>England splits its directly controlled territory in two between Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India, but says each Princely State is free to join the side it wants or become independent

>Muslim prince of majority Hindu Junagadh wants to join Pakistan, Pakistan agrees but India invades and conquers it, Pakistan seethes

Hindu prince of majority Muslim Jammu and Kashmir wants to join India, India agrees but Pakistan invades and conquers (some of) it, India seethes

How do both sides justify this blatant hypocrisy? Objectively there is no logic by which one side isn’t wrong in one of these scenarios.

>>17872938 (OP)
Jinnah was offered splitting the states according to religious demographics but refused. Indias justification for Junagadh was that the vassal states of the prince had declared independence and wanted to join India. Jinnah was also trying to recruit Hindu states which pissed off the Indians since he was the one that wanted to split the subcontinent by religion in the first place. It’s also worth mentioning alot of Indian leaders at the time were hoping Pakistan would implode since it was still a pretty new project and started off pretty gruesome (staff shortages since most bureaucrats preferred to stay in India).

Justify? They hate each other and would have used gas on each other if not for white people/Anglos imposing consequences for doing so. Once India finally kicks all the brits/anglo influence out, they will do so and the entire region will successfully destroy itself.