakistan (if we accept the idea of partition)

What logik.. the geographical partition was not done on the basis of the demographics so your argument does not hold (there were Muslim dominated areas in India which Muslim's had to leave and similarly there was a huge exodus of Hindus from the today's province of Punjab in TSP.

note to self: breathe in breathe out......limps back to nukkadwa

[SSridhar]

Rishirishi & negi, J&K was a princely state whose maharajah was entitled to accede to either India or Pakistan. The concept of Muslim majority state, district or tehsil didn't apply to princely states. All that mattered was the maharajah's decision and nothing else. How he arrived at the decision was left to him. Once a decision was taken by the maharajah, it applied to his entire princely state and not in piecemeal. In the case of J&K, Pakistan made the decision easier for a maharajah who was dilly-dallying because he didn't like Nehru on the one hand due to his close proximity to the Sheikh Abdullah-led National Conference and he was loathe to joining a theocratic Pakistan also.

[vera_k]

^^^

India did not agree to protect Kashmir because the Maharaja wanted it to. India sent the army only after Sheikh Abdullah and the National Conference (i.e. the Kashmiri people) said they did not want to join Pakistan.

Before the tribal invasion, the Maharaja had been negotiating standstill agreements with India and Pakistan so that Kashmir could stay independent, while INC and the National Conference were allied against the Maharaja's rule in the assembly elections. Sheikh Abdullah and the National Conference were already leaning towards joining India, defying the Maharaja in the process and the tribal invasion just forced matters to a head.

Link

[Rishirishi]

Rishirishi & negi, J&K was a princely state whose maharajah was entitled to accede to either India or Pakistan. The concept of Muslim majority state, district or tehsil didn't apply to princely states. All that mattered was the maharajah's decision and nothing else. How he arrived at the decision was left to him. Once a decision was taken by the maharajah, it applied to his entire princely state and not in piecemeal. In the case of J&K, Pakistan made the decision easier for a maharajah who was dilly-dallying because he didn't like Nehru on the one hand due to his close proximity to the Sheikh Abdullah-led National Conference and he was loathe to joining a theocratic Pakistan also.

You are right, technically speaking. But was it "fair"?
My point is, if India first decided to take control of kashmir, then it must bring it all to an logical end.

[Virupaksha]

Rishirishi & negi, J&K was a princely state whose maharajah was entitled to accede to either India or Pakistan. The concept of Muslim majority state, district or tehsil didn't apply to princely states. All that mattered was the maharajah's decision and nothing else. How he arrived at the decision was left to him. Once a decision was taken by the maharajah, it applied to his entire princely state and not in piecemeal. In the case of J&K, Pakistan made the decision easier for a maharajah who was dilly-dallying because he didn't like Nehru on the one hand due to his close proximity to the Sheikh Abdullah-led National Conference and he was loathe to joining a theocratic Pakistan also.

You are right, technically speaking. But was it "fair"?
My point is, if India first decided to take control of kashmir, then it must bring it all to an logical end.

was India being partitioned by Britishers fair to India?
Were the killings of direct action fair to India?
Were the killings of partition fair to India?
Were the Pakistan army attacking Kashmir through lashkars fair to India?
Was the British command helping Pakistan in Northern areas fair to India?

Fairness is mutual. You cannot be fair to other without being fair to yourselves. It has not been "fair", you are right. But it has not been fair to India.

I never understand this particular Indian pshyche, of being fair to other even though it is unfair to you.

[harbans]

Crossposting from the TSP dhaga:

With Pakistan coming out with conditionalities at India's expense, it is inevitable that Hussain and Hillary will crank up pressure on Kashmir. Seeing recent demographic changes in border aread of Bengal and Assam, i just wondered when did Kashmir become a Muslim majority state? Seeing how demographics have changed in the last 40-50 years, i wonder how much before 1947 did Kashmir flip to becoming Muslim majority?

India did not agree to protect Kashmir because the Maharaja wanted it to. India sent the army only after Sheikh Abdullah and the National Conference (i.e. the Kashmiri people) said they did not want to join Pakistan.

It sent in the Army only after the Treaty of Accession was signed.

From a discussion above, would like to comment..

Let us be a bit truthful here. A "fair" settlement would have involved transferring all the areas with a Muslim majority to Pakistan (if we accept the idea of partition)

Vs

What logik.. the geographical partition was not done on the basis of the demographics so your argument does not hold (there were Muslim dominated areas in India which Muslim's had to leave and similarly there was a huge exodus of Hindus from the today's province of Punjab in TSP.

Actually both sides have merit in their justifications/ suggesions if ou look at it. However as what we consider Kashmir is actually much more: Jammu; Ladhak and the Vale of Kashmir. The valley (around 30km wide and 70 km long) is where around 80% of the Muslims in the entire state reside (any amendments/ corrections to this figure would be welcome). Thats if we assumed the 2100 sq km Valley was not there, Kashmir would be a majority Hindu/ Buddhist state.

Also interestingly areas like Leh/ Ladhak are geographically the biggest in size in he enire J & K, though lesser in population. They are Buddhist majority till date and would never want to be a part of Pakistan.

Interestingly, how the vale was populated: (Wiki)

Sultãn Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (AD 1389-1413) is often considered the worst of these. Historians have recorded many of his atrocities. The Tarikh-i-Firishta records that Sikandar persecuted the Hindus and issued orders proscribing the residence of any other than Muslims in Kashmir. He also ordered the breaking of all "golden and silver images". The Tarikh-i-Firishta further states: "Many of the Brahmins, rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes, while a few escaped. After the emigration of the Brahmins, Sikandar ordered all the temples in Kashmir to be thrown down. Having broken all the images in Kashmir, (Sikandar) acquired the title of ‘Destroyer of Idols’."[4]

Whatever we might say, but there are conventions about native peoples rights and stuff. Muslims were settlers here and became majority only by expulsions, terrorizing the native populations.

Could India can consider a solution transferring the vale to Pakistan, if we get all the area above Neelum valley, Northern Areas? Offer to give them 2100 sq km that includes the valley; to keep part of POK till the Neelum valley. And we get everything else. But then i am not even sure if the Kashmiri's in the vale would want to join the Pukes on self destruct mode.

My take on this ultimatel is that a Stable Pakistan will always display obsession on Kashmir. Break it up. We'll have peace in Kashmir. Paki Punjab will have too many problems of it's own with Sindh and Balochistan and Pashtunistan in the future. Pashtunistan may lay claims to Kashmir, but then when Porkisan is breaks up, India should move rapidly to secure POK and Northern Areas. If we delay, the Chinese will move in certainly. Pashtunistan cannot create rouble in these areas. Neither the would have enough power.

This is the sort of end game that seems the only logical and peaceful solution to Kashmir.

[JE Menon]

>>Before the tribal invasion, the Maharaja had been negotiating standstill agreements with India and Pakistan so that Kashmir could stay independent

I would rephrase that bolded part to "so that the maharaja could retain the option of independence if he chose to exercise it". At the time, he had not decided his course of action. Hence the "Standstill" agreement. Although Jinnah was wooing him assiduously at the time, the Maharaja's decision was precipitated by the tribal incursions and invasion (the first instance of tactical brilliance) and he then signed the Instrument of Accession.

The issue of "fairness" may be raised, but then it must be made clear why the issue of "fairness" is being raised only for Kashmiri Muslims, and not for other Muslims from other parts of India at the time, or for Hindus/Sikhs/Christians/Jews/Jains and others in parts of what had just become Pakistan. It is after all, not a question of legality or procedural correctness, but one of an intangible and necessarily subjective matter like "fairness". If this question is raised, of course, the "fairness" of the partition itself will come into question. India accepted the partition as something akin to a bitter pill, while Pakistan demanded partition as a right. In such a situation, when an over-arching solution was imposed at the expense of one party to the conflict, the question of "fairness" in the details of the solution is moot.

[Rishirishi]

was India being partitioned by Britishers fair to India?
Were the killings of direct action fair to India?
Were the killings of partition fair to India?
Were the Pakistan army attacking Kashmir through lashkars fair to India?
Was the British command helping Pakistan in Northern areas fair to India?

Fairness is mutual. You cannot be fair to other without being fair to yourselves. It has not been "fair", you are right. But it has not been fair to India.

I never understand this particular Indian pshyche, of being fair to other even though it is unfair to you.

You are 100% right and I agree with you 1000%. There is not such thing as "fair" in the context of TSP/Partician/and the rights of Hindus. TSP has never had any intention to be "Fair", it has the intentiaon to grab most possible and a certain minority in india, as the intention to "regain" the power in India, Hook or by crook. We saw this clearly in the way the the minority tried to sabotage the nuclear deal.
In such a context it us utter stupidity to uphold the article 370.
My grugde is against the inteligensia who has been working very hard to project a false image of "bhai bhai". Get the head out of the sand and get learn from countires like Israel. Stop living in a fools paradise.

[harbans]

If this question is raised, of course, the "fairness" of the partition itself will come into question. India accepted the partition as something akin to a bitter pill, while Pakistan demanded partition as a right. In such a situation, when an over-arching solution was imposed at the expense of one party to the conflict, the question of "fairness" in the details of the solution is moot.

Well said. I liked the point about fairness, but there was also a difference between Princely states and territories directly controlled by Brits. Unlike those territories which formed part of the British colonial state the several hundred principalities could choose to remain independent. (India Independence Act 1947, 1975, p. 4) However, the general understanding was that the rulers should seek a union with either of the two states under an accession instrument akin to what Hari Singh signed.

[JE Menon]

Indeed, the territories directly controlled by the Brits automatically became part of sovereign independent India. The rest -i.e. the princely states - were the ones VP Menon had to go to one by one and collect them as "apples for Patel's bag" as he put it. One of these princely gents, a relative of Jaswant Singh IIRC, even theatrically pointed a gun to Menon's head as part of a half-hearted last ditch emotional display before signing on...

Of course, most, if not all, of them went on to become participants in the state in one way or another. It is an untold story how our princes and rajahs effectively surrendered (not without a fight of course) to the writ of the modern democratic state in the succeeding years, and have integrated themselves into the Indian democratic paradigm.

For those who haven't read them there are two books by VP Menon that will make your blood boil on occasion, and make you step back in awe in others. But they will leave you grateful for what we have today in our grand country. We know it is not perfect, but that statement is necessary only if you seek perfection. I am certain that a civilisation was saved from its deathbead, and is now only beginning to remove some of the bandages accumulated over centuries.

1. Story of the Integration of States
2. The Transfer of Power

Read as much of them as you can. Story of Integration is in volumes so it is heavy going.

[harbans]

^^Excellently expressed. If i do get the chance, i am sure it will be a very interesting read.

[SSridhar]

Also read Prem Shankar Jha's 'Kashmir 1947: Rival Versions of History'.

In this book, PS Jha takes on Alistair Lamb, who had been commissioned by Pakistan, to discredit India and repudiate the Indian version of events. There is some confusion about when exactly the Instrument of Accession was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh and PS Jha reveals the sequence of events.

In any case, s few weeks before the actual launch of aggression by Pakistan on the state of J&K, Maharaja Hari Singh had sent a Letter of Accession to New Delhi through his Prime Minister but Nehru rejected it. The Maharaja was forced to seek Indian help because of the atrocities and harassment along the border areas and the stoppage of fuel, salt etc from Lahore in order to force J&K to accede to Pakistan. Nehru rejected the request because he wanted Sheikh Abdullah, then in prison, to be released and inducted into an interim government. So, the intentions of Maharaja Hari Singh were clear once the Pakistanis decided to grab J&K through violence and aggression. It hardly matters, therefore, if the Instrument was signed in the forenoon of Oct 26 or afternoon of Oct. 27th.

Terrorism by Pakistan started in Oct 1947, not 1989, and has continued ever since.

[harbans]

Shridharji, i think i read some excerpts about what happened then. When the Paki irregulars were almost on the outskirts of Srinagar, the Kiing requested Indian troops for help. Nehru refused on the principle it would be illegal till the accession treaty was signed. Patel egged him not to wait for the accession treaty and send in troops. When things really became hot for the King, he signed the treaty and sent it across to Nehru who met the Kings PM late at night with the treaty in Delhi, and so NEhru ordrered te troops into Kashmir. Within a few hours Indian troops were landing in at Srinagar airport and even as the planes rolled into bay, soldiers were firing and staving raiders at the airport itself. The King and Nehru played it to the brink. So Pakistan is right that the treaty was a forced one. Forced to sign it to protect his country legally from Pakistani raiders.

[SSridhar]

harbans, the real events are far more complex. Please read both VP Menon's book, "Integration of States' and Prem Shankar Jha's book.

[harbans]

Sridharji, will do. thanks for the inputs.

[Gerard]

Media misrepresented key facts on Shopian rape-murder

Most disturbing, though, is Justice Jan’s finding that the media incited hatred by broadcasting communal propaganda.

Based on the accounts of individuals claiming to be eyewitnesses, newspapers said that one victim’s forehead had been smeared with sindoor — an allegation that suggested that the rapists were Hindus, and the rape itself macabre religion-driven hate crime. However, the Commission noted, the red marks on her forehead were in fact blood from a head wound. “The flow of blood,” the report states, “was shamefully distorted and projected as a mark of sindoor.”

[somnath]

the questions of "fairness" are a big non sequitor. International relations are not about fairness, they are about power politics. If one were to really stretch it, India took over Junagadh where the ruler was a Muslim presiding over a Hindu majority area. Ditto for Hyderabad. India took the position of "majority view" in these cases. In Kashmir we took the "legal" view on the rights of the rulers of princely states...

But thats exactly how high politics is played out. Its a waste of time, even Prem Shankar Jha's delightful elegance does not mask the redundance of the argument (VP Menon's is more factual account). We did what was in national interest, Pakistan did what was in its national interest. The solution will always be found in terms of balance of power, not in terms of "fairness" of one's argument.

Even in republican Europe, whether its Alsace Lorraine, or the settlement of the Austro Hungarian empire - no one talked a lot about "democracy" and fairness in these matters...they got settled pretty much on the victor's terms..

Cases of "fair" secession, be it East Timor or Kosovo, have been reflection of the strategic weakness of the status quo incumbent...

IMO India has perfected the art of "legalesse jargonising" the Kashmir debate, either with Pakistan or with the rest of the world..starting with Krishna Menon's marathon UN speech, to Sardar Swaran Singh's long winded discussions with Bhutto, we have tended to defend our position via legal stalling methods, almost as if to buy time..I think that the time has come for us to be a little bit more blase about this..Kashmir is part of India's territory and the rst of the world just has to lump it...

the world has anyway done it folr most parts, it is for us to articulate our position a bit differently.

[SSridhar]

If one were to really stretch it, India took over Junagadh where the ruler was a Muslim presiding over a Hindu majority area. Ditto for Hyderabad. India took the position of "majority view" in these cases. In Kashmir we took the "legal" view on the rights of the rulers of princely states...

Somnath, that's not true. India had offered two principles on accession to Pakistan. One was geographical contiguity and the other was ascertaining the will of the people. Pakistan rejected both as that would have shut the door on Junagadh & Hyderabad. Jinnah and later Liaqat Ali said that such decisions were the sole prerogative of the ruler and ruler alone. Pakistan was confident that with most of the access points from J&K lying in Pakistan, with heavy dependence on day-to-day supplies from the Pakistani side, and with a majority Muslim population, it will be able to pick J&K. Its calculations went wrong.

About Junagadh

Junagadh was a Princely State in the Kathiawar area on the Saurashtra coast of Gujarat with 95% Hindu population with a Muslim ruler and like Hyderabad not having any geographical contiguity with Pakistan.The story starts with an unexpected announcement by the Nawab of Junagadh on Aug. 15, 1947 to accede to Pakistan. There was no response from Pakistan till Sep. 13 when it announced its acceptance. This came as a surprise to Indian Govt because India and Pakistan had decided not to have enclaves of one country inside the other. That was why India had refused the plea of the Khan of Kalat, the largest Princely State of Balochistan, as it had no physical contiguity with India. A mass protest movement started in Junagadh as a result. An Indian representative, V.P. Menon, was sent to Junagadh to talk to the Nawab who refused to meet him. Upon this, he met the Dewan (aka, Prime Minister), Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto (the father of Z.A. Bhutto and the grandfather of Madam BB) who agreed with VP that he personally favoured a referrendum for ascertaining the wishes of the people. Sir. Bhutto would later play a crucial role, as we would see. On the 18th of Sep, the neighbouring Sheikh of Mangrol, a vassal state of Junagadh, signed Instrument of Accession with India. Both Mangrol and Babariawad, another vassal state that had acceded to India, argued that with the lapse of Paramountcy, they were independent to take decisions. This caused resentment to the Nawab of Junagadh to order his troops to invade Babariawad. This was rightly construed by GoI as an act of aggression on Indian territory. However, the GoI desisted from taking any action till the British Constitutional experts opined on the legality of the actions of Mangrol and Babariawad. In the meanwhile, the GoI asked the Nawab to withdraw his forces from Babariawad which the Nawab refused on 25th Sep. After the legal opinion was obtained on the admissibility of the Instruments of Accession of Mangrol and Babariawad, the GoI decided to take military action by end Sep. The GoI decided to send troops to the Kathiawar region, to the borders of Babariawad and Junagdh, awaiting further orders. Even as the troop deployment was about to begin, the Nawab of Junagadh went ahead and occupied Mangrol on 1st Oct. The GoI then instructed the Indian commander to prepare a plan for the retrieval of Mangrol and Babariawad. On Oct. 5, the GoI issued a detailed press statement on the situation there. Nehru asked Liaqat Ali, the Pakistani PM, on Oct 5, to ask the Nawab to withdraw from Mangrol and Babariawad. Liaqat Ali replied evasively. More than 5 weeks after the Nawab invaded, and after repeated attempts to end it peacefully, the patience of the GoI ran out and on Nov. 1, a small Indian force accompanied by civilian administrators, re-possessed both Babariawad and Mangrol peacefully. In the meanwhile, the situation in Junagadh itself was becoming very difficult. On 27 Oct, Sir. Bhutto wrote to Jinnah thus "The Muslims of Kathiawar seem to have lost all enthusiasm for Pakistan". The Nawab had already fled to Pakistan on Oct. 24, on seeing the Indian forces, taking with him the entire cash balance of the treasury, his kennel of a thousand dogs and his Begums. It was Sir. Bhutto who was running the show in Junagadh now. On Nov. 5, the Junagadh State Council decided that "it was necessary to have a complete re-orientation of the State Policy and a re-adjustment of relations with the two Dominions even if it involves reversal of the earlier decision o accession to Pakistan". On Nov. 8, the Dewan, Sir. Shah Nawaz Bhutto requested the Indian Government to take over Junagadh. The request was promptly accepted. A referrendum was conducted on Feb 20, 1948 and the state was merged with Saurashtra on Feb 20, 1949.

About Hyderabad

Hyderabad, Deccan was a princely state ruled by the Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali, at the time of the Partition. The Princely state was about 85% Hindu and surrounded on all four sides by a predominantly Hindu British India with no external access except through these lands. The Princely State of Hyderabad had no sea-ports. The Nizam, at that time, was reputed to be the world's richest man.

On the same day the Maharajah of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession to India, Oct. 26, 1947, the Nizam was supposed to sign the "Standstill Agreement" with the GoI. The "Standstill Agreement" effectively maintained a status-quo relationship with India while the Nizam could make up his mind about the future of his state. The Nizam essentially did not want to lose his power of lordship over his citizens He wanted to strike a deal with Jinnah who promised him heaven if Hyderabad so chose to join with Pakistan (this was bribery). The draft Stand-Still agreement had earlier been approved by his Executive Council after three days of debate and had been also negotiated with the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten. However, when the time came to sign it, the Nizam was wavering. In the meanwhile, the Razaakar goons (a private militia under the patronage of the Nizam) of Ittehadul-Muslimeen surrounded the house of the delegation carrying the Standstill Agreement and forced them to flee. At last, the Nizam signed the Agreement on Nov 29, 1947. However, this incident led to a loss of trust by New Delhi in the Nizam (and rightly so). The Nizam sent an Ittihad (the same religious organization which hounded out the delegation from Delhi earlier) emissary to Jinnah for advice. Jinnah, though he probably knew the futility of a land-locked and Hindu majority state way down south ever being part of Pakistan, still decided to make life miserable for Indian leaders at the cost of the Nizam. He advised the Nizam "not to give an inch" and the Nizam promptly played into his hands. The Princely State of Hyderabad and GoI negotiated for the next nine months to reach an agreement between the Heads of States to formalize the Stand-Still agreement, but the Nizam was steadfast in following Jinnah's advice. The distrust that GoI had started to develop with the Nizam was complete when on June 15, 1948, the Nizam rejected the final draft after it had been re-drafted three times with his Executive Council. The final draft was very generous leaving the Nizam complete control except in matters of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communication. The Nizam also approached the US which refused to intervene. After considerable debate within the cabinet of GoI, after having exhausted all reasonable avenues, after having waited more than a year, after repeated obstinacy from the Nizam, after the Razaakars had started killing Hindus and raping their women, and after a couple of last-minute postponements at the instance of the First Indian Governor-General Rajagoplachari in order to give more time to the Nizam for sanity, the Indian Government finally launched Operation Polo on Sep. 13, 1948. The blame rests entirely with the Nizam and Jinnah, the former for being greedy, power-hungry and oblivious to reality and the latter for his callousness to human lives and suffering just in order to make lives of India and Indian leaders miserable, a prospect which his inflated ego always relished and which has been passed on as a legacy till this day to his successors and nation. With the end of Jinnah nearing in August, the Nizam's game was up.

In the case of both Hyderabad and Junagadh, as in Jammu&Kashmir, it is very obvious that in spite of grave provocation, India stuck to legalities, a step-by-step process, attempt at peaceful resolution and resorted to arms as a last option only.

[Neilz]

Media misrepresented key facts on Shopian rape-murder

this is really surprising, why mainstream media all over India did not publish it as a "hot" news.
This silence is not good. It must be publicised with all due fanfare and more.

Also, with some PIL those journalist must be brought to court to spread an apology message through the same media. GoVT does not do this then who will do. We must learn something from China-> "how to manage media crash course".

[Rishirishi]

Even in republican Europe, whether its Alsace Lorraine, or the settlement of the Austro Hungarian empire - no one talked a lot about "democracy" and fairness in these matters...they got settled pretty much on the victor's terms..

Unfourtunately Nehru missed this part of the history. He had his head burried under the sand of British Leagal principles (principes that the British never respected them selfs, in foregin matters.)

[tripathi]

Sridharji,there was no physical continuity between pakis tan and bangaladesh then why india allowed bangaladesh to join pakistan.

[somnath]

Somnath, that's not true. India had offered two principles on accession to Pakistan. One was geographical contiguity and the other was ascertaining the will of the people. Pakistan rejected both as that would have shut the door on Junagadh & Hyderabad. Jinnah and later Liaqat Ali said that such decisions were the sole prerogative of the ruler and ruler alone. Pakistan was confident that with most of the access points from J&K lying in Pakistan, with heavy dependence on day-to-day supplies from the Pakistani side, and with a majority Muslim population, it will be able to pick J&K. Its calculations went wrong.

Sridhar, the Indian Independence Act of 1947 left the rulers of the states with the option of joining either India or Pakistan. Some rulers interpreted it as also having the option of staying "independent", somewhat unwisely....Therefore, while there might have been lots of options considered, including referendum, the final legal version of the denouement was that the princely rulers had to make a choice. In most cases, the doctrine of "practicality" won. In some it didnt...

However when it came to decision making, the Indian leadership themsleves stuck (in large measure) to the principle of self interest...In both the cases, the rulers clearly had their hearts "outside" India, somewhat Don Juanistic...But it didnt prevent India from basically asserting the "opinion of the majority" argument in these cases...On the other hand in Kashmir, even Sheikh Abdullah wasnt entirely sure of a favouirable referendum in favour of India (multiple sources: MJ Akbar's India the Siege within, as well as Prem Shankar Jha)....India however simply took the legal ground of the maharajah's formal accession, and we were never really interested in the "referendum" (if we were we would have at least done it in the Indian part of Kashmir, if only to prove a point to the doubting Thomases around the world)...

My point is a bit different - we acted in our self interest..There was a time when we had to "argue" our case to the world..The situation is vastly different today.We can afford to be blase about it and start from there.....dont think even PAskiatn is terribly interested in discussing the legalities of the acccession any more...The point is how to contain the militancy in KAshmir and PAk support for it - the intricacies of the accession agreement are matters of historical interest and very very little else...

[vera_k]

Re- the Instrument of Accession

The Maharaja was viewed as an illegitimate leader by Gandhi and hence India. India allowed the Maharaja to sign the Instrument of Accession only after Sheikh Abdullah and other Kashmiri leaders said they wanted to join India. It is true that matters were precipitated by the tribal invasion, but the Kashmiri leaders were leaning towards joining India at the time as Jinnah did not offer Kashmir the kind of autonomy they were seeking. The Kashmir dispute essentially started at the UNO where some powers refused to acknowledge and condemn Pakistan's aggression against Kashmir due to their own national interests.*

Seen this way, the tribal invasion appears to be the only way Pakistan and the UNO powers could have pre-empted the course of events.

This is in Chapters 8, 9 and 10 of Mir Qasim's book posted up above.

* Therefore, Kashmir dispute can be solved by the UNO. Remind me again what powers have refused to support India's candidacy to the Security Council.

[Gerard]

Botched forensics undermined Shopian probe

Forensic medicine expert Farida Noor’s testimony to the Jan Commission threw up a long list of errors of practice and judgment. “For [determining] the exact cause of death,” Dr. Noor stated, “it is necessary that a complete autopsy should be done with opening of all cavities of the body along with [the] head.” Nor did the Shopian doctors record if the hymen of the teenage victim bore marks typical of assault. For some of these failures, she said, there was “no excuse.”

None of the doctors in Shopian or Pulwama, interestingly, was trained in forensic medicine.

In fairness to the Shopian doctors, though, they were forced to work in exceptionally difficult and dangerous circumstances.

In her testimony to the Jan Commission, Shopian District Hospital surgeon Bilques Jan stated that an “unruly mob attacked the post-mortem room” even as the autopsy was underway. Dr. Jan, fearing for her life, jumped out of the window and hid in the operating theatre. The angry mob marched away with the bodies on which she was supposed to have carried out a vaginal examination.

[ramana]

Even in republican Europe, whether its Alsace Lorraine, or the settlement of the Austro Hungarian empire - no one talked a lot about "democracy" and fairness in these matters...they got settled pretty much on the victor's terms..

Unfourtunately Nehru missed this part of the history. He had his head burried under the sand of British Leagal principles (principes that the British never respected them selfs, in foregin matters.)

You were the one who started the fairness arguement and now you throw some mud at JLN. make up your mind. If he is following the laws he is a stooge!

ART. 370 is modern India's reverse millat. Think about it.

[somnath]

About India's action in Kashmir in 1947 - its a big question whether we waited for the accession agreementto be singed before sending in the troops..the kind of airlift done, commandeering almost all aricraft available within the country couldnt have been done within the 24 hours of when the agreement was supposed to have been signed by Hari Singh.

the story of how the decision to send troops goes a bit like this..In a cabinet meeting to discuss the issue, Nehru talked Russia, China, UN, international relations and earth universe and everything else when the Sardar lost his temper and said "Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir or not?" Nehru replied, startled, "of course I do". Patel turned to the senior Army officer in the meeting and told him "you have your orders now". (I think this is from Patrick French's Liberty or Death, but I may be wrong)..

Sometimes we give our leaders far less credit than is due (not that they dont goof up repeatedly!), but the whole Kashmir operation was executed in a manner that would have made Chanakya proud!

[SSridhar]

Sridharji,there was no physical continuity between pakis tan and bangaladesh then why india allowed bangaladesh to join pakistan.

Tripathi, we are talking here about the accession of princely states to either of the two dominions, India or Pakistan, after the lapse of the paramountcy. The creation of two wings of Pakistan does not figure here. The areas that constituted the two wings of Pakistan were out of British India. Btw, it was East Pakistan at that time, not Bangladesh.

[SSridhar]

About India's action in Kashmir in 1947 - its a big question whether we waited for the accession agreement to be signed before sending in the troops..the kind of airlift done, commandeering almost all aricraft available within the country couldnt have been done within the 24 hours of when the agreement was supposed to have been signed by Hari Singh.

I believe that the airlift happened only after Oct 26 when the Instrument had been signed by Hari Singh and accepted by Mountbatten and discussed in the Defence Committee meeting that morning. The three defence chiefs and the Joint Chief were all British at that time and it would have been difficult to keep the wraps on such a sensitive thing had it been otherwise. From my reading of what happened, two events delayed the capture of Srinagar by the Pakistanis. One was the well known rape, loot and pillage of Baramulla which kept most of the tribal lashkars occupied for three days and the other less well known was the brave efforts of a small contingent of J&K State Forces led by Brig. Rajinder Singh who delayed the raiders by two days at Uri (incidentally, the first Maha Vir Chakra was awarded posthumously to him).

the story of how the decision to send troops goes a bit like this..In a cabinet meeting to discuss the issue, Nehru talked Russia, China, UN, international relations and earth universe and everything else when the Sardar lost his temper and said "Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir or not?" Nehru replied, startled, "of course I do". Patel turned to the senior Army officer in the meeting and told him "you have your orders now". (I think this is from Patrick French's Liberty or Death, but I may be wrong)..

That is true. It was vividly recalled by FM Manekshaw as he went with VP Menon to get the Instrument of Accession signed on 26th Oct at Srinagar and also to assess the military situation. He clearly stated that when VP Menon came out of the meeting with Hari Singh, he waved the Accession paper and said, "Sam, we have it now".

[somnath]

Re- the Instrument of Accession

The Maharaja was viewed as an illegitimate leader by Gandhi and hence India. India allowed the Maharaja to sign the Instrument of Accession only after Sheikh Abdullah and other Kashmiri leaders said they wanted to join India. It is true that matters were precipitated by the tribal invasion, but the Kashmiri leaders were leaning towards joining India at the time as Jinnah did not offer Kashmir the kind of autonomy they were seeking. The Kashmir dispute essentially started at the UNO where some powers refused to acknowledge and condemn Pakistan's aggression against Kashmir due to their own national interests.*

Seen this way, the tribal invasion appears to be the only way Pakistan and the UNO powers could have pre-empted the course of events.

This is in Chapters 8, 9 and 10 of Mir Qasim's book posted up above.

* Therefore, Kashmir dispute can be solved by the UNO. Remind me again what powers have refused to support India's candidacy to the Security Council.

Well, not really.. While a lot is made out of Nehru's friednship with the Sheikh, his views on "accession" to India were ambivalent at best before the tribal invasion started..At best, he was a neutral plus party...

about major powers precipitating the tribal invasion, its a fine conspiracy theory, but a bit rich...Consdering that most of US/USSR's energies were in gaining foothold in Europe for the Cold War, to think that Us/UK somehow conjured up a Kashmir invasion to create a "problem" for India is a trifle far fetched - at that time India anyway had far too many opther problems of its own, ones that led many to anyway opine on our demise as a nation state...they didnt need to create another one..JMT..

[somnath]

[I believe that the airlift happened only after Oct 26 when the Instrument had been signed by Hari Singh and accepted by Mountbatten and discussed in the Defence Committee meeting that morning. The three defence chiefs and the Joint Chief were all British at that time and it would have been difficult to keep the wraps on such a sensitive thing had it been otherwise. From my reading of what happened, two events delayed the capture of Srinagar by the Pakistanis. One was the well known rape, loot and pillage of Baramulla which kept most of the tribal lashkars occupied for three days and the other less well known was the brave efforts of a small contingent of J&K State Forces led by Brig. Rajinder Singh who delayed the raiders by two days at Uri (incidentally, the first Maha Vir Chakra was awarded posthumously to him).

Technically yes...But more practically, was it possible for a new nation state, with no experience in conducting "warfare", to have mobilised such a large airlift operation within 24-48 hours?