The General and Kargil

Dear Jang,

I wonder why is it that every Indian thinks its his national duty to dig another Indian out of the grave that he has dug for himself? Is this a Maccaca camaraderie thing? Poor Harimau has had a can of whoopass opened on rearend so many times that its had a rather injurious effect on his memory and reading skills...

To quote H V Hodson`s chapter on Junagadh:

On pages 429-430

``Why, we may ask, should Mr. Jinnah and his Government have been so keen to get, and have gone to such length to hold, a poor, communally divided State whose geography would make her adherence as great an embarrassment for Pakistan as her defection made it for India... the answer must surely be sought in Mr. Jinnah`s tactical shrewdness. He must have been- or, if he didn not see, it certainly turned out- that the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan placed India in an acute dilemma from which any escape could be turned to the advantage of Pakistan. If the Indian Government acquiesced, admitting the undoubtable legal right of the ruler to decide which way to go, the precedent of a Muslim prince taking a Hindu Majority State into Pakistan, notwithstanding geographical and communal arguments to the contrary, could be applied to the far greater price of Hyderabad. If the Indian Government intervened with force... it would set up a contrary precedent to be applied by Pakistan to Kashmir... if India demanded, as the alternative to force, a plebiscite in Junagadh, this could be adopted as a general principle which when applied to Kashmir and Jammu would , in Karachi`s estimate, take the State to Pakistan.``

And this was what happened ... on page 436, Hodson writes quoting Mountbatten- let us consider the machiavellian deception and lies of which Gandhians were masters:

``Pandit Nehru then declared that he considered that, in difficult cases like these, the will of the people should be ascertained... I emphasised the importance of Pandit Nehru`s statement to Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan, and assured him that the Government of India wouuld abide by it and that Pandit Nehru would agree that this policy would apply to any other state... Pandit Nehru nodded his head sadly.``

Ultimately a plebiscite was held in Junagadh.

Now here are my observations:

1. Pakistan had won the case for plebiscite in Kashmir legally and morally through this entire episode. Unfortunately the fact that Jinnah did not live long enough and the Indian leaders - especially Nehru and Patel - were utterly dishonest is the reason why the subcontinent to this day is living through a nightmare.

2. Indians and their lackeys may say means justify the ends, but one can see the utter dishonesty of Indian leaders` actions and what they stood for and this calls into a question a lot of things. My gutt feeling is that the definitive history of this region as well as a final chapter on Kashmir is not yet written.

3. It is clear that the British government was partisan and it was with British bayonets that Indians were able to perpetrate this travesty of justice in Kashmir.

4. Had it not been for tribal invasion of Kashmir, we wouldn`t even have a single inch of that land. The reason why we didn`t win it all was because the British officers all but mutinied against the civilian authority and the Pakistan government. The Indians should thank General Gracey and not Nehru and Patel, who were crooks of smaller ability, for the portion of Kashmir they have today.

5. Reading the chapter on Junagadh in H V Hodson`s brilliant book has convinced me that Pakistan as a matter of policy should never trust any Indian overtures, view with suspicion every Indian movement and be ready to take advantage of any and every Indian misfortune because the only language that India understands is a profoundly Gandhian one i.e. dishonest, deceitful and laden with hypocrisy... hence instead of playing fair as we did in 1947 ... we should be ready to bend the rules Injun` shytle.

6. The reason why Indian waited till September 13, 1948 was because till September 11, 1948, the man who put a big danda up their rearends was still alive.

7. Poor Harimau is probably an expatriate with nothing much going for him in his life... thus like any scounderel he revels in the great underhandedness of Chanakaya and Chanakaya`s tricks.

Hope my position on the matter is clear.

In 2... I meant ``Indians and their lackeys may say ends justify the means``

though it is equally true the other way around as well.

Re:mantolives#241

[...5. Reading the chapter on Junagadh in H V Hodson`s brilliant book has convinced me that Pakistan as a matter of policy should never trust any Indian overtures, view with suspicion every Indian movement and be ready to take advantage of any and every Indian misfortune because the only language that India understands is a profoundly Gandhian one i.e. dishonest, deceitful and laden with hypocrisy... hence instead of playing fair as we did in 1947 ... we should be ready to bend the rules Injun` shytle.

6. The reason why Indian waited till September 13, 1948 was because till September 11, 1948, the man who put a big danda up their rearends was still alive....]

Manto, you should thank your stars that Nehru and Patel lusted after Kashmir and managed to get it for India. In my opinion, keeping Kashmir was the only reason that communal violence in India subsided by 1948 otherwise it was spreading to UP/Bihar in the same extreme manner as in Punjab and Bengal. It would have been very difficult for Nehru to justify holding on to Kashmir if muslims were forcibly expelled from all of India. At that time, the mood in India as well as in Pakistan was an extreme frenzy of communalism with refugees pouring in with horror tales. So no politician would have been able to stop a complete holocaust had Kashmir not been on the table as an obvious gain from stopping violence.

Also, I believe this was a prime reason for India to honor Congress pledges and adopt a secular constitution. If Kashmir had gone to Pakistan, it would have meant a 100% exchange of population as nothing would hold back hindus from expelling every muslim and declaring India a hindu state - i.e. take 2 nation theory to its ultimate culmination.

So in a way, whatever happened, happened for the best.

Re:manto

P.S. The fact that Pakistan expelled almost its entire hindu/sikh population proves my hypothesis. There was no analogue to Kashmir for Pakistan i.e. it was not trying to hang on to some big hindu majority province. Hence there was no stopping of the communal violence until everyone had been expelled all over. The same exact thing would have happened in India too had Kashmir not been in play, since people on both sides think alike!!

Currently Zeemax is banned from posting because of his continuous disregard of Chowk guidelines. This is a warning to all -- Anyone who continues name calling and/or hate-speech will be banned from posting any further.

#241 thanks manto..but i dont understand how it clarifies #240?
do you have anything to add here, since that is the topic of this board?

Ref Mantolives #241

Yasser, dear boy, what you don`t want to tell the public is that:

Jinnah managed to install Shah Nawaz Bhutto (yes, the father of the man you admire the most, Zulfikhar Ali Bhutto) as the Diwan of Junagadh. While the Nawab was in Europe, Jinnah and Company worked on Bhutto to get him to advise the Nawab that he should accede to Pakistan.

Pakistan and India had an understanding that in the case of a difficult state like Junagadh, either country should not immediately accept the accession but should inform the other country.

The Nawab signed the Instrument of Accession but Pakistan kept the information quiet and announced on August 14 that Junagadh had acceded to Pakistan.

Junagadh on top of this invaded Mogrol, a neighboring princely state that had already acceded to India.

The Nawab`s mental state was questionable: after all, he took 150 of his pet dogs with him on his plane to Pakistan but left a begum behind, proving -- for those proof is indeed needed -- that beagles are better than begums.

The Diwan requested that the Instrument of Accession be rescinded.

This is off the top of my head.... unlike the stuff you have posted from your posterior.

Ref Mantolives #241

[6. The reason why Indian waited till September 13, 1948 was because till September 11, 1948, the man who put a big danda up their rearends was still alive.]

Yasser, dear boy, do you mean Jinnah? The man who couldn`t do sh!t about India throwing the Pak troops out of Kashmir? How was he going to get troops into Hyderabad?

Since you have short-term memory, I want to remind you that in 1971 you coudn`t send reinforcements to East Bengal though you has a sea route.

The big danda is up Pak`s arse and will be there until it breaks up through its own contradictions. By that I mean: folks like you are trying to keep it in the late 1940s (Jinnah`s ``I have a Dream`` speech) whereas Zia-ul Haq and Hamid Gul have successfully implemented their ``Have I got a Nightmare for You!`` scenario.

Ref Mantolives #241

[Poor Harimau is probably an expatriate with nothing much going for him in his life... ]

Yasser, dear boy, if you check my profile you will find that I split my time between India and the US so I am not completely an expatriate. I have got plenty going for me in life, don`t worry on that account. Heck, I might even decide to visit Pakistan one of these days except that I shudder to think of Daniel Pearl.

On the other hand, your disease of Jinnah worship and Gandhi hating seems to have spread through prolonged contact... somewhat like leprosy. I chanced upon Ayesha Sarwari`s iLog the other day and there she was, ranting against Gandhi. Doesn`t she have something better to do, like feed the babies? Someone ought to tell the poor girl that her responsiblities don`t end with making babies.

Dear Chowk staff,

While your effort to maintain sanity is appreciated, no action should be unilateral. There are offenders on all sides and they all should be banned.


Harimau mian,

You protest too much regarding a lot going in your life and that proves my point. I am sure you are a life less loser and nothing more. One does not need to visit your profile to ascertain that.

Also I can`t do anything with any information at the top of your head but can only rely on what H V Hodson has penned. All I know is that document of accession was signed. India held a plebiscite there to annul the document of accession. To say that the Diwan later tried to rescind the plebiscite begs the question as to whether any Diwan had that authority.

Meanwhile.. whatever the questionable state of mind of the Nawab, from Hodson`s book it is abundantly clear that the most ridiculous of the idiots was Hari Singh of Kashmir. Reading the chapter on Kashmir I draw the following conclusions.

1. H V Hodson believes that the whole matter could have been laid to rest had Hari Singh acceded to Pakistan. He did not because he was a Maharaja who did not want to accede to a Muslim majority country. H V Hodson rubbishes the notion that there was any logic behind Hari Singh`s claim that Pakistan was a one community state and therefore Kashmir could not go to them. It was clear that Hari Singh was a bigot and which is why he left behind a crisis for all times.

2. That the reason why a crisis was perpetuated was because Pandit Nehru was throwing tantrums because Kashmir was his ``ancestral state`` ... this comes out quite clearly from the chapter as well.

3. The document of accession- according JK PM Mehr Chand Mahajan`s biography- was signed after Indian forces landed in Srinagar. Thus the whole thing was illegal and brought about by violence and fraud.

4. The document of accession - fradulently obtained as it was- was dependent on the occurence of a plebiscite and this was reaffirmed by the very man who delivered you Kashmir.... Mountbatten.

Ranjit mian,

Your hypothesis is just that... a hypothesis.

For one thing... other than the quid pro quo to Sikhs getting an autonomous province within Pakistan, Pakistan had also lured Jodhpur, a Rajput Hindu majority state with a Hindu Raja, to accede to Pakistan. Jodhpur was harassed and bullied by India and the record of that can also be found in H V Hodson amongst other books. And this expelled business.. as proven earlier... is probably true of Punjab on both sides (Muslims from East Punjab were expelled as well - you don`t find many Punjabi Muslims east of the Wagah) ... but by and large in East Pakistan and in Karachi the Hindu communities remained in tact.

Your thesis that India did it out of some commitment to a secular state is ridiculous. India could be a secular state without playing dirty underhanded politics in Kashmir... This is just ridiculous that you state that India could only be a secular state by having a Muslim majority state. The reason why Kashmir issue was created was because Hari Singh was a bigot and Nehru was just plain greedy.... and because India went back on its promises to the people of Kashmir. In those days it seems India denounced even the UN Security Council as being ``evil`` and ``anti-India`` for saying that Pakistan had a strong prima facie case on Kashmir.

So cease and desist with ex post facto justifications for the immoral and illegal actions of your country.

Ref Mantolives #250

[H V Hodson rubbishes the notion that there was any logic behind Hari Singh`s claim that Pakistan was a one community state and therefore Kashmir could not go to them.]

Yasser, dear boy, I am glad you came out with the wonderful joke that Pakistan is a multi-community state. It is sure to generate huge amusement amongst Chowk readers. I am sure Ahmadiyyas are pleased to know this and so are the Shias who are being murdered even as you write in Karachi.

Today is a holiday in Chennai. We are holding elections for about 100,000 local community offices. You might not know what an election is. Let me give you a clue: it is not what a Chinese man gets at night!

Dear Harimau mian,

I knew it all along. When called for your bluff, you`ve left the field with your tail between your legs and are now resorting to your characteristic statements of Hindu bravado.

Was Pakistan in 1948, with significant Non-Muslim populations especially in East Pakistan and Sindh, and whose law minister was a Hindu, a one community state? Is it even today, stripped off its Eastern Wing, a one community state- didn`t know that SC Justice Bhagwandas or Cornelius before him or other people are/were all secretly Wahabi.
Not only is the fact that Pakistan was a Muslim majority state then and Kashmir was a Muslim majority state important... but Jodhpur and several other Hindu states with Hindu Rajas had actually tried to accede to Pakistan but were forcibly stopped by those underhanded crooks Gandhi, Nehru and Patel.

Now trying to argue that Kashmir was central to Indian secularism is a further indication of the bigoted Hindu mindset that you people have. Could you point out any state in the US which is non-christian majority ... are you then suggesting that the US is not a secular state because it does not have a non-christian majority federating unit. Logic like this is sure to blow up in your own face.

Re: # 253

One caller Aamir from Batal who complained that Erra people had sold cheques of Rs75,000 for Rs25,000 was given the right royal brush off. The general, according to an English transcript of the programme, said “If Aamir’s complaint proved to be genuine after a thorough probe, action will be taken against the culprits. And if the complaint proved to be wrong, I shall arrange for his (Aamir’s) arrest and imprisonment”. Even the BBC compere was a little appalled and muttered something about “that is not right, general sahib ..”.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/10/13/op.htm#1

PS: Sorry I missed two gems in your last post.

1. On Chennai - is this a pathetic attempt to prove that you are not an expatriate loser? In any event, I am certain that I have voted in my brief life in more elections parliamentary and local than you have in your miserable pathetic expatriate life.

2. I speak to my father (an Ahmadi) and my mother (a shia) everyday and they seem to be leading very happy and content lives... and last I checked while there had been sectarian violence, Karachi`s streets are not flowing with blood at the ``very moment`` we right as you would like to put it. That only happens in Gujurat, India... oh wait, there they burn Muslims alive.

Ref Mantolives #252

[I knew it all along. When called for your bluff, you`ve left the field with your tail between your legs and are now resorting to your characteristic statements of Hindu bravado.]

Yasser, dear boy, let us see how long you persist with half-truths.

[Was Pakistan in 1948, with significant Non-Muslim populations especially in East Pakistan and Sindh, and whose law minister was a Hindu, a one community state?]

By law minister, are you referring to one Jogindra Nath Mandal who sought political asylum in India?

[Is it even today, stripped off its Eastern Wing, a one community state- didn`t know that SC Justice Bhagwandas or Cornelius before him or other people are/were all secretly Wahabi.
Not only is the fact that Pakistan was a Muslim majority state then and Kashmir was a Muslim majority state important...]

Excuse me, doesn`t your country have a law stating that only Followers of the True Faith are eligible to be President, Prime Minster, etc.? And didn`t the Faithful actually take out demonstrations against Justice Bhagwandas`s appointment? Of course, the man had to sign an oath to uphold the PCO to keep his job, didn`t he?

And didn`t you guys trumpet the fact that the first Hindu soldier was admitted to Pak Army just about a month back?

An impartial observer might then question your claims about Pakistan being an inclusive society. Not even Urstruly comes to your defence on this.

[...but Jodhpur and several other Hindu states with Hindu Rajas had actually tried to accede to Pakistan but were forcibly stopped by those underhanded crooks Gandhi, Nehru and Patel.]

The real truth is that Jinnah gave a blank piece of paper to Jodhpur, Bikaner, Patiala, etc., and asked them to write their own terms for acceding to Pakistan. They returned the favor by giving him a blank piece of paper and signed up with India. So much for Jinnah`s efforts to entice princes with money!

[Now trying to argue that Kashmir was central to Indian secularism is a further indication of the bigoted Hindu mindset that you people have.]

I am not arguing that. I am in fact arguing for wholesale massacre of @#$%&*$#@&*% Kashmiri Muslims to show them who is the boss.

[Could you point out any state in the US which is non-christian majority ... are you then suggesting that the US is not a secular state because it does not have a non-christian majority federating unit. Logic like this is sure to blow up in your own face.]

And you are studying what, law?

Does the US have a statute saying that only a Christian can become the President, Justice of the Supreme Court, Chairman of JCS, etc.? Huh?

Ref Mantolives #253

[On Chennai - is this a pathetic attempt to prove that you are not an expatriate loser?]

I spend my life as I please beholden to none. Unlike you who has to kiss some mullah`s butt. In case you doubt that, why don`t you go to the mosque next Friday and talk about secularism?

[In any event, I am certain that I have voted in my brief life in more elections parliamentary and local than you have in your miserable pathetic expatriate life.]

Which merely means that you attempted to cast fraudulent votes often, nothing else.

[I speak to my father (an Ahmadi) and my mother (a shia) everyday and they seem to be leading very happy and content lives... and last I checked while there had been sectarian violence, Karachi`s streets are not flowing with blood at the ``very moment`` we right as you would like to put it.]

It only happens on Friday evenings at prayer time in Shia imambaras, right. Check the calendar, today IS Friday.

[That only happens in Gujurat, India... oh wait, there they burn Muslims alive.]

The train was returning from Ayodhya, not known to be a place for Muslim pilgrimage. Unless Indian Muslims are full Hindus in beards who chant Ram`s name!

Can`t you get ANYTHING right in your life?