4 ms·
Like 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 bor
by debuggerpk 7y ago
Like 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 Anyway, the UN resolution is superseded by the Shimla Agreement.