Talk:Princely state

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

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. Adeel Khan is a lecturer in health management. 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, 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, 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 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 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 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.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 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.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 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. 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)
 * You are trying to derail an otherwise constructive discussion by making personal attacks. If you continued to make personal attacks at the talk thread of WP:ARBIPA sanctioned page, I will have to report you and seek a topic ban for you in this area. I do not remember much interaction with you in the past so when you say you have been telling me some thing for years what do you mean by that?


 * You also need to read up on WP:CANVASS, is a neutral and uninvolved editor and WP:CANVASS allows inviting any uninvolved editor who does not have a prejudice to one side or another. Again, what I said in my previous comment, the competence matter is the other way around. You are not even clear on WP:CANVASS. The version you are calling “faulty” is the right version. Kautilya3’s additions are without any consensus and they must be removed. We can introduce them later if we achieve consensus here that is if editors like you do not keep derailing the discussion by making personal attacks.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 13:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the one who started accusing Kautilya3 of disruption by citing interactions with an editor who is not participating in this article. If you don't want others to comment on you then you should first stop commenting on others.
 * The message you left on Winged Blades' talk page was not neutral and you were claiming a non-consensus version to be STATUSQUO.This was a bold edit and it was reverted by one editor. The version of NadirAli had no consensus, nor it was standing for a long time. It didn't had to be restored until consensus was reached. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you a deputy to Kautilya3? Let the man speak for himself. My impression from interactions with him is that, he does not need any deputies. Furthermore, I did not accuse him of disruption.
 * already expressed their desire to join the discussion in response to, my comment was just a response to their expressed desire that they are welcome to join the discussion, I did not invite them so again at all fronts you have comprehension problems, you do not understand the policy and comments left in simple English.
 * NadirAli just removed Kautilya3's additions, the changes made by Kautilya3 had no consensus, check the history of the page, I am sure, you have a comprehension problem there as well.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:00, 6 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.
 * 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)

Bangash sources

 * 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.


 * 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).






 * 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.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 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)
 * I am finding some similar problems with the sources. Bangash maybe a reliable source but doesn't seem accurate or neutral in this subject per WP:IRS. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why was he in a vulnerable position if there was no threat of force? As an independent ruler, he was free to accede to any country he wanted. It was because India turned him down and he knew that Pakistan would invade that he became "vulnerable". He had no internal threat. His own people were not agitating to join Pakistan. The only threat was external.
 * Secondly, I don't know wherefrom Bangash got Prince Karim resistance in April. That was in Ramzan month according to Major General Muhammed Akbar Khan. And I checked that Ramzan that year was in July.
 * The troops were sent on 1 April, according to multiple reliable sources. I have already quoted Selig Harrison earlier. Ishtiaq Ahmed himself accepted his version of events in his earlier writings. Riaz Ahmed from Quaid-i-Azam University also said it. A much more solid source is this one:
 * And, there is absolutely no evidence that the Khan had signed the accession before 1 April. The accession happened after the troops moved in, and he had no choice but to succumb. That is annexation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Annexation is correct word because: "On April 1, Pakistani regular forces garrisoned at Quetta were deployed in Kalat." There are many sources supporting the same. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Annexation is correct word because: "On April 1, Pakistani regular forces garrisoned at Quetta were deployed in Kalat." There are many sources supporting the same. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * 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)


 * Well if its not clear-cut and dried according to you then why are you introducing factually inaccurate statements to Wikipedia? Fowler told you (in the diff SheriffIsInTown has pointed out to you) that consensus positions are illustrated in the meta histories. Meta-histories like Ian Talbot mention Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad but do not mention Kalat. Also see how Brittanica describes it,


 * See Britannica's description for Kalat: ″The region became part of Pakistan in 1948.″


 * Compare this with its description for Junagadh and Hyderabad: ″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.″ }}


 * Also reread that Ahmed is saying that the matter of Kalat's accession has been subject to partisan commentary and thats why Bangash has given it in depth analysis ″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.″


 * What your reply shows is that you have not done your homework and will return to the books now, this time to Axmann (a political scientist) and we have no guarantee of what kind of read you will give. I have read reviews of the book but can't find anything that suggests it endorsed the annexation POV that you wish to include.


 * Your comment ″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″ is not only personal taking-apart of the scholars, which MPS1992 told you is not for us Wikipedians to do, but it is also personal interpretation of cherry-picked primary sources with a special preference for the Indian perspective. Anyone can claim anything. Ultimately, its not the editor's interpretation of primary sources that have any bearing. The Khan of Kalat Khan himself denied he ever gave an accession offer to India and he said this was false Indian propaganda (regardless of what one Congress leader from Balochistan said). To that you would reply that the ″Just because the Khan called it "false propaganda" (what else would the poor man do?)″ because you would prefer to interpret the primary sources from the anti-Pakistan perspective. Such personal interpretation of primary sources will not get anyone anywhere. For this reason Wikipedia demands the use of secondary sources.


 * I also agree with SheriffIsInTown and suggest you start reading up on Travancore's accession if you want to expand the definition of annexation.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a review of Axmann's book by the Indian scholar A. G Noorani. Some interesting comments.


 * Hyderabad had to be brought into the Indian Union by armed action on September 13, 1948. The British were dismayed at Jinnah’s legal advice to Kalat. It was never independent, nor was Hyderabad. The Khan of Kalat acceded to Pakistan only on March 20, 1948, when his intrigues with New Delhi and Kabul were exposed. However, in mid-July the Khan’s brother returned from Afghanistan where he had fled with a lashkar (army). Pakistan’s army had to engage them.


 * ″“Annexation” is surely a wrong word to use. It reveals the author’s approach, if not, indeed, his pro-Baloch bias.″


 * So the Pakistani military action was in response to the Khan's brother bringing an army with him after the Khan had acceded. And even if Axmann has carelessly called it an annexation, it just shows his bias.


 * And here are the facts of the situation presented by a assistant professor from Quaid e Azam's department of History, now Allama Iqbal fellow at Cambridge University, Dushka Saiyid, in ″The Accession of Kalat: Myth and Reality″


 * The ruler of Las Bela too had been lobbying with the Quaid-i-Azam to let his state accede to Pakistan. Kharan and Las Bela appear to have been operating in tandem on this issue. On September 5, 1947, Mir Ghulam Qadir wrote to the Quaid, saying that he had already written to the Pakistani Prime Minister offering accession of Las Bela to the Pakistan Dominion.The letter also mentioned the dire economic conditions of the people of Las Bela as its supplies seem to have been cut off by Kalat. On March 17, 1948, Las Bela too acceded to Pakistan along with Mekran and Kharan. However, by this time the Kalat Government had heard a Radio Pakistan announcement that the Government of Pakistan had accepted the separate accession of Las Bela, Kharan, and Mekran, and wanted this report denied. The Kalat Government said that the accession of these states would be contrary to the Standstill Agreement with Pakistan, which was recently affirmed in the House of Commons.


 * On March 18, 1948, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan issued a press note that the States of Kharan, Las Bela and Mekran had applied for accession to Pakistan, which was granted to them. The press report also said that after the accession of these three states to Pakistan, Kalat's territory had been reduced to half of its previous area, and had ceased to have any outlet to the sea. The UK High Commissioner in Pakistan reported that the offer of accession was accepted by the Pakistan Cabinet when Jam of Las Bela, Chief of Kharan and Nawab Bai Khan of Mekran met the Quaid on March 17, 1948 and told him that if Pakistan was not prepared to accept their offers of accession immediately, they would be compelled to take other steps for their protection against Khan of Kalat's aggressive actions. This was seen as a blow to the Khan as head of the Confederacy, the Baluchistan States Union.


 * What finally forced the Khan of Kalat to accede was the furore caused by news on the All India Radio that the Khan had been negotiating with India. As a consequence of these developments, a report on March 20, claimed that the brother of the Khan, who was also the Governor of Kalat, was leaving for Afghanistan with his wife, who was from the Royal Afghan family.56 However, on March 28, the Reuters news agency carried a story filed from Karachi that 'Gateway State; Joins Pakistan.' The Khan issued a communiqué, which said: On the night of March 27, All India Radio, Delhi announced that two months ago Kalat State had approached the Indian Union to accept its accession to India and that the Indian Union had rejected the request; It had never been my intention to accede to India;It is, therefore, declared that from 9 pm on March 27th; the time when I heard the false news over the air, I forthwith decide to accede to Pakistan, and that whatever differences now exist between Kalat and Pakistan be placed in writing before Mr Jinnah, the Governor-General of Pakistan, whose decision I shall accept. The UK High Commissioner, commenting on the Khan's denials, wrote: Khan's public denials of rumours about offers made to him by India and Afghanistan conflict with his own statements in earlier discussion with Pakistan representatives, when he used these offers as a blackmailing argument. There is good reason to believe that he has been flirting with both India and Afghanistan.


 * There was no kind of resistance to the accession till the middle of July 1948, when the brother of the Khan returned from Afghanistan, where he had fled with a body of armed followers. The Pakistan Army engaged this band and the majority of his followers arrested.


 * Again there was no military annexation. The army fought the Khan's brother, did not force the Khan to accede.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 13:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What was the date on the Instrument of Accession, and when was it accepted? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Kautilya3. First - if you could stop making this discussion long and confusing with needless new sections, to make it go ahead on your own terms - that would be helpful. Secondly, I have a few things (and sources) to add, building on what I've read above. The following is unacceptable WP:SPECULATION:


 * Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Saiyid source already makes clear that the Pakistani states Las Bela, Makran and Kharan were complaining about Kalat's aggressions. We have Indian sources also accepting that before they willingly acceded to Pakistan, these three states were asking Pakistan for protection from Kalat. Let's focus on what is explicitly stated by reliable sources. Prof. Duksha Saiyid: Thus, the "vulnerabilities" are self-made/imaginary. In fact, historians do note that after Makran acceded and before Kalat acceded, Kalat even tried to force Makran to withdraw its accession, causing Pakistan to send its army to protect Makran.


 * Thirdly, multiple WP:RS state the accession was made in March, even the biased Axmann admits it. Duksha Saiyid states . The Indian government also as a matter of fact did not deny that accession took place in March, even if they got the exact date wrong. Attiya Khanam, from the history department at the Multan University, also repeats that the accession took place on 27 March but it was announced late on 1 April.

Mar4d, first of all, you can stop shouting. We have been discussing calmly until you joined us. I asked yesterday what was the date of the accession. Now we have the answer: 27 March 1948. Unfortunately, this doesn't settle the matter. You can see from the long list below that there are plenty of scholars who refuse to take this date at face value. They include, believe it or not, Professor Riaz Ahmad, the Quaid-e-Azam Chair at the Quaid-e-Azam University. If you think you can railroad all these sources, fat chance!

I have ordered the Axmann book. You are welcome to go and look up the Bangash book. And then we will see who says what. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Date of accession
Here is a short list of sources that I have checked to find out the date of accession:
 * Amirali, p.21: signed on 28 March
 * Amirali, p.22-23: acceded on 27 March
 * Ishtiaq Ahmed, p.168: After 1 April
 * Jalal, Struggle for Pakistan: no information
 * Jalal, State of Martial Rule: no information
 * Owen Bennet Jones, p.133: "eventually" after 1 April
 * Samad, p.311: signed on 27 March
 * Axmann book, Noorani review: 20 March
 * Barnes, Gray & Kingsbury, p.162-163: on or after 1 April
 * Harrison, p.25-26: on or after 1 April
 * I. Baloch, p.190: complete control of administration on 15 April
 * Riaz Ahmad, p.27: signed on 1 April
 * Kundi, p.57: forced Khan to sign on 1 April
 * Bangash 2015, p.82 : signed on 27 March
 * Bangash book, Ahmed review: accession on 27 March
 * Prakash Singh, Encyclopedia on Jinnah: no information
 * Zaidi, p.xxiii: Jinnah instructed Ikramullah on 27 March (only accession possible)
 * Zaidi, p.xxiii: Decision to accede announced on 1 April
 * Zaidi, p.xxiii: Khan assured Kalat is "part of Pakistan" on 2 April

Based on this, I conclude that nobody knows. That is why so many dates are thrown around. Ayesha Jalal and Owen Bennet Jones are the most reliable scholars here, and they are saying they don't know. Zaidi gives as much information as available. (Zaidi is the compiler of Jinnah papers. He has gone through all the papers that he could get his hands on.)

But it is not hard to piece together what happened. On 27 March, the All-India Radio revealed that the Khan had tried to negotiate with India. The Khan knew this meant trouble for him. (He would be branded "seditious" in Wayne Wilcox's terminology.) So, he made a statement the next day that he would accede to Pakistan. But, he was still trying to negotiate. Jinnah ruled out any further negotiation. Khan continued to dither. That is why Pakistan had to send in the army on 1 April. Left with no choice, Khan then sent a telegram to Jinnah on 1 April. Jinnah replied the next day. I could find Jinnah's response:

So by 2 April, it was assumed that there was a firm commitment. But the accession was yet to be signed. Hence, Owen Bennet Jones's words:

We can assume that the people were still rebelling, probably with the Khan's encouragement. That is why Jinnah had to order the army to take complete control of the administration. That was on 15 April. Then it was all over. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * With the exception of Bangash, none of these sources have done a high-level study of the subject and are a variety of non-WP:HISTRS. Jalal has not done an in-depth study of accession unlike the historians whose quotes have been included above. She mentions the whole matter in passing. Of course, since it's known the date falls in March, that invalidates the annexation theory by crux. The Khan declared accession apparently the very same day he heard the AIR radio broadcast: The Zaidi papers mention the  containing this. The Instrument of Accession is viewable online, with the explicit dates of 27 March 1948 and 31 March 1948 for the dates of accession and acceptance respectively.  Of course, these are primary sources but it shows that Bangash, Khanam and Saiyid are the historians speaking the truth. The rest 'piecing together' of personal opinions and assumptions is WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL essentially. Regards,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In the Jinnah papers volume, I found this press communique (p.195):

So, this settles the question in favour of the Pakistani scholars. By 1 April, the accession was completed. I propose to close this section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Towards resolution
In the light of the fact that accession preceded the sending of troops, the terminology of "annexation" is not easily justifiable. I still have a lot of work to do to absorb all the new evidence, but for the time being, I am happy to change the wording

to the new wording

This much is easily supported by the citations given. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The way forward is clear. There's no need to mention Kalat at all. The new wording is just as faulty as the first one. The citations as you have been told are too poor in quality. Its known that there are countless secondary sources out there, otherwise reliable, but which make ludicrous assertions out of thin air in a variety of subjects. And the accession of Kalat is one such subject. There was simply no military intervention inside Kalat before the accession. The sources which say otherwise have been caught with false assertions, false dates and the like and so can't be counted on for the truth.


 * Going through the sources which cover the whole affair in detail its not too difficult to understand what happened. Political scientist Rizwan Zeb explains the whole story,




 * The historian Attiya Khanam says pretty much the same,




 * Surprisingly even the political scientist Martin Axmann, who otherwise is biased, and who at times contradicts himself by giving wrong dates for the signage of the accession, pretty much corroborates the above events.








 * So this is what happened. The Khan of Kalat fell out with his brother-in-law, the ruler of Makran, when the latter wanted to join Pakistan. Khan argued that Makran was part of Kalat (something which the pro-Baloch writer Axmann and even Zeb agrees with) but Makran said no they are separate and want to go with Pakistan. Then the Khan stopped the food supplies to the Makran Levy Corps, even though he was under an obligation to supply them (according to Axmann). To prevent the starvation (according to both Axmann and Khanam) Sir Ambrose requested reinforcements for the Makran Levy Corps and also asked Pakistan to peacefully secure administration of the Makran which had already willingly acceded to Pakistan, to deter Kalat's aggression on Makran. However, even before Pakistan made its move to secure the Makran areas (and not Kalat) the Khan had heard the All India Radio announcement and decided to accede immediately. Martin Axmann says that the Khan maintained that he acceded because he felt that the existence of Pakistan was at stake. So that is the end of the accession story. There was no military force involved. And even before the proposed military action for securing Makran (and again, not Kalat) could have happened the Khan made up his mind the same day to join Pakistan after the AIR announcement. Multiple reliable sources identify the AIR announcement as the trigger for the accession. Including the Khan himself.


 * And while the historians Bangash and Saiyid do write that in the background of the radio announcement the Khan of Kalat was feeling pressured because he felt landlocked when the other three states had acceded, that does not mean that coercion actually took place. Being made to feel pressured and actually being coerced are not the same things at all. Travancore and many Indian states were also under pressure from Patel. Should that be called coercion too?

The Mekran issue is a very tricky one, but I don't think it has any bearing on what is at issue here. Let us focus on what happened inside Kalat proper. Here are two passages from Alia Amirali:

This accords well with what I proposed: "seen as coerced" and "involved a military intervention".

Here is Owen Bennet Jones again:

keeps saying we should use "high level histories". Here is exactly such a high-level history. These historians might not get all the details right. But they are focusing on the big picture. And, the big picture is clear. Force was necessary and it did not go down well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There was no force involved according to historians. Professor Najib Alvi points out that Muhammad Saeed Dehwar, who was the leader of the pro-Kalat Baloch nationalist Kalat State National Party, accepts that there was no force involved in the accession. And your proposed text does not accord with Amirali either. Amirali says coercion is disputed, whereas your text is inclining in favor of the coercion myth. And Amirali nowhere says that the accession process required a military intervention. She says the military was used to crush the Khan's brother's rebellion after the accession. Which raises the points of WP:UNDUE and WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION for ″required a military intervention.″ High-level histories must be used. Neither Amiraliali nor Jones are historians. Jones is a journalist. The tertiary sources such as Britannica do not describe Kalat as an invasion or annexation, it uses neutral wording, unlike its wording for Hyderabad and Junagadh which incorporates the term ″invasions.″ Ian Talbot also does not include Kalat with Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad. High level histories don't give them the same status. If they don't give them the same status so shouldn't we. Its a WP:FALSEBALANCE, even more serious since its being proposed for inclusion in the lead.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2018
The kingdom of Nepal was in North of india not north east which would emply assam and that is incorrect. Avhiyan (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, please provide sources that demonstrate that the distinction between the two relative directions for the two countries is generally used in reliable English-language sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Tripura and Manipur
The article contains the following incorrect and un-referenced statement: "and the states of Tripura and Manipur, whose rulers agreed to accession only in late 1949, after the Indian conquest of Hyderabad."

However, there are sources that say both Tripura and Manipur  were in fact forcibly annexed by India. I will make the necessary correction if there aren't any opposing views. --Uncle Sargam (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have issues with the James Minahan and Gyan Publishing House citations you have attached. I consider them unreliable. That said, the Wangam source seems to be WP:HISTRS. I will attach some WP:RS here for Manipur's tragedy.  JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * These sources seem to get into a whole bunch of legal trickery. The basic facts of the situation are as follows. All the Indian and non-Indian states under British suzerainty are recognised as British protectorates under the international law. British India however was a member of the League of Nations after the World War I. So it had an "international personality", even though it wasn't an independent state. The Constituent Assembly of India under the presidency of Nehru recognized Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan as non-Indian states, and no accession deliberations were carried out with them. Kalat was recognized as a non-Indian state through a negotiation between Kalat, the would-be Pakistan and the Viceroy. All other states were "Indian princely states".
 * Under the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the rulers of these states were empowered to accede to one of the Dominions. These laws have international force. Whatever laws the princely states might have had internally have no such status, even though the rulers were always welcome to abide by them. Manipur acceded to India on 11 August 1947, to the best of my knowledge. Its Instrument of Accession was no different from any other state that acceded to India. The force of that Instrument and what it enables or doesn't enable has been contested several times in the Supreme Court of India. The Article 370 page covers and cites some of those judgments. A recent judgement said that the internal sovereignty of Kashmir was part of the sovereignty of India. It is not "over and beyond" the sovereignty of India.
 * Whether the Manipuris ever went to the Supreme Court of India is not known to me.
 * There has been a whole lot of controversy in sources about where the Instruments of Accession were, and whether they existed or not, etc. Most of that has been dispelled recently, at least in the case of Kashmir. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

We are discussing Manipur. Clause 7 of Manipur's Instrument of Accession said there was nothing in the arrangement providing for the Maharaja to accept the Indian constitution while Clause 8 of the same document declared that the Instrument of Accession had no effect on the Maharaja's sovereignty over Manipur. Had it made Manipur a part of India then there would have been no need for the 1949 Merger document. In fact, according to Sanatomba, Manipur's Instrument of Accession is itself legally questionable. Nonetheless, most scholars attach more importance than the Instrument of Accession which the Maharaja signed on 11 August to the merger document of 1949, which is known to have been obtained from the Maharaja by force. The validity of the Merger document is also contested by many scholars. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Manipur's Instrument of Accession was no different from that of any other state. All the other states also signed merger documents or whatever equivalent. All that stuff is presently covered in the Political integration of India. We don't want to duplicate that here. This article ends with the accession of the princely states. And, that scope should not be expanded without good reason and without consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli's revert
There is no consensus for 's new edits and he is basically misrepresenting his version as WP:STATUSQUO. I am seeing same justification for edit warring from. We know that there is no consensus to remove those few words, so for now, you have to stick to the pre-NadirAli version.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 05:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC) NadirAli's edits are not ″new edits″. A sleeper account showed up on 30th April (and has disappeared since) to do a revert of a longstanding verswion. The version that was here before 30th April is the actual WP:STATUSQUO since it was not challenged for a long time. This late message will not be a tool for defense in a report for WP:EW. The WP:ONUS of including Kalat into the list of annexed states is on those claiming so. As I see you did not invest any participation to that long discussion. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop restoring new edits made last month without consensus. Misrepresenting WP:STATUSQUO is unhelpful. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You too have not invested into the discussions here but are suddenly very interested in the undo button. But let me repeat to you, what was there before the 30th April revert is the WP:STATUSQUO. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Kalat has been in the LEAD since February 2016. All that we have done since then is to fiddle with the wording or improve the sources. This is the STATUSQUO.

In the above discussion, I have accepted, after checking enough sources, that there was probably no military intervention before the Khan decided to accede. But there was one afterwards. We have the testimony of Major General Muhammed Akbar Khan, PA-1, the seniormost Pakistani military officer at the time of independence, that he was ordered to invade Kalat and that he did so. So, this cannot be brushed aside. Only those sources that cover the invasion or exhibit knowledge of it are acceptable sources. All others are out of date or propagandist.

Based on the sources that I could get my hands on, I have proposed amended text that can go in the lead. Please comment on that proposal above (#Towards resolution). There is no point in edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal
The recent disruption here has been immense and unproductive. The article appears to have become yet another battleground for a small group of pov-pushers who are intent on fighting each other at numerous venues, with an ever-widening net. I propose that when this Arbitration Enforcement request ends we should revert to the last stable version and start over from there. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Monarchs?
The List of longest-reigning monarchs includes several princely state rulers (see discussion). Is the term "monarch" applicable to these princely state rulers? utcursch &#124; talk 19:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. Only the rulers that were sovereigns should be called monarchs. Maharaja Ranjit Singh, for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Constitution of India (26th Amendment) Act 1971
Link to the edit

The article curently states: "As the final step, in 1971, the 26th amendment[52] to the Constitution of India withdrew official recognition of all official symbols of princely India, including titles and privileges, and abolished the remuneration of the princes by privy purses. As a result, even titular heads of the former princely states ceased to exist.[53]"

The text of the 26th Amendment amendment can be seen here:. Specifically please note:

Derecogition as "Ruler or the successor of such Ruler":

"(a) the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amend- ment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler  of an Indian State! or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor  of such Ruler shall, on and from such commencement, cease to be recognised as such Ruler or the successor of such Ruler."

Abolition of privy purse:

"..on and from the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, privy purse is abolished and all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purse  are extinguished and accordingly the Ruler or, as the case may  be, the successor of such Ruler, referred to in clause (a) or any other person shall not be paid any sum as privy purse."

Malaiya (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , the previous content was sourced to an authoritative scholarly source. It is not clear what you disagree about it. That is the first thing for you to clarify. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Princely States were ...nominally sovereign?
1. How could princely states be nominally sovereign, if they accepted the paramountcy of British Crown? 2. Please explain what is meant by nominally here? PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, you may want to check nominal in the Wiktionary, definition 3: "in name only". That means, they were called souvereign in the manner of a convenient lie which let the princes keep their pride, life and wealth and which allowed the British to not use force against them while still being in full control. But in fact these States weren't really "souvereign", yes. --Enyavar (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Reality of Kashmir?
There is no recognition here of the three-way division of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir that prevails currently, under India, Pakistan and China.I am wondering whether a sentence to that effect is warranted. Sooku (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a brief mention in the "Political integration of princely states in 1947 and after" section, which could be expanded a bit. But this article is essentially about the pre-1947 situation. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)