Talk:Princely state

Balochistan

@Mar4d: You say "factually incorrect position" regarding the three states of Balochistan. Would you care to explain what is incorrect? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The text, which was unsourced, said Makran, Kharan, and Las Bela opted for independence. Which is not correct; only the ruler of Kalat chose that option. The former three acceded to Pakistan. I've replaced it with references. Mar4d (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your source says they acceded to Pakistan in 1947, which is obviously incorrect and contradicts Princely states of Pakistan. I think this source is unreliable and should be thrown out.

If 17 March 1948 is the date of accession (stated as 21 March by Siddiqi, perhaps the date when the accesion was accepted), then between 14 August 1947 and March 1948, they were technically independent. Further Siddiqi says they acceded under Pakistani pressure (p.60). So, the claim that they "opted for independence" is believable. There is also the claim that they were under the suzerainty of Kalat, the "pre-1876 position" that was agreed to by Jinnah (p.58). So, I admit that things are nebulous regarding the other three states. But the old version is closer to the truth than the new version. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

See the references supplied. The accession was unanimous amongst Kharan, Makran and Lasbela. You are correct about the Kalat situation, which is noted in the text. Actually the revolt was instigated by the Khan's younger brother who did not agree with the decision to accede after the Khan acquiesced to Pakistan's demands. Mar4d (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Also if you read the Siddiqi reference, the other three princely states were never subservient to Kalat. Kalat was the most influential one amongst them however. Thus when the former didn't side with Kalat's quest for independence, it significantly weakened Kalat's position which had been vying for Baloch unity. Mar4d (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, your own source says:

This lead to the civil servants literally dismembering the state by recognising the feudatory states of Las Bela and Kharan, and the district of Mekran as independent states, which then immediately acceded to Pakistan.

So, according to Bangash (vetted by Long et al.), the declared independence of Kalat includes all its feudatory states as well. It is mistake to talk of them as separate princely states. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Your revert here also removed my edits, and really comes across as a red herring. You've replaced four academic references I added with a piece of text which, as it currently stands, is replete with unsourced WP:OR and grammatical mistake/s. Since you've reinstated that text, the onus of responsibility falls on you to provide reliable sources backing your claim. I'm going to wait until you do that and it's satisfactory. Here is the current version:

During the period of the British Raj, there were four Princely states in Balochistan: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat. These states initially refused to acceed to Pakistan and opted instead to resume the independence they had enjoyed prior to becoming British protectorates.

This is an exceptional claim which contradicts princely states of Pakistan, insurgency in Balochistan and all the WP:HISTRS written on the subject. It is immaterial if Kharan, Lasbela or Makran were feudatory states. The fact is, the rulers of those princely states did not pursue independence like Kalat but acceded to Pakistan on their own. The academic WP:RS support this, and are supplied. Paul's and Cheema's sources are point blank clear that the accession was unanimous, willful, and based on a referendum. Siddiqi goes a step further: "...When it came to the question of joining Pakistan, the Marris and Bugtis did not side with the Khan of Kalat who was vying for independence and instead opted for union with the Pakistani state"; and states their lack of subservience created problems for Kalat. Your text above is claiming the exact opposite. If you have reliable sources contradicting what we have, then you should show it. Until then, this claim appears groundless. Mar4d (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverting to WP:STATUSQUO is what is recommended when there is a dispute and edit-warring is going on. It does not mean that I support the old content, merely that it is the old content. The thing to do is to arrive at new consensus text.

The fact that the other three states were feudatory states means that they didn't need to declare anything. The Khan of Kalat had the power to declare on their behalf. Since he declared independence in August 1947 (certainly by 15 August, though other sources give earlier dates), they were independent along with it. Siddiqi says Pakistan pressured the two states of the Kalat confederacy, Kharan and Lasbela and the district of Makran, to join Pakistan. The rulers of the states of Kharan, Makran and Lasbela announced their decision to join the Pakistan dominion on 21 March 1948 and their respective rulers signed the official documents.[58] Your text claiming that they acceded to Pakistan in 1947 is blatantly false, according to multiple reliable sources, including your own source, Bangash. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

More explicit mentions here:

The Khan argued that these territories—Las Bela and Kharan in particular—had never been independent states but districts of Kalat—and that the Pakistanis had elevated their status to those of equal states with the Kalat State in violation of the Standstill Agreement which recognized the Khan's sovereignty over the entire territory of the Khanate—i.e., Kalat, Las Bela, Kharan, and Makkuran (Axmann 2007, 232)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Kalat

There are three sources given for this inaccurate statement. But none of their authors are historians. Farhan Hanif Sidiqi has no qualifications in history.[1] Adeel Khan is a lecturer in health management.[2] There is also no evidence that Selig S Harrison was a historian, his expertise seems to be US relations and it is unclear what his BA was in.

Now lets take a look at what the real historians say. Yaqoob Khan Bangash, a real historian and professor at the Department of History at Forman Christian College,[3] has this to say ″Further pressure on Ahmad Yar Khan, including false news on All-India Radio that Kalat wanted to join Indian, led him to sign the Instrument of Accession on 27 March 1948.″.

The historian Bangash again says ″Thirdly, the accession of Kalat to Pakistan is entirely legal. While it is true that the Khan of Kalat did not initially want to accede to Pakistan and wanted to continue with a separate existence, in the end he did sign the Instrument of Accession in favour of Pakistan on March 27, 1948. In fact, he was prompted into action not by any move of the Government of Pakistan but by a news report from All India Radio Delhi on the same day which alleged that Kalat had applied for accession to India. As a result, the Khan immediately signed the Instrument of Accession. The Khan explained himself: “My first reaction after hearing the news was that no time be lost to put an end to the false propaganda and to avoid and forestall the possibility of friction between the Moslem brethren in Kalat and Pakistan... It is therefore declared that from 9 p.m. on March 27 – the time when I heard the false news over the air, I forewith decided to accede to Pakistan and that whatever differences now exist between Kalat and Pakistan be placed in writing before Mr. Jinnah ... whose decision I shall accept.” Hence, the Khan’s immediate reason for accession was ironically India!″

What's more, another professional historian, professor at the Department of History in the University of Punjab,[4] Dr Iqbal Chawla, says ″However, Jinnah did not force any of the Pakistani princely states to merge into Pakistan as was happening in India at the bayonet rather princely states remained almost as independent as they had been during the British rule in India. But it was only because of geo-political and domestic changes that made Ahmad Yar Khan to requesting Jinnah to merge Kalat with Pakistan. As rule f business, these were the rulers of princely states in India who decided the fate of their states and this practice was also followed in Pakistan. Those states which refused in India were invaded and forcibly annexed into the Federation of India whereas Government of Pakistan under Jinnah and his aftermath did not carry out that policy of aggression and repression.″

So with the qualified historians telling us that there was no forced annexation of Kalat to Pakistan, it is pointless to write that Kalat was annexed to Pakistan based on the non-historian sources.

But then what was the purpose of writing into the lead in the first place that Kalat was annexed into Pakistan? Fortunately the historians have made it easier for us to know. They tell us ″Ever since Modi’s speech there has been a flurry of discussion on Indian media about the ‘accession’ of Kalat State and inclusion of Balochistan into Pakistan. Their logic is that since Pakistan disputes that the State of Jammu and Kashmir legally acceded to India, they could find an equivalence in Balochistan, which largely comprises the erstwhile state of Kalat – as that would give them a counterpoise to Pakistan and that can also be used to dampen Pakistan’s attempts to highlight human rights abuses in Indian-Occupied Kashmir. But they are sadly mistaken for various reasons. Balochistan is integral part of Pakistan following all historical and legal basis representing the will of people.″ He also writes, sadly for those who can no longer push POV now ″The Indian media’s attempts to muddy the waters by beating the dead horse of Kalat’s different status – which even the British Government of India categorically denied – shows sheer desperation to find a ‘Kashmir’ in Pakistan. They better look elsewhere.″ So its a POV statement which is unfit for inclusion.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but just assuming that the particular authors have no degrees in history doesn't just discount the entire reference as trash. Clearly you are really pushing hard for POV edits on neutral wikipedia. Here[5] is a major newspaper article regarding annexation of Kalat. Now will you again trash it as gossip magazine? The Redefined Dimensions of Baloch Nationalist Movement page 292 By Malik Siraj Akbar clearly states that Kalat was annexed; I am guessing he will again be discounted some way or other according to you. Remember we at Wikipedia keep things neutral; state the facts, we don't delete it just because it we don't like it. At most add more reference tags. Vin9 | Email 22:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is another source[6] from Dawn (newspaper) "In its present context, it can be traced back to Aug 11, 1947, when the Khan of Kalat, Ahmad Yar Khan, declared Kalat’s independent status." and "Khan did what was asked of him but not in a cordial atmosphere: Ahmad Yar Khan signed the instrument of accession only after some army contingents were sent to the Khan. His brother, Prince Abdul Karim Khan, did not agree with what had happened." which while not explicitly stating annexation defines so in such words. Vin9 | Email 22:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So you turn up 3 weeks later to add something without consensus? The WP:ONUS is now on you to gain consensus to re-add contentious content. The sources you provided are newspaper/non-scholarly sources which as I have pointed above contradict the historians. We prefer historians to non-historians when they contradict. And the historians are explicitly saying there was no annexation. Malik Siraj Akbar and Shaikh Aziz are not historians. Cheema and Bangash are.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS says to prefer historians over non-historians. Of course non-historian scholarly sources (not that Akbar and Shaikh are even scholars either) can be used when historians are not available for a certain point. But when they explicitly contradict each other, like in this case, then the historians get preference.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my. I thought Bangash was a respectable scholar. Little did I know that he rants on ISPR magazines about "baseless Indian propaganda". Just because the Khan called it "false propaganda" (what else would the poor man do?), Bangash has to rant about it? Some historian!

Here is some news for you:

[2] In an aide-memoire on Junagadh and Kashmir, submitted on 26 February 1948, para 6, Mountbatten informed the King that "a large State which had obvious geographical compulsion to accede to Pakistan — Kalat — approached the Government of India for political relationship but was refused". See Enclosure to PS-238. Abdus Samad Achakzai, Baluchistan Congress leader, had visited India about the end of November. "I think ... he was urging the Khan to accede to India.

It was by no means "propaganda". It is was V. P. Menon that told AIR about the approach from Kalat, and he also told them that India had refused, and AIR announced it. All of this was apparently unauthorised. Nehru denied it in the Parliament the next day. He was a gentleman. Bangash seems quite the opposite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And, as for the Khan of Kalat "voluntarily" acceding to Pakistan:

The showdown between Kalat and Pakistan came on April 1, 1948, when the Pakistan Army ordered its garrison commander in Baluchistan to march on Kalat and arrest the Khan unless he signed an agreement of accession. The Khan capitulated, but his younger brother, Prince Abdul Karim, who was then governor of the newly annexed Baluch principality of Makran, gathered the arms, ammunition, and treasury funds under his control and declared a revolt against Pakistan. After leading some 700 followers across the border into Afghanistan, Abdul Karim issued a manifesto in the name of the Baluch National Liberation Committee disavowing the unconditional accession agreement signed by the Khan, proclaiming the independence of Kalat, and demanding fresh representations with Pakistan.

I will refrain from commenting. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, there is more:

The Khan of Kalat himself wanted a higher price for acceding to Pakistan. He wanted to retain his special status in Pakistan (Wilcox, 1963:77) and the Kalat Assembly under the leadership of Mir Ghous Bux Bizenjo passed a resolution calling for independence instead of yielding to Pakistan. In 1947, the Khan's younger brother, Prince Abdul Karim Khan, declared independence and challenged the authority of the Pakistani state over Balochistan. He flew [sic] to Afghanistan to wage guerrilla warfare and the Afghan authorities gave him every assistance. In retaliation, the Pakistani authorities attacked the Khan of Kalat's palaces at Quetta and Khuzdar. They arrested the Khan and took over the state of Kalat by force. By tradition, the House of Kalat is the nucleus of Baloch society and its forcible take-over by the authorities in 1947 inflicted a deep wound on the Baloch psyche. Thereafter, Baloch nationalists began to regard Pakistan as an occupying power. (Wilcox, 1963:149)

So, there goes the history degree of your Iqbal Chawla down the tube. Not to mention his complete blindness towards what Pakistan did to Kashmir. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3 you were already warned by MPS1992 [7] to not analyse the credibility of sources by picking them apart yourself. You have brought nothing except synthesised conclusions, contradicted by historians, drawn from your erroneous, synthesized and biased interpretation of primary sources. Harrison and Wilcox are not historians. Insulting the historians Iqbal Chawla and Yaqoob Khan Bangash because of your pro-India reading glasses (unfortunately and truly!) adds to the evidence of your WP:TE. I do not see how further argumentation along such lines, including name-calling of historians and praising Indian politicians, cannot taken and reported as WP:TE. Mar4d (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Look Mar4d, the "historians" that you are bringing to the table are ranting against India. That immediately destroys their credibility. Bangash titles his article with "Baseless Indian Progaganda". And Chawla says Jinnah didn't try to force princely states as was "happening in India at the bayonet". But they haven't checked their facts. Bangash is disproved by little footnotes in the Jinnah Papers volume, which he should have before propounding his theories. And Chawla forgot all about Kashmir. In any case, coming back to the topic, whether to call it "annexation" or not boils down to a judgement call, and I am sure different scholars will put it differently. But, your new found love for "historians" is admirable. I don't want to damage it. So I will look for historians. Meanwhile, I hope you will get busy trying to find "historians" that say that Hyderabad was annexed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your response about Bangash and Chawla is nothing more than personal POV and OR, for which you can be reported. The historian Yaqoob Khan Bangash has written an entire chapter on the accession of Kalat in his book on the integration of the princely states on Pakistan (described as a 'masterly account' of the accessions of princely states to Pakistan, by reviewer Ravi Kandamath) and Iqbal Chawla has also written an entire journal article on the accession of Kalat. So they have specialized in this specific topic. The sources you have added (Jalal and Samad) are just sweeping by Kalat in passing as their works from which you picked out their quotes are specialising on other more general topics (General Pakistani history and wider Balochistan insurgency respectively) and would have not done a thorough investigation of the circumstances of Kalat's accession unlike Bangash and Chawla. Passing references can not be considered equal with those who have done in-depth studies. Ironically even Yunus Samad cited Bangash for his claim, even though Bangash says the exact opposite! There goes your diatribe against Bangash down the drain. Also see Brittanica's description where Indian annexations of Hyderabad and Junagadh are described as invasions while Kalat is described as an accession. There is an encyclopedic convention for this according to Fowler. Leading South Asia historian Ian Talbot also while mentioning Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir as violent affairs does not cast Kalat into the same category. Numerous responsible editors including Fowler&fowler have previously expressed concerns at your style of editing where you simply find any source that seemingly supports your favorite prejudice and add it without regard to WP:DUE in that not all sources specialize equally in everything. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There was no "invasion" unless you are engaging in deliberate cherrypicking. Your editing and clear lack of WP:CIR is concerning. Providing a fake balance for allowing you to right great wrongs isn't what we are supposed to do. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment in general and your WP:CIR taunts in particular (which probably stem from my filing of SPI against Capitals00 in which his reference of competence/incompetence was used as evidence) do not add value to the discussion and speaks volumes about your own incompetence. You should refrain from such off track comments when there is serious discussion in procession and focus on content. Whatever minimal you blurted about the content is mere WP:COATRACK. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Replicating my comments about you for signifying your gross incompetence won't do any favor for you. I have been telling you about your disruption for years. Who else will call this new faulty version a "WP:STATUSQUO"? Only a person with gross incompetence like you would. Then you ran to canvass other editors to support your version.[8] That's a case of gross incompetence. Misrepresenting statements of other editors to counter sensible argument above is another example of your incompetence. Didn't the same editor criticized you for using "nonsensical third rate sources"? There was no "invasion", get over the facts. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler told you that not all sources are equal. You are confusing me with it. Yes, Fowler and I have argued many times, and will probably continue to argue. But that is my battle and it doesn't concern you.

As far as contemporary Pakistani history is concerned, Ayesha Jalal is pretty much at the top. There is no way you will be allowed to brush it aside and propagate Pakistani POV. Jalal's assessment of Pakistani history and historians is pretty negative [9].

I do admit that Bangash is a good quality scholar, but he also seems to participate in Pakistan's propaganda machine on the side. There is no way that anything written in the ISPR Hilal magazine will be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. You will need to go find his book, and explain why a battalion stationed in Quetta with orders to invade Kalat if the Khan didn't accede is irrelevant to the matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah so you admit you are editing here with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Thanks. That confirms the suspicions of many. And yes Fowler did indeed warn you about your contentious treatment of sources.[10]

And you need to stop shooting down historians with your personal assessments of them. Jalal is a well-known revisionist according to Metcalf. Bangash, in contrast, gets positive reviews. There is no WP:BURDEN on me to figure out why a battallion was sent, you are the one making that claim.

It's a big call for you to make to reject an article from an established historian just because its been published in an ISPR magazine given you have been pushing for the inclusion of views from Indian Ministry of Defence-funded institutes on Talk:History of Gilgit-Baltistan.

Besides Bangash has written a whole chapter on the accession of Kalat, in a positively reviewed book published by Oxford University Press, more credible than a couple of passing sentences from Jalal and Samad (who himself cites Bangash). Go read it. The ISPR magazine article summarises whatever he wrote in his book. And it was a response to Modi's speech when he interfered in Balochistan's internal affairs.

Here is a summary of that chapter from the scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed who notes that Bangash's account of the subject of Kalat's accession has received a lot of partisan comment (referring obviously to passerbys like Jalal and political scientists who write anything they like).

The case of Kalat State understandably receives in-depth attention as its accession continues to be debated even now and fact and fiction have been freely mixed by partisan researchers. It was the largest princely state to become a part of Pakistan, but only through a highly chequered process. It had been briefly a part of the Mughal Empire and in 1839 been recognized as a vassal of the Amir of Kabul. Unlike most other princely states Kalat had few direct links with the British Government at Delhi but the British presence in Kalat affairs had been secured by the time the future of India after a British withdrawal began to be considered. Historically Kalat was not an absolute monarchy; rather, it was a confederation of tribal leaders and smaller feudatory units such as Makran, Las Bela and Kharan states with the Khan of Kalat at the centre of such a power structure. Ahmed Yar Khan assumed the title of Khan of Kalat in 1933. He tried tried to assert and enhance his power within the confederacy as well as in relation to the British. Education and other developments had seriously lagged behind. However, political awareness had been growing among some sections of society and a few Baloch students had studied in educational institutions in India. Among them, Baloch nationalism had been evolving gradually and they preferred independence rather than joining Pakistan.

In April 1947 Ahmed Yar Khan tried to assert the complete independence of Kalat but simultaneously expressed his support for the Pakistan demand. He wanted areas leased out to the British to be returned to Kalat –something which neither Mountbatten approved nor the Muslim League. These included Quetta and the Bolan Pass. In any case, Pakistan had recognized Kalat’s independence in a communique dated 11 August 1947 as it felt that neither India nor Britain would exploit such a situation. However, this was only a paper exercise because from the beginning Pakistan was determined to annex it. Negotiations between the Government of Pakistan and Kalat started in September 1947; the Khan was reluctant to sign the Accession Bill so Jinnah met him in October and persuaded him to join Pakistan. The Khan was disappointed but his hands were further weakened when the khans of Kharan and Las Bela offered to accede to Pakistan. After some hesitation both were recognized as separate states on 17 March 1948. It was followed by increasing pressure when Col. Shah was despatched to expedite the accession. Rumours that the Khan had been seeking help from Afghanistan and a false report on All India Radio on 27 March that the Khan had approached India to accept its accession placed him in a very vulnerable position and in panic he signed the Accession Bill to join Pakistan. His brother Prince Karim tried to put up resistance but that proved futile and Pakistan troops took hold of Kalat by early April 1948.

Pakistan may have wanted to annex it, a colonel was sent to hasten/encourage the accession. But that does not mean there was a forceful annexation. The troops entered after the accession, which the Khan did out of panic, after the news was published on All India Radio. Bangash summarises it aptly in that Routledge book vetted by Ian Talbot and Roger Long that the accession was the outcome of bureaucratic tactics and negotiations. To describe it as an annexation is not true, unless of course your definition of annexation is so loose that we can include Travancore, a state India bullied into accession. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That is the first good post made on this topic. As Ishtiaq Ahmed points out, the case of Kalat State understandably receives in-depth attention as its accession continues to be debated. So you people should not act as if it is cut-and-dried and all crystal clear. I will think about Ahmed's review and also see if I can extract more information from the Axmann book. There is a good reason why Yunas Samad cites Axmann as well as Bangash. If Bangash continues to claim that the approach to India was "false propaganda" then his credibility goes down. It is known that an approach was made and Nehru turned it down, and the Hindu nationalists even today rant against Nehru for that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Both of you have made no edits recently, is this correct context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princely_state&type=revision&diff=834481196&oldid=834065334 ? --G (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

References