This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've left a note at User talk:118.103.239.68 to say that I've tidied up what was recently added to this article, most of which seems to me to be more or less factual, but asking for the sources of the information to be added. Umar Zulfikar Khan ( talk) 13:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is quite lacking in the details of what was actually a military conflict between the Junagadh State Forces and the Republic of India (along with indian proxy insurgents). The Junagadh State Forces resisted the Indian invasion of their state, for example see here [ [1]] XavierGreen ( talk) 17:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
An IP has added [2] a claim on Kashmir here, which was recently reverted. In any case, the claim looked fishy. So I checked. There is no such statement in Rajmohan Gandhi's book. The p. 438 has the following quote: Pakistan attempted to set off Kashmir against Junagadh. When we raised the question of settlement in a democratic way, they (Pakistan) at once told us they would consider it if we applied that policy to Kashmir. Our reply was that we would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad. (The quote is from a speech of Patel at Junagadh, after its surrender.)
The equivalence was between Kashmir and Hyderabad, which Jinnah did not agree to. (A formal proposal was made by Mountbatten to Jinnah on 1 November 1947 in Lahore.) - Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead states
India did not accept the accession, blockaded Junagadh and then invaded it.
and cites a book by Owen Bennett Jones, a journalist. I didn't find any supporting evidence in the book for the claim that India "invaded" Junagadh. Most other sources, e.g., Hodson, The Great Divide (1969) and Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India (2010), do not support such a claim. I am tagging this as dubious. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
:Rejoinder: Your first edit: Ian Talbot an authority on South Asian history describes India’s political integration of princely states with reference to Junagadh this way
Accession was made more difficult in cases like Hyderabad, Junagadh, isolated on the tip of the Kathiawar peninsula, and Jammu and Kashmir, where the ruler came from a different religious community from the majority of his subjects. These states' eventual incorporation in India resulted in bitter recriminations. There was armed conflict between India and Pakistan in the case of Jammu and Kashmir. Mountbatten charmed, while Patel and V.P. Menon bullied rulers to accede
References
This occurred after a similar invasion by India of the princely state of Junagadh.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Junagadh, however, faced Pakistan on the Arabian Sea, and when its nawab followed Jinnah's lead in opting to join that Muslim nation, India's army moved in and took control of the territory. The nizam of Hyderabad was more cautious, hoping for independence for his vast domain in the heart of southern India, but India refused to give him much more than one year and sent troops into the state in September 1948. Both invasions met little, if any, resistance, and both states were swiftly integrated into India's union.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
You have mixed up what the Sock said The reply of the sock was in two parts, you have mixed them up
The reply of the sock in rejoinder 1 involving an Talbot quote was not abt invasion. it was obviously a reply to this edit. where you cut that Talbot quote https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Annexation_of_Junagadh&diff=789339694&oldid=789273029
Clearly Brittanica says 'both invasions' about Junagadh and Hyderabad
And that 'invitation' by the government of junagadh was only for restoring law and order which happened because of India's blockade which India at the UNSC later denied having done and the disordely created by the provisional government which was formed by Menon and even India's ministry of law accepted that junagadh' accession to pakistan had still not been nullified when India took over administration (all this was from the Rakesh Ankit source)
Raghavan is an Indian government hired scholar
And here's an Indian paper which says raghavan is hired by the Indian government
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/the-fear-of-history-kargil-war-conflict-india-pakistan-china-sri-lanka-2937448/
@
Vice regent: for comment
@ MBlaze Lightning: your recent edits claim that you are removing fake sources. This has spurred me to check the sources and I find either you are deliberately pushing POV or have not read what you call fake sources. Here are the quotes from the sources you have removed.
Mcleod, John. Junagadh. Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, Volume 1. p. 614. "In order to compel Mahabatkhanji to reverse his accession, India sent troops to the surrounding states and imposed a blockade". I regard this as the factual position, leaving aside all the interpretations. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Diannaa I have spent my morning checking this article for copyright issues. I thought there might be a few issues. But I was disappointed to discover that large parts of the article are actually plagiarised from this primary source. [4] To facilitate your check I have added page numbers for each plagiarised text in my edit summaries. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Please look into this. Dilpa kaur ( talk) 06:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
“to see if Nehru would make the argument that a Hindu majority under a Muslim ruler, than he would respond with Kashmir's case being the same”
The grammar is not correct here. What does this sentence ought to tell us? -- Chricho ∀ ( talk) 10:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow editor @ Kautilya3, this discussion is to add a lead to this lead-less article. The current lead paragraph can stay, we just need to add a lead sentence. Boldface is required as it is the name of an event, I do not see why it isn't. I understand that it wasn't a military conflict and thus I propose this:
Annexation of Junagadh was an event in the Political Integration of India where the State of Junagadh was annexed to the Indian Union on 9 November 1947.
The rest of the already existing lead paragraph should stay. PadFoot2008 ( talk) 02:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Kautilya3, I found this, "
When Pakistan confirmed the acceptance of the accession in September, the Government of India expressed outraged that Muhammad Ali Jinnah would accept the accession of Junagadh despite his argument that Hindus and Muslims could not live as one nation.
" online
here. Now how to look at the page inside the book?-
Haani40 (
talk)
13:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've left a note at User talk:118.103.239.68 to say that I've tidied up what was recently added to this article, most of which seems to me to be more or less factual, but asking for the sources of the information to be added. Umar Zulfikar Khan ( talk) 13:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is quite lacking in the details of what was actually a military conflict between the Junagadh State Forces and the Republic of India (along with indian proxy insurgents). The Junagadh State Forces resisted the Indian invasion of their state, for example see here [ [1]] XavierGreen ( talk) 17:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
An IP has added [2] a claim on Kashmir here, which was recently reverted. In any case, the claim looked fishy. So I checked. There is no such statement in Rajmohan Gandhi's book. The p. 438 has the following quote: Pakistan attempted to set off Kashmir against Junagadh. When we raised the question of settlement in a democratic way, they (Pakistan) at once told us they would consider it if we applied that policy to Kashmir. Our reply was that we would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad. (The quote is from a speech of Patel at Junagadh, after its surrender.)
The equivalence was between Kashmir and Hyderabad, which Jinnah did not agree to. (A formal proposal was made by Mountbatten to Jinnah on 1 November 1947 in Lahore.) - Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead states
India did not accept the accession, blockaded Junagadh and then invaded it.
and cites a book by Owen Bennett Jones, a journalist. I didn't find any supporting evidence in the book for the claim that India "invaded" Junagadh. Most other sources, e.g., Hodson, The Great Divide (1969) and Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India (2010), do not support such a claim. I am tagging this as dubious. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
:Rejoinder: Your first edit: Ian Talbot an authority on South Asian history describes India’s political integration of princely states with reference to Junagadh this way
Accession was made more difficult in cases like Hyderabad, Junagadh, isolated on the tip of the Kathiawar peninsula, and Jammu and Kashmir, where the ruler came from a different religious community from the majority of his subjects. These states' eventual incorporation in India resulted in bitter recriminations. There was armed conflict between India and Pakistan in the case of Jammu and Kashmir. Mountbatten charmed, while Patel and V.P. Menon bullied rulers to accede
References
This occurred after a similar invasion by India of the princely state of Junagadh.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Junagadh, however, faced Pakistan on the Arabian Sea, and when its nawab followed Jinnah's lead in opting to join that Muslim nation, India's army moved in and took control of the territory. The nizam of Hyderabad was more cautious, hoping for independence for his vast domain in the heart of southern India, but India refused to give him much more than one year and sent troops into the state in September 1948. Both invasions met little, if any, resistance, and both states were swiftly integrated into India's union.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
You have mixed up what the Sock said The reply of the sock was in two parts, you have mixed them up
The reply of the sock in rejoinder 1 involving an Talbot quote was not abt invasion. it was obviously a reply to this edit. where you cut that Talbot quote https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Annexation_of_Junagadh&diff=789339694&oldid=789273029
Clearly Brittanica says 'both invasions' about Junagadh and Hyderabad
And that 'invitation' by the government of junagadh was only for restoring law and order which happened because of India's blockade which India at the UNSC later denied having done and the disordely created by the provisional government which was formed by Menon and even India's ministry of law accepted that junagadh' accession to pakistan had still not been nullified when India took over administration (all this was from the Rakesh Ankit source)
Raghavan is an Indian government hired scholar
And here's an Indian paper which says raghavan is hired by the Indian government
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/the-fear-of-history-kargil-war-conflict-india-pakistan-china-sri-lanka-2937448/
@
Vice regent: for comment
@ MBlaze Lightning: your recent edits claim that you are removing fake sources. This has spurred me to check the sources and I find either you are deliberately pushing POV or have not read what you call fake sources. Here are the quotes from the sources you have removed.
Mcleod, John. Junagadh. Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, Volume 1. p. 614. "In order to compel Mahabatkhanji to reverse his accession, India sent troops to the surrounding states and imposed a blockade". I regard this as the factual position, leaving aside all the interpretations. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Diannaa I have spent my morning checking this article for copyright issues. I thought there might be a few issues. But I was disappointed to discover that large parts of the article are actually plagiarised from this primary source. [4] To facilitate your check I have added page numbers for each plagiarised text in my edit summaries. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Please look into this. Dilpa kaur ( talk) 06:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
“to see if Nehru would make the argument that a Hindu majority under a Muslim ruler, than he would respond with Kashmir's case being the same”
The grammar is not correct here. What does this sentence ought to tell us? -- Chricho ∀ ( talk) 10:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow editor @ Kautilya3, this discussion is to add a lead to this lead-less article. The current lead paragraph can stay, we just need to add a lead sentence. Boldface is required as it is the name of an event, I do not see why it isn't. I understand that it wasn't a military conflict and thus I propose this:
Annexation of Junagadh was an event in the Political Integration of India where the State of Junagadh was annexed to the Indian Union on 9 November 1947.
The rest of the already existing lead paragraph should stay. PadFoot2008 ( talk) 02:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Kautilya3, I found this, "
When Pakistan confirmed the acceptance of the accession in September, the Government of India expressed outraged that Muhammad Ali Jinnah would accept the accession of Junagadh despite his argument that Hindus and Muslims could not live as one nation.
" online
here. Now how to look at the page inside the book?-
Haani40 (
talk)
13:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)