On This Day: January 1st, 1949 - UN grants right to Kashmir to vote to stay with India or Pakistan

[MenInG]

1949, Jan 1, The UN brokered a cease-fire in Kashmir. It granted Kashmir the right to vote on whether to remain in India or to join Pakistan. No vote took place.

Massive injustice? How should it have been handled by both countries?

 

[Gabbar Singh]

The resolution was supplementary to the commission's resolution of 1948. Which takes us back to the crux of the problem because neither side will ever take the steps described in that resolution. That first step of the resolution will never happen, Pakistan withdrawing all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals from Kashmir - that will happen when hell freezes over.

The Resolution[edit]
The final resolution adopted had two parts. The first part increased the Commission's strength to five members and asked it to proceed to the Indian subcontinent at once to mediate between India and Pakistan. The second part dealt with the Security council's recommendations for restoring peace and conducting a plebiscite. This involved three steps.[5][6]

In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.
In the third step, India was asked to ensure that all the major political parties were invited to participate in the state government at the ministerial level, essentially forming a coalition cabinet. India should then appoint a Plebiscite Administrator nominated by the United Nations, who would have a range of powers including powers to deal with the two countries and ensure a free and impartial plebiscite. Measures were to be taken to ensure the return of refugees, the release of all political prisoners, and for political freedom.
The resolution was approved by nine votes against none. The Soviet Union and Ukraine abstained.[7]

So round and round we go.

 

[Pakistanian]

Should've gone to Pakistan at that time, right now it's better if they're independent from both countries.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Should've gone to Pakistan at that time, right now it's better if they're independent from both countries.

Any reason why it should have gone to Pakistan?

 

[cricketjoshila]

The resolution was supplementary to the commission's resolution of 1948. Which takes us back to the crux of the problem because neither side will ever take the steps described in that resolution. That first step of the resolution will never happen, Pakistan withdrawing all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals from Kashmir - that will happen when hell freezes over.



So round and round we go.

Actually resolutions were passed in 1948 and another one on 5th Jan 49. Dont know if commision sat on 1st Jan 1949.

Look at the first step.

 

[Pakistanian]

Any reason why it should have gone to Pakistan?

It's a Muslim majority state and should've gone to Pakistan cause that's what the formula for partition was. More importantly the people there wanted to join Pakistan. I also have a personal bias cause of my heritage.

 

[TM Riddle]

The dogra dynasty which was ruling Kashmir at that time was a Rajput clan which had a huge anti muslim prestige. Should have taken the decision soon

 

[TM Riddle]

Dogras would have never gone to Pakistan no matter what.
Hinduism will always come first

 

[cricketjoshila]

It's a Muslim majority state and should've gone to Pakistan cause that's what the formula for partition was. More importantly the people there wanted to join Pakistan. I also have a personal bias cause of my heritage.

1.Partition plan was not for Princely states like Kashmir.

2.Pakistan should have let Kashmiris handle their affairs and they would have settled their issues themselves.

 

[Pakistanian]

1.Partition plan was not for Princely states like Kashmir.

2.Pakistan should have let Kashmiris handle their affairs and they would have settled their issues themselves.

Hyderbad was a princely state too and India forcefully annexed it. The Kashmiris were settling the issue by fighting against the occupation, Pakistan just sent in reinforcements, kinda like how India supported Bengalis against Pakistan.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Hyderbad was a princely state too and India forcefully annexed it. The Kashmiris were settling the issue by fighting against the occupation, Pakistan just sent in reinforcements, kinda like how India supported Bengalis against Pakistan.

1.Pakistan broke the standstill agreement by attacking Kashmir. India was then free to follow the precedent.

2.The hindus were a occupying force?Really?Hari Singh was a occupier? Pakistan had no job sending anyone into Kashmir. They would have settled the matter within themselves.

 

[Pakistanian]

1.Pakistan broke the standstill agreement by attacking Kashmir. India was then free to follow the precedent.

2.The hindus were a occupying force?Really?Hari Singh was a occupier? Pakistan had no job sending anyone into Kashmir. They would have settled the matter within themselves.

1. India invaded hyderbad lmao, you conveniently ignore that acting like y'all have any moral authority
2. Yeah the Kashmiris viewed him as a dictator, a tyrant and they didn't consider him there leader. It's not a Hindu thing, it's more of an ethnic thing. King of Kashmir wasn't even Kashmiri, so he doesn't speak for them.

 

[Madplayer]

1.Pakistan broke the standstill agreement by attacking Kashmir. India was then free to follow the precedent.

2.The hindus were a occupying force?Really?Hari Singh was a occupier? Pakistan had no job sending anyone into Kashmir. They would have settled the matter within themselves.

Pakistan broke standstill agreement and India followed suit???? Lol

Had India even signed the standstill agreement?

 

[cricketjoshila]

1. India invaded hyderbad lmao, you conveniently ignore that acting like y'all have any moral authority
2. Yeah the Kashmiris viewed him as a dictator, a tyrant and they didn't consider him there leader. It's not a Hindu thing, it's more of an ethnic thing. King of Kashmir wasn't even Kashmiri, so he doesn't speak for them.

1.The basis of not invading any princely state was a standstill agreement of which Pakistan and India were signatories.When Pakistan attacked and invaded Kashmir they broke that agreement.Why will India stick to the agreement when the other party has violated it?

2.Even today absolute monarchs are dictators, Does it mean anyone can invade Saudi or UAE or Qatar?.So Dogras are not Kashmiris?The Indian Independence act allowed Hari Singh to rule Kashmir.Both India and Pakistan are bound to follow that.

If Hari Singh and his people were having an issue, what gave Pakistan the right to go there?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Pakistan broke standstill agreement and India followed suit???? Lol

Had India even signed the standstill agreement?

Neither country was to forcibly annex a princely state.

In hindsight, Kashmiris were better off dealing with Hari Singh and Pakistan not interfering.Isnt it?

 

[Madplayer]

Neither country was to forcibly annex a princely state.

In hindsight, Kashmiris were better off dealing with Hari Singh and Pakistan not interfering.Isnt it?

The fact i was referring to is that India did not sign a standstill agreement with Jammu and Kashmir while Pakistan did it. Pakistan was confident that the muslim majority will without a shadow of doubt choose to go with Pakistan rather than India. And yes, they were correct because of 2 reasons. Firstly because it was a muslim majority, and second because The dogras had massacred 4-5 lakh muslims in Jammu once the partition of India and Pakistan took place. Some more Lakhs of muslims had to flee from Jammu to Pakistan which reduced the muslim numbers in Jammu quite significantly.

However, India and The Maharaja were under talks and Indians were doing their best to take Kashmir with them. This created a sense of suspicion among Pakistanis. The Maharaja publically tried to stay independent for as long as possible but the presence of Indian Patiala regiment in J&K when they should have had no business in Kashmir just made Pakistan lose patience and they tried to invade. The atmosphere was of suspicion and violence. It was a muslim majority under a hindu ruler which added to the suspicion.

In light of above facts, even in hindsight we dont know what would have happened if Pakistan didnt invade. Perhaps Hari singh would have acceeded to India against the wishes of people and that would have been the nail in the coffin there and then (No UN resolutions to keep the struggle alive). Perhaps he would have stayed independent and his dynasty would have continued opressing the Kashmiri muslims. The least likely of things to have happened is the Maharaja willingly giving up power to a muslim country and putting the hindu population under them.

 

[maverick85]

1.The basis of not invading any princely state was a standstill agreement of which Pakistan and India were signatories.When Pakistan attacked and invaded Kashmir they broke that agreement.Why will India stick to the agreement when the other party has violated it?

2.Even today absolute monarchs are dictators, Does it mean anyone can invade Saudi or UAE or Qatar?.So Dogras are not Kashmiris?The Indian Independence act allowed Hari Singh to rule Kashmir.Both India and Pakistan are bound to follow that.

If Hari Singh and his people were having an issue, what gave Pakistan the right to go there?

The people saw him as an outsider and a tyrant so they rebelled and booted him and his forces out. AJK irregulars with the help of Pakistan now control the area. Don't like what you're hearing sitting all the way down in Bengal, then tough cookie.

 

[maverick85]

Dogras would have never gone to Pakistan no matter what.
Hinduism will always come first

er, yes they did. Chibhs, sulerias and a myriad of other native AJK muslim dogra rajputs did.

 

[Madplayer]

er, yes they did. Chibhs, sulerias and a myriad of other native AJK muslim dogra rajputs did.

He would say only hindus are dogras. But let it be.

The elephant here is Power. Would a hindu ruler have let gone of power knowing that it would not be the same for him under a Muslim country? Obviously no. It has little to do Hinduism , and more to do with power. Going to which side can help in retaining power.

 

[maverick85]

He would say only hindus are dogras. But let it be.

The elephant here is Power. Would a hindu ruler have let gone of power knowing that it would not be the same for him under a Muslim country? Obviously no. It has little to do Hinduism , and more to do with power. Going to which side can help in retaining power.

The bigger elephant in the room is the fact that the British gave Ghulab Jamun Singh hereditary rule (which lasted under 100 years) over the area as a reward for his treachery, the effects of which are still haunting the area. Self confessed experts all the way in Bengal think they understand the area and that Kashmiris are blinded by love of India shining.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The fact i was referring to is that India did not sign a standstill agreement with Jammu and Kashmir while Pakistan did it. Pakistan was confident that the muslim majority will without a shadow of doubt choose to go with Pakistan rather than India. And yes, they were correct because of 2 reasons. Firstly because it was a muslim majority, and second because The dogras had massacred 4-5 lakh muslims in Jammu once the partition of India and Pakistan took place. Some more Lakhs of muslims had to flee from Jammu to Pakistan which reduced the muslim numbers in Jammu quite significantly.

However, India and The Maharaja were under talks and Indians were doing their best to take Kashmir with them. This created a sense of suspicion among Pakistanis. The Maharaja publically tried to stay independent for as long as possible but the presence of Indian Patiala regiment in J&K when they should have had no business in Kashmir just made Pakistan lose patience and they tried to invade. The atmosphere was of suspicion and violence. It was a muslim majority under a hindu ruler which added to the suspicion.

In light of above facts, even in hindsight we dont know what would have happened if Pakistan didnt invade. Perhaps Hari singh would have acceeded to India against the wishes of people and that would have been the nail in the coffin there and then (No UN resolutions to keep the struggle alive). Perhaps he would have stayed independent and his dynasty would have continued opressing the Kashmiri muslims. The least likely of things to have happened is the Maharaja willingly giving up power to a muslim country and putting the hindu population under them.

1.The Maharaja was the ruler.He had the right to decide unless he had abdicated.Neither India nor Pakistan had the right to intervene unless asked by Hari Singh. Did Hari Singh ask Pakistan to intervene?Did he object to presence of the Patiala regiment (Patiala was also a princely state in 1947 and later merged with India in 1948)? Pakistan had no right invade Kashmir nor did Hari Singh was obligated to join Pakistan.

2. If Maharaja and his subjects had issues they should have settled it between them.Neither India nor Pakistan should have interfered into the state unless asked to by Hari Singh.

3.What his dynasty would have done we didnot see.But what we do know is that

A)Pakistan tried to get Kashmir by force and failed.
B)Hari Singh aceded to India.
C)UN asked Pakistan to vacate Kashmir, they didnot.
D)Kashmiri muslims in cahoots with Pakistan killed Kashmiri Hindus.

4.Even today 35% of Kashmir is hindu, this despite Hindus being forced to leave or killed.What would have happened to them if Hari Singh gave up power and Kashmir became a muslim country?Repeat of Bangladesh?Sikander Butshikan revisited?

There could have been tons of ways in which Hari Singh and the Kashmiris could have settled their issues among themselves without Pakistan invading.

If anyone still thinks they will take Kashmir from India by force, they are being delusional.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The bigger elephant in the room is the fact that the British gave Ghulab Jamun Singh hereditary rule (which lasted under 100 years) over the area as a reward for his treachery, the effects of which are still haunting the area. Self confessed experts all the way in Bengal think they understand the area and that Kashmiris are blinded by love of India shining.

The Dogra Dynasty lasted for 101 years and ruled J and K.Before that by Sikh rulers and before that by Jamwal rulers.So non muslims were ruling the area for a long time.

J and K today is part of India, and hence i will give my opinion on it. I will tell it as it is.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The people saw him as an outsider and a tyrant so they rebelled and booted him and his forces out. AJK irregulars with the help of Pakistan now control the area. Don't like what you're hearing sitting all the way down in Bengal, then tough cookie.

Booted him? He volutarily gave the area to India and India still rules the bigger area.

If he was such a tyrant and his people were so againist it, well they should have got rid of him rather than Pakistan doing it.The Indian flag flies in Srinagar Jammu and Leh.Dont like it.Well you cant do anything about it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

He would say only hindus are dogras. But let it be.

The elephant here is Power. Would a hindu ruler have let gone of power knowing that it would not be the same for him under a Muslim country? Obviously no. It has little to do Hinduism , and more to do with power. Going to which side can help in retaining power.

Any idea what was the non muslim population of J and K in 1947?

 

[Snak3eye5]

It's a Muslim majority state and should've gone to Pakistan cause that's what the formula for partition was. More importantly the people there wanted to join Pakistan. I also have a personal bias cause of my heritage.

Bangladesh says hello here. You couldn't hold on to Bangladesh and treated east Pakistan like a colony that should be ruled upon and forced Urdu on them. What's to say the same wouldn't have happened to Kashmir ...

 

[maverick85]

Booted him? He volutarily gave the area to India and India still rules the bigger area.

If he was such a tyrant and his people were so againist it, well they should have got rid of him rather than Pakistan doing it.The Indian flag flies in Srinagar Jammu and Leh.Dont like it.Well you cant do anything about it.

Yes, booted meaning drove his minions from the forts in AJK. Gilgit Baltistanis also booted the pro-Indian forces out. Lol, he stepped down more like India gave him an option to save his hide. It's quite eveident how vocal the J&K area is to his 'voluntary' seccesion to shining Bharat.

 

[UN talkz]

A promise that was never fulfilled and Kashmiris were made to live under tyrants.

 

[maverick85]

Bangladesh says hello here. You couldn't hold on to Bangladesh and treated east Pakistan like a colony that should be ruled upon and forced Urdu on them. What's to say the same wouldn't have happened to Kashmir ...

Bangladesh doesn't hold blood ties with then West Pakistan, except for the emigrant community in Karachi. AJK people are the same peoples across the Potohar plateau who are divided by the Jhelum river. We share the same dialect for the majority of parts. The other pockets have their own distinct languages e.g Kashmiri valley, ladakh, GB. However, they traded via Rawalpindi and were connected to the area economically.

 

[UN talkz]

Any idea what was the non muslim population of J and K in 1947?

Any idea about Jammu Massacre of muslims in 1947.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes, booted meaning drove his minions from the forts in AJK. Gilgit Baltistanis also booted the pro-Indian forces out. Lol, he stepped down more like India gave him an option to save his hide. It's quite eveident how vocal the J&K area is to his 'voluntary' seccesion to shining Bharat.

There was no India force in Gilgil Baltistan.Pakistan Army and its tribals defeated the forces of Hari Singh and took POK not indigenious Kashmiris themselves.


J and K is ruled by India and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Any idea about Jammu Massacre of muslims in 1947.

Any idea about Hindu massacre of 90s or how Hindus were killed by Muslim rulers of J and K?

 

[maverick85]

Booted him? He volutarily gave the area to India and India still rules the bigger area.

If he was such a tyrant and his people were so againist it, well they should have got rid of him rather than Pakistan doing it.The Indian flag flies in Srinagar Jammu and Leh.Dont like it.Well you cant do anything about it.

Lol at the Indian flag flying in J&K. The raising of the flag is enforced militarily and the local populace support of that is well documented. You're naive to think that the change in the political landscape surrounding J&K would've allowed for a change in leadership internally. The people in AJK, GB did get rid of him as soon as the opportunity arose. The Kashmir valley lot were duped and now to this day they're still paying for it. I'm sure in the future when an opportunity arises when the area is not held hostage by 7 lakh Indian soldiers, J&K will opt for independence from India or join with Pakistan.

 

[Pakistanian]

Bangladesh says hello here. You couldn't hold on to Bangladesh and treated east Pakistan like a colony that should be ruled upon and forced Urdu on them. What's to say the same wouldn't have happened to Kashmir ...

Kashmir already has urdu as its official language you know nothing about a state you claim as your own lol, my forefathers also had no qualms adopting urdu. Kashmiris are closer to Pakistanis than Bengalis are, there would be no way to answer your "what if" question, but what I do know is that the pakistani side of kashmir/gilgit has the highest literacy rate in Pakistan and is very peaceful compared to the rest of the country and would only get better once the Kashmir conflict is resolved.

 

[Pakistanian]

Any idea about Hindu massacre of 90s or how Hindus were killed by Muslim rulers of J and K?

Jammu massacre predated that tho.