Yes, Kashmir being majority Muslim is plausible in Pakistan, but they would not try to get Ladakh, Jammu, and no Indian government would allow them to.Is it plausible that Pakistan gets Kashmir but not Jammu and Ladakh upon independence?
Yes, Kashmir being majority Muslim is plausible in Pakistan, but they would not try to get Ladakh, Jammu, and no Indian government would allow them to.
Have Kashmir be actually talked about during longer Partition agreements ? Get a longer withdrawal so that more areas are marked out.I think so, but how could Pakistan take Kashmir while not pissing India off?
Have Kashmir be actually talked about during longer Partition agreements ?
Have Kashmir be actually talked about during longer Partition agreements ? Get a longer withdrawal so that more areas are marked out.
There is your POD, try and tangle the future of that state into talks. What is needed is that it should always be on everyone's mind.I doubt it. Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state, ruled by one of the few stupid princes who tried to go independent.
There is your POD, try and tangle the future of that state into talks. What is needed is that it should always be on everyone's mind.
Not my point, by that time Britain had decided to go, both INC and the League were trying to gain advantages by the same British. The fate of states would be bleak but that is not what I wrote. All you need is for the area of Kashmir be always be present as an issue; it will not get taken away immediately but in a hypothetical scenario where princely control is dissolved Kashmir could already be seen as another Muslim area becoming part of Pakistan.But then the issue is that independence leaders would need to compromise with princely states. As far as many independence leaders were concerned, the princely states' rulers were quislings, collaborating with the "Britishers". That will provide a barrier to any talks between the princely states and the INC and Muslim League.
Maybe Prince Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir remains stubborn and refuses to accede to India, and when Pakistan sends troops to help the Muslim rebels a peace treaty is signed shortly after which gives Kashmir to Pakistan. After the peace treaty, Hari Singh gives in and decides to accede to India.
Is this plausible?
Pre-Partition have the British explain the facts of life to the Prince that his state would be too small to hold out against the schemes of nationalist politicians in either country, and that if he accedes to one side then the other will more than likely try to intervene and bring a world of hurt to his country. Then offer him a very large financial inducement - paid for with Indian government money, which from the British standpoint is fine as the debts will shortly be inherited by an independent India - to at least cede Kashmir to Pakistan.But could Pakistan taking Kashmir but not Ladakh or Jammu lead to better relations with India? I think so, but how could Pakistan take Kashmir while not pissing India off?
Sure--specifically if either Britain makes this decision for Hari Singh or if Pakistan avoids invading Kashmir in 1948 and instead waits it out. That way, if it is discovered that Kashmir isn't really viable as an independent state, India and Pakistan could perhaps come to a clean resolution of this issue with a religion-based partition of Kashmir.Is it plausible that Pakistan gets Kashmir but not Jammu and Ladakh upon independence?