I have lived in Junagadh in 1971-72 but did not try to research so much of History as you have done . I saw all monuments and even climbed the Mount Girnar on foot but failed to know the history. Thank you for highlighting so much of the gone past
Can’t wait to read the book Sam. I traveled through this area back in January, visiting Jamnagar (father’s birthplace) and Mahuva on South Coast (grandparent’s birthplace). Stayed in Rajkot and Amreli but missed Junagadh! Will have to go back.
I randomly watched a really terrible episode of a reality show “date a prince” or something, which featured a ridiculous young Babi princeling alongside a few more credible European princes. I think he’d been included for comic relief. As far as I could tell he only had a dubious and pompous title and one crumbling mansion. I learned from that that Parveen Babi was related. This whole story sounds like something out of Douglas Adams but darker.
I was not aware of the lions subplot. I do wonder about that curiosity. Tigers I think are far more numerous in recorded history, so why did the Ashokan pillars feature lions? Were lions more numerous in the past. Another possibility is that tigers were less visible due to being solitary and jungle-dwelling. Also “sher” is much less common than “singh” in names. The only famous tiger-names I can think of are sher shah suri and pulakesin. Iirc the cholas used tigers as the royal symbol.
As a Pakistani, it seems deeply hypocritical of India to deny Junagadh's accession to Pakistan by conducting a plebiscite in Junagadh while refusing to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir (despite promising this in front of the UN) and conducting a "police action" in Hyderabad Deccan. It seems that the Indian principle was to do whatever got them the largest amount of territory. When it comes to Kashmir, the Indian nationalist argument basically boils down to "The Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession". In that case, the Nawab of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan so when are you handing the territory over?
I could be wrong but I believe Pakistan only started putting Junagadh on its political maps after the annexation of Kashmir in 2019. It's a symbolic step and no one in Pakistan actually wants Junagadh.
India maintains that it would conduct a plebiscite in kashmir on the complete withdrawal of the pakistani occupation in the former princely state. Pakistani occupation was the barrier to a plebiscite and not India's willingness. But it's been 75 years and things have settled. Pakistan will never give up what it controls and vice versa. Seperatism is unpopular on the Indian side at this point. And joining pakistan is against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people who live in the union territory. So why bother?
As stated in the post above, Junagadh's case was complicated by the fact that smaller princely states administered with junagadh had acceded to India. Additionally, Pakistan annexed and occupied kalat without a plebisicite. It also occuped hindu majority and hindu ruled umerkot.
Pakistan set the impetus for the might makes right scramble for annexing the princely states. Pakistan is massively hypocritical in this regard. Demanding convention one way or the other when it was the one to break it. There is no argument pakistanis have presented me which disproves that they're hypocrites.
We can go on blaming each other all we like. I'm really not interested in that.
The point remains that the Indian nationalist argument on Kashmir boils down to the fact of Hari Singh's accession to India not the wishes of the Kashmiri people (most of whom despised the Dogra Maharaja). On what basis does a Hindu Dogra have the right to decide the future of a majority Muslim populace? The Indian nationalist argument is that since he was the ruler he had the right to decide which nation his state would join. On that basis, the Nawab of Junagadh had the right to accede his majority Hindu state to Pakistan. Carrying out a plebiscite in one case and not in the other is hypocritical.
I do agree with you that neither India nor Pakistan will give up any territory that they currently control. Eventually, we will have to finalize the LOC as an international border.
And why didn't pakistan withdraw it's forces? Because it very well knew that the large majority of kashmiri muslims followed the lead of Sheikh Abdullah who was a secular leader and whose interests were never overlapping with the Pakistani Islamic nation agenda.
One must note that kashmir was the first state to implement extensive land reforms which completely took away hindu hold(Kashmiri pandits and dogra Hindus) from large swaths of land and distributed to muslim peasants.
Can one imagine this happening in a majoritarian hindu country? This was accepted with some disputes and animosity but nevertheless put into action.
And one must remember Pakistan to this date doesn't have valid land reforms as it's supreme court in late 1980s invalidated it stating land reforms as anti islamic😂
Every Pakistani needs to read the instrument of accession and the in resolution.
The resolution clearly states pakistan to withdraw all forces from Pakistan occupied Kashmir before the plebiscite is initiated.
The ignorance to know what actions were meant to be done leads them to make allegations without grounds. And even when aware the atypical whataboutery starts to deflect responsibility.
Hindutva assertiveness is but a response to such Islamist skullduggery
The bottom line is that if Hari Singh was allowed to decide the accession of Kashmir then the Nawab of Junagadh should have been allowed to decide the accession of Junagadh.
You cannot pick different principles depending on which one is convenient for you. That is the definition of hypocrisy.
I've already explained the "Indian nationalist" position on the matter. I've touched on the conditions for a plebiscite. I've touched on the cases of Babriawad and Mangrol as well. Junagadh's administration directly invited India into its borders when it became incapable of functioning as a state. On the other hand Hari Singh acceded to India AFTER junagadh was courted by pakistan. Hari Singh also only acceded due to pakistani involvement and wished to remain independent upto that point. Pakistan unilaterally broke the precedent. What basis does a self professed seperate country for muslims have for claiming a hindu majority princely states?
First of all, you don't need to "explain" anything to me. Don't assume that I'm historically uninformed. I've read all these sources and know exactly what the Indian nationalist position is.
The princely states were free to choose either India or Pakistan. There were no conditions placed on them that they had to go with the country that matched the religion of the state's majority. It was up to the ruler to decide. If the state's demographics mattered, than Kashmir would be part of Pakistan today and that would be a no-brainer.
The bottom line is that either the ruler decided or the people decided. You can't choose which principle is convenient to you based on which one ensures India gets the territory. If the ruler decided than Junagadh is Pakistani territory and Kashmiri is Indian. If the people decided, than Junagadh belongs to India and the Kashmiri people still need to be asked whether they want India, Pakistan or Azaadi.
You say you are aware of the Indian nationalists' position on the topic, but you still have the gall to claim that India is unwilling to have a plebiscite? Nehru was the first to talk about a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. I dont wish to insult you but your claims either show a lack of understanding on the topic or are deliberately misleading.
There were no hard rules on who the princely states *could* accede to. There were precedents such as geographical contiguity and demographics. But there was a convention & expectation on how India and Pakistan would go about courting the princely states. What the princely states did is irrelevant to the argument. How India and Pakistan acted is.
The demographic argument against muslim majority areas joining in India is weak because India is principally secular. On the other hand Pakistan's foundational ideology was the notion that muslims in the subcontinent represented their own nation. On principle, India accepts muslims as a part of the nation and Pakistan does not accept non muslims. (Notice the difference between nation and country). Tl;dr India can claim muslim majority or plurality regions and not be a hypocrite but Pakistan can't. But yes, Patel had fully intended to let pakistan have Kashmir. This of course changed when pakistan attempted to court hyderabad and junagadh. There is no hypocrisy in playing a game your enemy created.
Again, I could very easily gesture at babriawad and mangrol to make my point. I could easily gesture at kalat. I can point to all the things mountbatten said about the accession of the princely states. I could even point out that Pakistan agreed to a plebiscite in Junagadh.
But let's be honest here. Pakistan has no interest in Junagadh and only expresses desire for it to attempt to score a political victory in the case of Jammu and Kashmir. But being honest about this just makes pakistanis utter disregard for the instrument of accession extremely apparent. To Pakistan, might makes right. Conventions and standards don't matter. It just so happens that Pakistan was not as mighty as it thought.
The bottom line is that India applied different principles in different cases. In Kashmir, Hari Singh's decision was treated as final. In Junagadh, the Nawab's decision didn't matter. In Hyderabad a "police action" was conducted. If you can't see that this is "might makes right" and hypocrisy, I don't know what to tell you.
"India is principally secular"-- Maybe Nehru's India but not Modi's India. With assertive Hindutva, the argument for holding Muslim-majority Kashmir by force is considerably weakened.
I don't really see your point about Kalat. Admittedly I'm not aware of all the history there but India doesn't share a border with Balochistan. Secondly, the Baloch are Muslim and their ruler was Muslim so what exactly would India's claim have been?
I agree Pakistan doesn't really want Junagadh. Including it on political maps is only a symbolic gesture after Modi's annexation of Kashmir in 2019.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't want to keep spamming Sam's comment section.
Wow. Was unaware of the rich history of the place. Never read any of it at school or anywhere. Your blogs are more educative and informative than the history books. Looking forward to reading your book.
I have lived in Junagadh in 1971-72 but did not try to research so much of History as you have done . I saw all monuments and even climbed the Mount Girnar on foot but failed to know the history. Thank you for highlighting so much of the gone past
A fascinating read about a region I've never heard of. What an amazing history, and an incredible architecture and landscape
Can’t wait to read the book Sam. I traveled through this area back in January, visiting Jamnagar (father’s birthplace) and Mahuva on South Coast (grandparent’s birthplace). Stayed in Rajkot and Amreli but missed Junagadh! Will have to go back.
I randomly watched a really terrible episode of a reality show “date a prince” or something, which featured a ridiculous young Babi princeling alongside a few more credible European princes. I think he’d been included for comic relief. As far as I could tell he only had a dubious and pompous title and one crumbling mansion. I learned from that that Parveen Babi was related. This whole story sounds like something out of Douglas Adams but darker.
I was not aware of the lions subplot. I do wonder about that curiosity. Tigers I think are far more numerous in recorded history, so why did the Ashokan pillars feature lions? Were lions more numerous in the past. Another possibility is that tigers were less visible due to being solitary and jungle-dwelling. Also “sher” is much less common than “singh” in names. The only famous tiger-names I can think of are sher shah suri and pulakesin. Iirc the cholas used tigers as the royal symbol.
Very interesting! And great pictures!
Enjoyed reading this.
Thanks for this fascinating piece on Junagadh.
As a Pakistani, it seems deeply hypocritical of India to deny Junagadh's accession to Pakistan by conducting a plebiscite in Junagadh while refusing to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir (despite promising this in front of the UN) and conducting a "police action" in Hyderabad Deccan. It seems that the Indian principle was to do whatever got them the largest amount of territory. When it comes to Kashmir, the Indian nationalist argument basically boils down to "The Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession". In that case, the Nawab of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan so when are you handing the territory over?
I could be wrong but I believe Pakistan only started putting Junagadh on its political maps after the annexation of Kashmir in 2019. It's a symbolic step and no one in Pakistan actually wants Junagadh.
India maintains that it would conduct a plebiscite in kashmir on the complete withdrawal of the pakistani occupation in the former princely state. Pakistani occupation was the barrier to a plebiscite and not India's willingness. But it's been 75 years and things have settled. Pakistan will never give up what it controls and vice versa. Seperatism is unpopular on the Indian side at this point. And joining pakistan is against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people who live in the union territory. So why bother?
As stated in the post above, Junagadh's case was complicated by the fact that smaller princely states administered with junagadh had acceded to India. Additionally, Pakistan annexed and occupied kalat without a plebisicite. It also occuped hindu majority and hindu ruled umerkot.
Pakistan set the impetus for the might makes right scramble for annexing the princely states. Pakistan is massively hypocritical in this regard. Demanding convention one way or the other when it was the one to break it. There is no argument pakistanis have presented me which disproves that they're hypocrites.
We can go on blaming each other all we like. I'm really not interested in that.
The point remains that the Indian nationalist argument on Kashmir boils down to the fact of Hari Singh's accession to India not the wishes of the Kashmiri people (most of whom despised the Dogra Maharaja). On what basis does a Hindu Dogra have the right to decide the future of a majority Muslim populace? The Indian nationalist argument is that since he was the ruler he had the right to decide which nation his state would join. On that basis, the Nawab of Junagadh had the right to accede his majority Hindu state to Pakistan. Carrying out a plebiscite in one case and not in the other is hypocritical.
I do agree with you that neither India nor Pakistan will give up any territory that they currently control. Eventually, we will have to finalize the LOC as an international border.
And why didn't pakistan withdraw it's forces? Because it very well knew that the large majority of kashmiri muslims followed the lead of Sheikh Abdullah who was a secular leader and whose interests were never overlapping with the Pakistani Islamic nation agenda.
One must note that kashmir was the first state to implement extensive land reforms which completely took away hindu hold(Kashmiri pandits and dogra Hindus) from large swaths of land and distributed to muslim peasants.
Can one imagine this happening in a majoritarian hindu country? This was accepted with some disputes and animosity but nevertheless put into action.
And one must remember Pakistan to this date doesn't have valid land reforms as it's supreme court in late 1980s invalidated it stating land reforms as anti islamic😂
Every Pakistani needs to read the instrument of accession and the in resolution.
The resolution clearly states pakistan to withdraw all forces from Pakistan occupied Kashmir before the plebiscite is initiated.
The ignorance to know what actions were meant to be done leads them to make allegations without grounds. And even when aware the atypical whataboutery starts to deflect responsibility.
Hindutva assertiveness is but a response to such Islamist skullduggery
The bottom line is that if Hari Singh was allowed to decide the accession of Kashmir then the Nawab of Junagadh should have been allowed to decide the accession of Junagadh.
You cannot pick different principles depending on which one is convenient for you. That is the definition of hypocrisy.
I've already explained the "Indian nationalist" position on the matter. I've touched on the conditions for a plebiscite. I've touched on the cases of Babriawad and Mangrol as well. Junagadh's administration directly invited India into its borders when it became incapable of functioning as a state. On the other hand Hari Singh acceded to India AFTER junagadh was courted by pakistan. Hari Singh also only acceded due to pakistani involvement and wished to remain independent upto that point. Pakistan unilaterally broke the precedent. What basis does a self professed seperate country for muslims have for claiming a hindu majority princely states?
First of all, you don't need to "explain" anything to me. Don't assume that I'm historically uninformed. I've read all these sources and know exactly what the Indian nationalist position is.
The princely states were free to choose either India or Pakistan. There were no conditions placed on them that they had to go with the country that matched the religion of the state's majority. It was up to the ruler to decide. If the state's demographics mattered, than Kashmir would be part of Pakistan today and that would be a no-brainer.
The bottom line is that either the ruler decided or the people decided. You can't choose which principle is convenient to you based on which one ensures India gets the territory. If the ruler decided than Junagadh is Pakistani territory and Kashmiri is Indian. If the people decided, than Junagadh belongs to India and the Kashmiri people still need to be asked whether they want India, Pakistan or Azaadi.
I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word.
You say you are aware of the Indian nationalists' position on the topic, but you still have the gall to claim that India is unwilling to have a plebiscite? Nehru was the first to talk about a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. I dont wish to insult you but your claims either show a lack of understanding on the topic or are deliberately misleading.
There were no hard rules on who the princely states *could* accede to. There were precedents such as geographical contiguity and demographics. But there was a convention & expectation on how India and Pakistan would go about courting the princely states. What the princely states did is irrelevant to the argument. How India and Pakistan acted is.
The demographic argument against muslim majority areas joining in India is weak because India is principally secular. On the other hand Pakistan's foundational ideology was the notion that muslims in the subcontinent represented their own nation. On principle, India accepts muslims as a part of the nation and Pakistan does not accept non muslims. (Notice the difference between nation and country). Tl;dr India can claim muslim majority or plurality regions and not be a hypocrite but Pakistan can't. But yes, Patel had fully intended to let pakistan have Kashmir. This of course changed when pakistan attempted to court hyderabad and junagadh. There is no hypocrisy in playing a game your enemy created.
Again, I could very easily gesture at babriawad and mangrol to make my point. I could easily gesture at kalat. I can point to all the things mountbatten said about the accession of the princely states. I could even point out that Pakistan agreed to a plebiscite in Junagadh.
But let's be honest here. Pakistan has no interest in Junagadh and only expresses desire for it to attempt to score a political victory in the case of Jammu and Kashmir. But being honest about this just makes pakistanis utter disregard for the instrument of accession extremely apparent. To Pakistan, might makes right. Conventions and standards don't matter. It just so happens that Pakistan was not as mighty as it thought.
The bottom line is that India applied different principles in different cases. In Kashmir, Hari Singh's decision was treated as final. In Junagadh, the Nawab's decision didn't matter. In Hyderabad a "police action" was conducted. If you can't see that this is "might makes right" and hypocrisy, I don't know what to tell you.
"India is principally secular"-- Maybe Nehru's India but not Modi's India. With assertive Hindutva, the argument for holding Muslim-majority Kashmir by force is considerably weakened.
I don't really see your point about Kalat. Admittedly I'm not aware of all the history there but India doesn't share a border with Balochistan. Secondly, the Baloch are Muslim and their ruler was Muslim so what exactly would India's claim have been?
I agree Pakistan doesn't really want Junagadh. Including it on political maps is only a symbolic gesture after Modi's annexation of Kashmir in 2019.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't want to keep spamming Sam's comment section.
Very much enjoyed this Sam - I have been brought up as (ropey) Jain but knew little or nothing about Junagadh. On my ‘to visit’ list.
this is a very fascinating piece of history.
Wow. Was unaware of the rich history of the place. Never read any of it at school or anywhere. Your blogs are more educative and informative than the history books. Looking forward to reading your book.
Thanks so much!
Brilliant, fascinating read
Family lore has always held that we were related to Gavrilo Princep—how common is that last name? Are you Serb?