Technoglitch
Core Member
how come this is anti national when this is the truth bro?
Article Kashmir wanted to be independant country
- Thread starter Technoglitch
- Start date
Technoglitch
Core Member
This is what i read from a source
As regional Britain rule ended in South Asia in 1947, the fates of Kashmir and over five hundred other Princely States were left in contention. Most of the states acceded quickly to either Pakistan or India. Kashmir, however, stalled in hopes of self-determination by requesting standstill agreements with both countries. After the agreement was signed with Pakistan but before it was signed with India, Pakistani bands infiltrated the border of Kashmir, joining rebels in West Kashmir trying to throw off the rule of the Maharaja, who was Hindu but whose constituents were mainly Muslim. After several requests to Pakistan to stop the free distribution of arms and ammunition and access to facilities, land, and resources to the raiders, appealed to India for military support. India agreed, but only on the condition that Kashmir sign an instrument of accession to India. Kashmir agreed, and the document was legally signed. Because Kashmir was now a part of India, the Maharaja sent troops in to repel the raiders. On November 2 of that year, the Indian government announced that it would hold a plebiscite to permanently resolve the issue of Kashmir. However, Pakistan would not come to the table on the grounds that a fair plebiscite could not possibly be held while Indian troops occupied the area in question. Since then, all attempts at cease-fire and plebiscite agreements have been foiled by either country’s violations of peace requirements. This chapter will discuss the diplomatic history of the two countries, form an opinion on relative the fault of the two countries, and discuss the subsequent fate of the Kashmiri state itself.
"First of all, India’s accusation of aggression has foundation because Pakistan is truly at fault for the invasion of Kashmir. According to Dionisio Anzilotti, former president of the Permanent Court of International Justice, "The State which knows an individual is plotting an unlawful act against a foreign state and does not prevent it, and the State which receives an offender and screens him from punishment… become [an] accomplice in the offenses" (Rao 46). The invasion was "against all canons of international law and usage and a clear violation of the Charter, the Security Council’s resolution of 17 January 1948, and its own assurance to the President of the Security Council" (Rao 82). In July 1948, three months after Pakistan admitted of its own accord to sending troops into Kashmir under the pretext of self-defense, the UN Commission established "without a doubt" (Rao 46) that Pakistan had committed aggression. In response to this, the Pakistan Foreign Minister admitted wrongdoing but cited fear of Indian aggression as a main reason behind Pakistan’s actions. However, regardless of the reason, according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Pakistan had "no right of self-defense in the absence of an armed invasion or attack on its territory" (Rao 50). In addition, it failed to inform the Security Council of the movement of its troops, another violation of the UN Charter, but rather denied the existence of the raiders altogether. This also directly violated the spirit of the written assurance it gave the president of the Security Council in January 1948 that it would follow the statutes of the Charter.
In addition, Pakistan’s argument that the accession of Kashmir to India was illegal is unfounded. Pakistan claims that the Maharaja was not legally competent to sign the instrument of accession to India because his power had already been usurped by the revolt. However, according to the statutes of international law, the new government of Kashmir had not yet acquired statehood. The conditions are that there must be a people, a country in which people have settled, and a sovereign government. The state of Kashmir satisfied all of these requirements except for that of a sovereign government, as it had no power to deal with external matters and was thus not completely dependent of external control. Therefore, Kashmir was still under the law of its Maharaja, and the instrument of accession was and is completely legal."
As regional Britain rule ended in South Asia in 1947, the fates of Kashmir and over five hundred other Princely States were left in contention. Most of the states acceded quickly to either Pakistan or India. Kashmir, however, stalled in hopes of self-determination by requesting standstill agreements with both countries. After the agreement was signed with Pakistan but before it was signed with India, Pakistani bands infiltrated the border of Kashmir, joining rebels in West Kashmir trying to throw off the rule of the Maharaja, who was Hindu but whose constituents were mainly Muslim. After several requests to Pakistan to stop the free distribution of arms and ammunition and access to facilities, land, and resources to the raiders, appealed to India for military support. India agreed, but only on the condition that Kashmir sign an instrument of accession to India. Kashmir agreed, and the document was legally signed. Because Kashmir was now a part of India, the Maharaja sent troops in to repel the raiders. On November 2 of that year, the Indian government announced that it would hold a plebiscite to permanently resolve the issue of Kashmir. However, Pakistan would not come to the table on the grounds that a fair plebiscite could not possibly be held while Indian troops occupied the area in question. Since then, all attempts at cease-fire and plebiscite agreements have been foiled by either country’s violations of peace requirements. This chapter will discuss the diplomatic history of the two countries, form an opinion on relative the fault of the two countries, and discuss the subsequent fate of the Kashmiri state itself.
"First of all, India’s accusation of aggression has foundation because Pakistan is truly at fault for the invasion of Kashmir. According to Dionisio Anzilotti, former president of the Permanent Court of International Justice, "The State which knows an individual is plotting an unlawful act against a foreign state and does not prevent it, and the State which receives an offender and screens him from punishment… become [an] accomplice in the offenses" (Rao 46). The invasion was "against all canons of international law and usage and a clear violation of the Charter, the Security Council’s resolution of 17 January 1948, and its own assurance to the President of the Security Council" (Rao 82). In July 1948, three months after Pakistan admitted of its own accord to sending troops into Kashmir under the pretext of self-defense, the UN Commission established "without a doubt" (Rao 46) that Pakistan had committed aggression. In response to this, the Pakistan Foreign Minister admitted wrongdoing but cited fear of Indian aggression as a main reason behind Pakistan’s actions. However, regardless of the reason, according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Pakistan had "no right of self-defense in the absence of an armed invasion or attack on its territory" (Rao 50). In addition, it failed to inform the Security Council of the movement of its troops, another violation of the UN Charter, but rather denied the existence of the raiders altogether. This also directly violated the spirit of the written assurance it gave the president of the Security Council in January 1948 that it would follow the statutes of the Charter.
In addition, Pakistan’s argument that the accession of Kashmir to India was illegal is unfounded. Pakistan claims that the Maharaja was not legally competent to sign the instrument of accession to India because his power had already been usurped by the revolt. However, according to the statutes of international law, the new government of Kashmir had not yet acquired statehood. The conditions are that there must be a people, a country in which people have settled, and a sovereign government. The state of Kashmir satisfied all of these requirements except for that of a sovereign government, as it had no power to deal with external matters and was thus not completely dependent of external control. Therefore, Kashmir was still under the law of its Maharaja, and the instrument of accession was and is completely legal."
Technoglitch - u should start a movement for POK too because POK is also independent kashmir
It is anti national. ur supporting them in their demand. The truth is maharaja wanted to merge with india, but he had pressure from Pakistan. So hence he waited to take the decision. before he could, the Pak army and tribes invaded the state. he asked India for help, now no country can send troops to another land id its not a part of its nation, so first J&K acceded and merged with india and after that army was send to protect the state from invaders.
Technoglitch
Core Member
As far as i know Maharaja wnated to be independent, he didnt want to join either pak or india.
Technoglitch bro, request u to pls stop this topic, let peace be there on this forum. I am asking as this should not turn ugly.
The Answer to ur question is there cannot be any plebiscite as the state is an integral part of india. And the decision of the ruler aka maharaja is final that we merged his state with india.
The Answer to ur question is there cannot be any plebiscite as the state is an integral part of india. And the decision of the ruler aka maharaja is final that we merged his state with india.
Its false. What ur saying is not correct. he said that so that there is no pressure from Pakistan. But he wanted to join India as he had good relation with many indian leaders
Technoglitch
Core Member
ok dude..there is not a fight just wanted to analyse the facts bro.
What exactly happened in 1947?
Jammu & Kashmir in the year 1947 was an independent country for all practical purposes. The Maharaja who ruled the State had signed agreements with both Pakistan and India to remain neutral and not be part of either country. India honoured that agreement but Pakistan did not. Pakistani raiders and soldiers attacked the state in 1947 forcing the Maharaja to flee to India. The Maharaja asked India to help his people who were being killed and looted by the Pakistani raiders. He also agreed to make Jammu &; Kashmir part of India. The Indian ruler at that time was Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. He accepted Jammu &; Kashmir's accession to India and agreed to rescue his people from the Pakistani attackers. Indian troops were flown into the Kashmir Valley and they managed to drive away most of the Pakistani raiders from the state. But a large area of the state remained under the control of Pakistani soldiers. These areas were difficult to reach because they were surrounded by tall mountain ranges. Also, India wanted to stop the fighting. The fighting ended with Pakistan retaining control of a large area of the state but India keeping a larger part.
Jammu & Kashmir in the year 1947 was an independent country for all practical purposes. The Maharaja who ruled the State had signed agreements with both Pakistan and India to remain neutral and not be part of either country. India honoured that agreement but Pakistan did not. Pakistani raiders and soldiers attacked the state in 1947 forcing the Maharaja to flee to India. The Maharaja asked India to help his people who were being killed and looted by the Pakistani raiders. He also agreed to make Jammu &; Kashmir part of India. The Indian ruler at that time was Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. He accepted Jammu &; Kashmir's accession to India and agreed to rescue his people from the Pakistani attackers. Indian troops were flown into the Kashmir Valley and they managed to drive away most of the Pakistani raiders from the state. But a large area of the state remained under the control of Pakistani soldiers. These areas were difficult to reach because they were surrounded by tall mountain ranges. Also, India wanted to stop the fighting. The fighting ended with Pakistan retaining control of a large area of the state but India keeping a larger part.
Was the Maharaja's decision to merge his state with India legal?
It was absolutely legal. According to the agreement on which the partition of India was based, the rulers of princely states, like Jammu & Kashmir, had the absolute right to decide whether they wanted to join Pakistan or India. There was never any question of holding a referendum or a plebiscite. All the same, the then Prime Minister of India, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, agreed to hold a plebiscite because he was a democrat and wanted to find out what the people of the state of Jammu & Kashmir wanted.
It was absolutely legal. According to the agreement on which the partition of India was based, the rulers of princely states, like Jammu & Kashmir, had the absolute right to decide whether they wanted to join Pakistan or India. There was never any question of holding a referendum or a plebiscite. All the same, the then Prime Minister of India, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, agreed to hold a plebiscite because he was a democrat and wanted to find out what the people of the state of Jammu & Kashmir wanted.