A recurring tension in South Asian discourse is the question of consistency: how states interpret borders, secession, and sovereignty; not in principle, but in practice.
Liberalstan’s case is that India acted selectively in 1947: Junagadh saw a plebiscite, Hyderabad faced military action, and Kashmir was referred to the UN. From this perspective, India chose whichever method suited its interests in each case. To Liberalstan, this isn’t pragmatism, it’s hypocrisy. The charge: if self-determination wasn’t good for Kashmir, why should it be for Balochistan? And what of Sikkim, Goa, Pondicherry, Khalistan, Nagaland, or the Naxalites?
Hindustan’s reply is rooted in realpolitik: decisions were shaped by demography, geography, and threats; not abstract norms. Q.E.A. Jinnah’s attempt to absorb Junagadh and court Jodhpur are seen as deliberate provocations, since Junagadh was Hindu-majority, non-contiguous, and largely symbolic (home to Somnath). After that, New Delhi abandoned any illusions of standard rules. From Hindustan’s view, Liberalstan’s moral framing is not only naïve but deeply asymmetrical; ignoring 1947, 1965, Kargil, Mumbai, and the long shadow of Pakistan’s own interventions.
When it comes to Balochistan, Hindustan notes its accession was closer to annexation, comparable to Nepal or Bhutan vanishing into India. Three major insurgencies since the 1960s complicate the narrative of “finality.” But here, Liberalstanflips the script: what is labeled a disputed territory in Kashmir is declared settled in Balochistan. This inversion doesn’t go unnoticed.
In truth, both sides are mirrors. Each demands flexibility for itself and finality for the other. Each invokes “consent”selectively; whether that of a prince, a people, or a state. The tragedy, perhaps, isn’t inconsistency but the absence of a shared regional framework for self-determination. One not held hostage by grievance, revenge, or exception.
Until then, accusations of hypocrisy will persist, each side fluent in the other’s blind spots.
The lesson of history is that ultimately, power wins. See what happened to Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh. The people who champion self-determination ought to be on the side of the territory joining Armenia, since it was (until a couple of years ago) mostly ethnically Armenian. But nobody (other than Armenians perhaps) seems to care. When Armenia was powerful in the 90s, it captured and held on to that territory. In the past decade, the tables turned, and it lost.
yes terrible what happened to NK-A
Also are referendums meaningful anymore if there is complicity in ethnic cleansing?
Can you both continue to demand a referendum and use covert violence to seek to realize an end?
yes I find plebiscites to be suspect
Yes, ultimately power wins. That’s not a moral criterion though.
I’m just going to push back on two things. I don’t want to belabor this endlessly.
First of all, when the British left, all the princely states (over 500+ of them) technically became independent. They were supposed to have been free to choose either dominion or neither. Indian and Pakistani nationalists alike tend to forget that independence was actually an option on the table for the states.
Some of the states (Hyderabad and Kashmir certainly) were larger than many countries. They could easily have been independent.
There were no rules in place that demanded that demographics be the criterion by which accession was decided. It was left to the discretion of the ruler. Had demographics been the criteria, the entire princely state of Jammu and Kashmir had a Muslim-majority of more than 70%. The entire thing would have gone to Pakistan. India would have had no case.
I’m actually not concerned about Junagadh. Junagadh is only used by Pakistanis to make a point that in one case (Hari Singh’s) the ruler’s accession is used by India to claim all of Kashmir. In the other case (the Nawab of Junagadh’s), the consent of the Hindu-majority population was used to claim Junagadh. That’s hypocrisy by any definition.
On “Disputed Territory”: I’m not using this term arbitrarily. Kashmir is a subject of dispute at the UN. The LOC is a ceasefire line not a border.
In contrast, Balochistan is constitutionally part of Pakistan. India doesn’t claim the territory. For that matter, East Pakistan was constitutionally part of Pakistan. India had no claim on the territory.
Punjabis have just been abducted in Balochistan
https://www.dawn.com/news/1923342/passengers-kidnapped-in-sardhaka-rescue-operation-underway-balochistan-govt
Pakistan is going to blame this on India (as ISPR calls it “Fitna al Hindustan”). India will of course reject these claims.
If Pakistan acted like India, we would now bomb some “terror camps” in India. Of course, I’m not actually advocating we do that.
Someone should actually write a post on Balochistan. I have absolutely no issue with anyone laying down their POV based on facts. (Doesn’t mean I have to agree with it).
What a joke. Where could you possibly bomb? No one in India really cares about Balochistan beyond the point scoring and analogy it lends to Kashmir. There is no organization in India to target, no Balochi terrorists (or freedom fighters if you are going for terminology parity) residing in India.
You’re missing the point. You’re clearly not as good at logic as you think you are.
India bombed Pakistan after making an unsubstantiated allegation. You all say you bombed “terror camps”, we say you bombed mosques and homes.
Logically, Pakistan doesn’t have to substantiate our allegation that Baloch terrorism is “Fitna al Hindustan”. We could just bomb some random place in India.
What’s good for the gander is good for the goose.
And there is actually no analogy between Balochistan and Kashmir. This is dumb at this point. Kashmir is Disputed. Balochistan is part of Pakistan. It’s not India’s problem.
Pakistan tried that already. It didn’t go very well. The goose can squawk all it wants but the gander did the ravaging.
Besides, how can one not support the plucky Balochis valiantly fighting the Majoritarian oppression they are reeling under. Indians have ancestral ties to the region, even across the country, Brahui after all is a Dravidian language.
If the Balochis ethnically cleanse the region and then hold a referendum to secede I wonder if the UN will see the parallel with Kashmir and give a consistent ruling on the matter.
Take your ancestral ties and stick them where the sun don’t shine.
Attacks on the territorial integrity of Pakistan will never be tolerated.
“plucky Balochis”– How can one not support Kashmiri Muslims fighting Hindutva India?
“I wonder if the UN will see the parallel to Kashmir”– Balochistan is not the UN’s problem. No one brought the issue to the UN. No one will bring the issue to the UN.
Pandit Nehru promised the UN that the Kashmiri people would not be made to be part of India at gunpoint. Pandit Nehru was India’s founding father.
I really feel quite bad for Nehru. He always tried to do what he felt was ‘morally correct’ over what was good for his country.
To that end he confidently went to the UN with Kashmir expecting them to do the right thing and was appalled by the response. Thereafter India refused 3rd party negotiation ever again.
He supported China in all their disputes, even abandoning Tibet with the Hindi-Chini bhai bhai and left the western border completely unprepared and unequipped. The 1962 war was a very bitter lesson in realpoltik and China became the primary antagonist.
He then tried the non-aligned movement and India paid a very heavy price for that too. Foregoing aid and technology from either block.
I remember Pupul Jayakar giving a talk about him in my childhood. She said he was a wonderful man but a very bad politician.
Sometimes intolerance has to be paid back in like. Thank god for Patel.
You are free to have your opinion about Nehru. There’s really no arguing with “soft Hindutvadis”.
Pandit Nehru is respected the world over. The non-aligned movement made him a hero to the Global South. In contrast, Hindu Hriday Samrat’s foreign policy is a disaster. Not a single country condemned Pakistan by name settling instead for generic condemnation of terrorism (who isn’t going to condemn terrorism?). Pakistan is the president of the UN Security Council this month. COAS was hosted at the White House. Need I go on?
You can hate Pakistan all you like but our establishment certainly knows how to play the White House. Your government isn’t even good at that.
I believe Gandhiji actually suggested at one point that Quaid-e-Azam be the first PM of Independent India. That may have prevented Pakistan from coming into being. Pandit Nehru would not have it.
No one is saying he was perfect but he was (in my opinion) certainly preferable to the PM you have now.
considering that the majority of India’s Muslims (including the ones who stayed back) voted for the Muslim League and Pakistan; it was exceptionally magnanimous of Nehru-Gandhi to allow them to remain in India.
ordinarily those who vote for a neighbouring country, eventually move to it..
this is an observation not a statement
The franchise was quite restricted in 1946. The “majority” of India’s Muslims didn’t vote for the ML. The majority of voters did.
Gandhi ji didn’t want Partition. Pandit Nehru believed in an India for all its citizens. India’s founding vision was to be a secular state.
If all Muslims had been sent to Pakistan (which I think was logistically impossible given the sheer number of Indian Muslims), India would have been a Hindu state. Which is not what INC was fighting for.
Perverse isn’t it. That he spent all his life trying to be ‘Honourable’ only to completely ruin his legacy by being naive and trusting. Hardly anyone remembers him wading into Hindu Muslim riots personally holding back mobs in Delhi (utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things), whereas we still suffer (and rightly blame him) the effects of an over lengthy constitution and 50 years of license raj. Just goes to show how well meaning idealists are ideally suited as college professors writing hand wringing articles bemoaning the loss of decency whereas governance should be left to the hard pragmatists of the world. Lee Kuan Yew always seemed to me as a brass knuckles kind of politician, but history is far kinder and effusive in it’s praise.
That’s actually a good idea. India and Pakistan in particular need a truth and reconciliation commission as do Pakistan and Bangladesh.
https://images.dawn.com/news/1193846/ramayana-the-timeless-epic-of-love-and-sacrifice-is-being-brought-to-the-stage-in-karachi-again
The Ramayana is being staged in Karachi. The director is Yogeshwar Karera (a Pakistani Hindu). Just putting this here to show that it’s not all doom and gloom in Pakistan.
great channel..