3 ms·
Nah, tribals were armed by Pakistan. Tribals from Pakhtun invaded Kashmir. Locals actually helped repel the tribal attacks. Let’s not overlook stated facts.
by iamshs 7y ago
Nah, tribals were armed by Pakistan. Tribals from Pakhtun invaded Kashmir. Locals actually helped repel the tribal attacks. Let’s not overlook stated facts.
- debuggerpk 7y agohaha .. if you can see the irony in your comment. So a resourceless Pakistan miraculously recovered from the bloody partition in mere three months to not only plan an insurgency, but also had the resources to execute it. Go Pakistan then? right?
- iamshs 7y agoGo learn your own history, Pakistan has given their highest bravery awards to these tribal invaders. Resourceless doesn't mean bereft of guns. British Army resources were divided among India and Pakistan.
- debuggerpk 7y agolol. Pakistan was meant to get 1/3rd, never go that.
- dang 7y agoYou broke the site guidelines frequently and egregiously in this thread. We ban accounts that do that. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules while posting here, regardless of how wrong or bad you think other comments are? And please don't use HN for nationalistic flamewar.
- dang 7y agoPlease do not post flamewar comments to HN, and especially not nationalistic flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- debuggerpk 7y agoLike you said, let's not overlook the facts. The fact is, India and Pakistan had visa on arrival up until 1974. The fact is, people from both sides of the border could still get naturalised citizens across the border up until early 70s. The fact is, both India and Pakistan did exactly the same things. Just look at the accession of Junagadh and Hyderabad estate into India. India got away with it because both the states were land locked and Pakistan couldn't help. If accession of Kashmir's raja is right, so was the declarations by nawab of junagadh and hyderabad. The fact is, the 1947 war ended with UN intervention which demanded plebiscite for kashmir. India had agreed, but so far failed to conduct that. Not only that, India doesn't even allow UN observers, while Pakistan do. I can throw in a lot of facts in here.
- iamshs 7y agoHyderabad was a land locked pocket, and one of the conditions of partition was states aligning with Pakistan to be contiguous. How is Hyderabad contiguous to Pakistan? Junagadh claimed to be contiguous to Pakistan through bullshit reasoning of sea. So viability of these pockets was not feasible. India took over Goa the same way too. But Pakistan invaded Balochistan and Kashmir and forcibly occupied these territories, so it is not 'exactly the same things'. BTW, Pakistan did try to send weapons to Hyderabad through America. First condition of plebiscite is withdrawal of Pakistani forces from occupied territories, 73 years and still waiting. India doesn't allow UN observers because they have outlived their utility, as LoC has been codified between Pakistan and India through Simla Agreement in 1971.
- sbmthakur 7y agoThe exact pre-conditions for the UN mandated plebiscite are impossible to meet. Anyway, the UN resolution is superseded by the Shimla Agreement.