Explain how? The partition by itself was not the problem but the incorrect partition was. Same with Kashmir. Population swap with Pakistan and Kashmir swap for Sindh (Hindu dominated area in Pakistan) would have solved all the problems
Kashmir : An Illusive Solution
- Thread starter Manmohan_MMY
- Start date
Firstly, Sindh was Muslim dominated, also why will Pakistan or Jinnah agree for population swap of own province?
Who is to oversee such an arrangement and implement it?
It's too easy to say this today but bear in mind this was 1947, only after a decision is taken you can pick the rights and wrongs but before that you need to make decision.
If you read beyond the forum rhetoric you will find more than enough evidence in letters and official communique that both Nehru and Cabinet was against the partition and they were doing everything to stop it. And I am talking about neutral sources.
Kashmir on the other hand was different issue altogether, though India got independence in August 47, the British and their control lasted till much later and mostly in India's favour. Most people arguing about Kashmir or military action don't even know that Nehru was not commander in chief but a PM of interim government which comes with limitations.
Do not forget, Sardar Patel too bowed down to same Nehru Modi curse daily.
Unfortunately irrespective of how much I hate over glorification of Nehru and role played by INC (i) not old Congress in one family glorification and almost trashing entire Indian national movement and sacrifices of great heros and attribute it to one family I still have to say there were very very few "leaders" of the quality of Nehru in India. A leader knows when to stop n compromise and when to go all out, Nehru showed both these qualities and challenges infront of him were much greater in magnitude than today.
I will encourage fellow members to read a bit more about national movement to know the truth instead of learning from political propaganda which is undoubtedly biased.
We are speaking only of Kashmir, not Jammu or Ladakh. In Sindh, several princely states like Amarkot were hindu dominant. Sindh by itself was never a full state but had many states in them. Sindh was given in entirety to Pakistan as it was geographically inconvenient for India to extend its reach and also because Pakistan wanted coastal areas. So, the Kashmir could have been part of India itself in return for these hindu land in Sindh.
Decision was already taken in 1947 to partition India. And Pakistan expelled all Hindus and Sikhs into India. India could have promptly reacted by expelling all muslims into pakistan. Why was this not done? In addition, Muslims were given special rights like education, AIMPLB (there was no AIHPLB), Hajj subsidy?
I never claimed that Nehru was in support of partition. Everyone were against partition. But, 90% muslims voted for Muslim league, causing partition. It was beyond just Nehru or Jinnah. Muslims wanted partition and Pakistan. So, it was only natural that muslims were expelled completely.
I also know that Indian constitution was written under British Mountbatten. But, why was it necessary to do so instead of doing what Jinnah did? Jinnah simply refused to accept Mountbatten as commander and founded Pakistan. Even if there was British influence initially, why wasn't constitution modified later to suppress or expel muslims, say in 1955? Why was instead Kashmir given a special constitution and Musims awarded with Hajj subsidy at the expense of other hindus?
China also gained independence in 1949, but it got at its own terms and had its own principles and built up military might. By 1975, China had following:
1) Hydrogen bomb
2) Nuclear submarine
3) Space vehicle and ICBM
All of this was high end technology. And, that too considering that China only started in 1950. India had got lot of technology during WW2 as a result of British and USA setting up bases in India. The WW2 technology were mostly mechanical and could have been easily reverse engineered too. So, by all means, India was behind by just 5 years in technology when it comes to international standards in 1947. But, the defence was completely ignored by Nehru. How is this not treason?
Kashmir problem could have been solved by suppressing muslims like USSR did. By encouraging separate constitution and passing Article 35A, what was that Nehru achieved? Kashmir problem is simple one - Islam. It is not only a problem in Kashmir but everywhere. Partition was an excellent opportunity to get rid of all muslims forever.
Summary:
The following makes the actions of Nehru treasonous:
1) Not expelling muslims or suppressing muslims but instead giving extra privilege
2) Not developing defence technology
Can you give me a proper cost benefit analysis of the result in suppressing muslims or expelling them completely and not developing military if you want to claim that Nehru did what was right? Look at it in terms of 1950 angle itself, not today's.
PS:
I have read the history thoroughly and I don't even understand how Nehru was even fit to be a PM. Nehru was installed by British as they couldn't face the massive war like scenario caused by Indian National Army revolt. Nehru was an agent of British and even possible a pseudo muslim. Nehru's grandfather was a Kotwal in Zaffar Shah's court (told by Nehru's sister). Nehru didn't compromise where one should but compromised everywhere as he was an agent of British.
So your whole solution is suppression and expulsion of a significant number of population and that is based on how Pakistan expelled all Hindus!
Firstly, No Pakistan never expelled all Hindus, not the state, so all this long paragraph from China to Russia is based on lie manufactured by you in your mind.
Secondly why will India expel own citizens who fought for the independence of India not Pakistan and who said 90% voted Muslim league? Congress use to sweep elections pre partition including the Muslim dominated areas as the voted for Congress.
I don't know what is more horrendous, being ignorant of role played by Muslim hero and their sacrifices for independence of India or expelling a community cuz they voted for a party!!!!!! Wtf!
The Hindu Hriday Samrat have majority in Loksabha and government with overwhelming majority in most states, why can't he expel Muslims now? Muslims don't have tactical nuclear weapons like Pakistan, what's stopping him?
The blindness with which you accuse the prime minister of India of being a British agent even when he was elected by popular vote not once but multiple times is appalling.
China is favourite among many people, people are just fascinated by the growth and development which is quite impressive but can you live in China? How many countries replicated China model? Even China is not sure how long can it be China!
Let me tell you what would have happened if you were in Chindia, for using the words you have used for Nehru you would have been picked by now from your house by some people's republic guard and instead of reading this reply you will be begging them to spare your already swollen *censored* by torture.
There is price that Chinese pay for what they are today, people ranting on forums, believing in free speech or free murders are not tolerated in China, remember that before you quote China and exercise your free speech in same reply.
Chinese are not tortured like your western media suggests. China has been very reasonable even during Mao's times. If you have noted Chinese history, they have not simply butchered people for speaking. This is utter nonsense. There have been far more oppressive regimes in the past which have been taken out because people were angry. Today's free speech by West is nothing but "opinionated rhetorics" which they want to use as they have a dominant position in terms of natural resource and hence ability to fight. They are misusing their power and using "nice" sounding words instead. If China was as oppressive, then China would have had no significant scientific progress as being seen. Mao simply understood the importance of stability which he felt could come only if there is unity. Even then, he did not become a king. He just established a fascist party which has leaders elected democratically. Indian democracy is not any true democracy but a republic and that too "party based" one whereby bunch of organised people are always on the top and is not based on any cause but blind loyalty and dynasty. I can't understand how CPC which has 10 crore members from the public is called as "autocracy" by you.
Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was killed By Nehru, Shastri was killed by Nehru. Give such examples in China, if you really think China was more oppressive. Chinese respect negotiations. They will attack only if people arbitrarily attack or rebel without negotiating first. Nehru simply refused to negotiate and answer questions about Islam or special status to Kashmir. The difference between Mao and Nehru was that Mao was a proven leader who had fought hard against the genocidal Japanese and civil war with KMT, had respect for people, knew where to compromise, negotiate and respected reality whereas Nehru was a useless person who was incapable of becoming anything on his own but merely placed by British and hence had high arrogance and sense of power. Nehru was more dictatorial than Mao
I am not speaking of CHinese growth but Chinese defence capability only. I only wanted to say that China was lagging by 5-6 years from India in 1950 but managed to leap frog in technology in short span of time to improve over India by 15 years and hence disprove any myth that western society was ahead of India by 100 years which India could not catch up.
Nehru was elected by popular cote only in 1951 and later. By then, India had no organisation at all and everyone were suppressed. So, the choice was anarchy or Nehru. That was not a good choice. The point here was n 1946-47, how was Nehru chosen as PM?
What do you mean by muslim's sacrifice? Muslims sacrificed for Pakistan. Even in 1920, Khilafat movement was fought by muslims for the sake of Ottoman, not India. Muslims didn't come to India by invitation. The muslims who live here are those who follow the footsteps of those who came in as invaders. 90% of India's problems is because of the chaos and degradation caused by Islam. These people could have shunned the path of their ancestors and instead given up religion but they simply refuse to for no reason.
There was only 1 muslim initially- Muhammad and all of these muslims today are his followers. They have no reason to follow muhammad but they insist on doing so and kill anyone who oppose. Expelling muslims was not just because of voting for muslim league but because they are invaders and don't belong here in the first place. The vote for muslim league was for getting Pakistan. Elections are fought for getting some result. The result was formation of Pakistan in case of Muslim league and these muslims voted whole heartedly, showing that they actually believed in the concept of Pakistan. Naturally, it is only fair to say that muslims never wanted to imbibe Indian values, culture but wanted to remain as mere economic residents in India to benefit them while serving as trojan horses of Pakistan when it comes to loyalty.
Congress didn't sweep prepartition polls because everyone agreed with it. There was simply no option and no point in these elections. There was very little powers given. The concept of "independence" itself was undefined and hence most people didn't even understand the difference between independent or British ruled India. People had questions like "How does it matter to me if British rule me or if an Indian rule me?". When real reason came up, that time, people voted to show their preference.
Islam is evil whose only intention is to enslave everyone to the opinions of Muhammad and simply has no sense of reasoning or logic. Quran openly asks to refuse to listen to any reasons against the revelation of the prophet and insists that prophet's words must be enforced without question. Those who follow Islam are hence also evil. There is no scope for evil and hence must be suppressed or eliminated for permanent peace over generations.
The sacrifices of muslims were next to nil for the sake of Dharma. India as a land has no significance. What matters is culture. Just like Canada, USA, UK, Australia are very close to each other due to culture despite being far off, same way, people are never fascinated by a fixed location. It is only right that people are classified by their "reason of existence" rather than location.
A nation is based on a civilisation which exists to further the civilisation and protect it from enemies. If a nation doesn't represent a cause, why even have a nation? If the people in a nation don't form a coherent group with good cooperation and harmonious history, how is the nation even meaningful.
If you exist arbitrarily without a reason, but just exist to die, you must consider suicide as that is the most efficient way to achieve your objective of life. The same logic exists for anything else - state, organisation etc. If you have no reason to exist, don't exist.
Now anser these questions:
1)Why Nehru's negligence of defence not treasonous?
2) Why Nehru's refusal to acknowledge the islamic violent history and refusal to secure the lives of Hindus by expelling muslims to Pakistan not treasonous?
3) By what process was Nehru elected as PM in 1946-47?
Last edited:
I would call for a subjective analysis and not just picking up the negative part. Moreover his decisions should be discussed in terms of then prevailing conditions and not what it turn out after 5 decades later. The outcomes are factor of lot many other factor including the course of future events and not just the initial decision itself.
I am no fan of Nehru and his clan but glorifying others is as equal as glorifying Nehru. Face change wont help us.
Nehru was more dictatorial than Mao!
Not expelling Muslims is treasonous!
And so many gems in this post.
This post must be highlighted, pinned and boosted at homepage for the amount of knowledge it possess. BTW since you know history of Islam and China so well how come history of India or interim govt. is not known! Maybe such trivial leaders like prime minister of india didn't carry enough weight to b read or known.
Today PM Modi ended the Political correctness and laid bare the facts before everyone.
I know about interim government too. But, I also know about police action in hyderabad and war of Jammu and Kashmir. How come you don't know about special privilege of educational rights and AIMPLB was given constitutional validity? Maybe such trivial matters don't matter to you.
Nehru was a hero!
Religion is irrelevant and people live arbitrarily without any direction or goal and simply follow the instruction of a bunch of people who call themselves leader!
Special status, rights and subsidies to invaders is a heroic deed!
Not avenging the atrocities of the people who you swear allegiance to is an intelligent decision!
Your post is filled with enough garbage that it should be pasted on every trash bin instead of the "USE ME" sign
Note: When Sardar Patel offered Kashmir to Paskistan, it was 1947. Now it does not matter, much water has flown under the bridge, India, it's people and it's army has sacrificed too much. That was then, this is now. India and Pakistan have fought wars, a low intensity conflict continues, the economic development of the subcontinent, the effectiveness of Saarc have been affected. Reading Sardar Patel's views now, it becomes clear how perspicacious the man who integrated half a thousand princely states was. He knew this was a fishbone that would lodge itself in the throat, remain stuck there. For what it is worth, Sardar Patel's current admirers could attempt to fashion a more accomodative narrative in Kashmir, one he would have approved of.
Fans of Pradhan Sevak Modi ruining this country and quashing any meaningful debate in the country over the last 4 years. All we have seen is empty promises and when we ask for accountability what we get is "last 70 years", comments on Gandhi dynasty, Nehru bashing and what not. And, not Sardar Patel. If Patel were alive today he would have given Modi a dose of his own medicine, Patel was iron man of India for nothing.
When Pradhan sevak Modi lies in the parliament, some people think its okay because of their hate for congress. If you can lie in parliament then who are you really accountable to? Parliament is where facts are presented and what you say go into record unlike election rallies where you can get away by saying you will deposit 15 lakhs and then say that was to make a point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By The Wire Staff on 10/02/2018• 4 Comments
“Patel consistently offered Kashmir to Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan was stubbornly obsessed with an imaginary idea of getting Hyderabad-Deccan.”
Saifuddin Soz. Credit: Twitter ANI
New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assertion in Lok Sabha on February 7, that if Sardar Patel’s line of thinking were allowed, there would be no issue on Kashmir as it would have got fully integrated with India, is “contrary to the facts of history” said professor and former Union minister Saifuddin Soz on February 9.
In a statement, Soz, who is from Jammu and Kashmir, says his forthcoming book Kashmir: The Complete Story has details of this, “Patel consistently offered Kashmir to Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan remained stubbornly obsessed with an imaginary idea of getting Hyderabad-Deccan which was neither connected by rail nor road with Pakistan.”
In the statement, Soz said in their books, Chaudhre Mohammad Ali, former Pakistan prime minister, and former minister and senior Muslim leader Sirdar Shaukat Hayat Khan lamented Liaquat Ali Khan’s attitude.
History is based on facts and it can hardly help politicians who present their own perceptions as facts of history, Soz said.
“I propose Prime Minister Modi to start a serious study on the history of India’s Freedom Struggle for his better understanding on Nehru and his relationship with Sardar Patel and Mahatma Gandhi,” he said.
On Wednesday, Modi tore into the Congress while replying to the Motion of Thanks on President’s Address, blaming the party for “dividing India.”
“Out of 15 Congress committees, 12 chose Vallabhbhai Patel, three chose not to take any sides, and still, Vallabhbhai Patel was not allowed to lead the country. What sort of democracy was that? If Sardar Patel had become the prime minister, today a part of our beloved Kashmir would not have been under Pakistani occupation,” he said.
However, many experts pointed out that the Prime Minister was wrong on facts. Historian S Irfan Habib quoted Patel as saying in 1949: “It is good that we have agreed to partition in spite of all its evils; I have never repented my agreeing to partition.”
In an article in the magazine, Frontline, well-known political commentator A.G. Noorani also mentions that on November 27, 1972, the then President of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, told a tribal jirga at Landikotal about Sardar Patel’s offer to swap Kashmir for Junagadh and Hyderabad.
“A quarter century later, on November 27, 1972, the President of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, told a tribal jirga at Landikotal that India’s first Home Minister and Minister for the States, Sardar Patel, had, at one stage, offered Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Junagadh and Hyderabad. But, he added, Pakistan “unfortunately” did not accept this offer with the result that it not only lost all the three native states but East Pakistan as well.”
Noorani goes on to add that “This is fully corroborated by the memoirs of Chaudhary Mohammed Ali, The Emergence of Pakistan (page 299). Patel asked Liaquat Ali Khan: “Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir and we could reach an agreement.” Patel repeated this offer publicly at a meeting in Junagadh on November 11, 1947. “Our reply was that one could agree to (sic.) Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad.”
Modi Is Wrong. Sardar Patel Offered Kashmir to Pakistan: Saifuddin Soz - The Wire --link
@bonobashi @Hellfire @Tatvamasi
Fans of Pradhan Sevak Modi ruining this country and quashing any meaningful debate in the country over the last 4 years. All we have seen is empty promises and when we ask for accountability what we get is "last 70 years", comments on Gandhi dynasty, Nehru bashing and what not. And, not Sardar Patel. If Patel were alive today he would have given Modi a dose of his own medicine, Patel was iron man of India for nothing.
When Pradhan sevak Modi lies in the parliament, some people think its okay because of their hate for congress. If you can lie in parliament then who are you really accountable to? Parliament is where facts are presented and what you say go into record unlike election rallies where you can get away by saying you will deposit 15 lakhs and then say that was to make a point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By The Wire Staff on 10/02/2018• 4 Comments
“Patel consistently offered Kashmir to Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan was stubbornly obsessed with an imaginary idea of getting Hyderabad-Deccan.”
Saifuddin Soz. Credit: Twitter ANI
New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assertion in Lok Sabha on February 7, that if Sardar Patel’s line of thinking were allowed, there would be no issue on Kashmir as it would have got fully integrated with India, is “contrary to the facts of history” said professor and former Union minister Saifuddin Soz on February 9.
In a statement, Soz, who is from Jammu and Kashmir, says his forthcoming book Kashmir: The Complete Story has details of this, “Patel consistently offered Kashmir to Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan remained stubbornly obsessed with an imaginary idea of getting Hyderabad-Deccan which was neither connected by rail nor road with Pakistan.”
In the statement, Soz said in their books, Chaudhre Mohammad Ali, former Pakistan prime minister, and former minister and senior Muslim leader Sirdar Shaukat Hayat Khan lamented Liaquat Ali Khan’s attitude.
History is based on facts and it can hardly help politicians who present their own perceptions as facts of history, Soz said.
“I propose Prime Minister Modi to start a serious study on the history of India’s Freedom Struggle for his better understanding on Nehru and his relationship with Sardar Patel and Mahatma Gandhi,” he said.
On Wednesday, Modi tore into the Congress while replying to the Motion of Thanks on President’s Address, blaming the party for “dividing India.”
“Out of 15 Congress committees, 12 chose Vallabhbhai Patel, three chose not to take any sides, and still, Vallabhbhai Patel was not allowed to lead the country. What sort of democracy was that? If Sardar Patel had become the prime minister, today a part of our beloved Kashmir would not have been under Pakistani occupation,” he said.
However, many experts pointed out that the Prime Minister was wrong on facts. Historian S Irfan Habib quoted Patel as saying in 1949: “It is good that we have agreed to partition in spite of all its evils; I have never repented my agreeing to partition.”
In an article in the magazine, Frontline, well-known political commentator A.G. Noorani also mentions that on November 27, 1972, the then President of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, told a tribal jirga at Landikotal about Sardar Patel’s offer to swap Kashmir for Junagadh and Hyderabad.
“A quarter century later, on November 27, 1972, the President of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, told a tribal jirga at Landikotal that India’s first Home Minister and Minister for the States, Sardar Patel, had, at one stage, offered Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Junagadh and Hyderabad. But, he added, Pakistan “unfortunately” did not accept this offer with the result that it not only lost all the three native states but East Pakistan as well.”
Noorani goes on to add that “This is fully corroborated by the memoirs of Chaudhary Mohammed Ali, The Emergence of Pakistan (page 299). Patel asked Liaquat Ali Khan: “Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir and we could reach an agreement.” Patel repeated this offer publicly at a meeting in Junagadh on November 11, 1947. “Our reply was that one could agree to (sic.) Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad.”
Modi Is Wrong. Sardar Patel Offered Kashmir to Pakistan: Saifuddin Soz - The Wire --link
@bonobashi @Hellfire @Tatvamasi
There are many others besides Saifuddin Soz. Here are the facts:
Let's now see how facts are stacked up on Modi's claim about Patel and Kashmir. Patel undoubtedly played a stellar role in the integration of over 560 princely states into the Indian Union after India won freedom. Nehru himself has praised him as the "builder and consolidator of New India". However, three princely states - Hyderabad, Junagadh and Jammu & Kashmir - remained major sources of contention between India and Pakistan. Patel's steely resolve ensured the merger of Junagadh (through plebiscite) and Hyderabad (through police action) with India. Kashmir, however, continues to bleed both India and Pakistan - morally, financially and in terms of tens of thousands of lives - with no solution in sight.
All available facts of history disprove Modi's claim that Patel could have secured a lasting and fully satisfactory solution to the Kashmir problem in 1947-48 itself. Indeed, far from wanting to get all of Kashmir for India, Patel was, initially, prepared to give away all of Kashmir to Pakistan. To know how, it is useful to listen to the unanimous voices of multiple historians. Rajmohan Gandhi in his biography "Patel: A Life", tells us that Patel was thinking of making an ideal bargain: if Jinnah let India have Junagadh and Hyderabad, Patel would not object to Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. He cites a speech by Patel at Bahauddin College in Junagadh, following the latter's merger with India, in which he said: "We would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad." (pages 407-8, 438)
Patel's other authoritative biographer Balraj Krishna writes in his book "Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel" - "But for Nehru, he could settle the Kashmir issue in no time by arranging that the Kashmir Valley go to Pakistan and East Pakistan to India. Both countries would benefit from such an arrangement." Why did he want such an arrangement? Citing a conversation on this matter between Dr Rajendra Prasad and Jayaprakash Narayan, he writes: "(According to the Sardar), when we had given away Punjab, Sind and NWFP, of what value could the small valley of Kashmir have for us?" (pages 163-4)
Let us turn to a third biographer, Dr Dinkar Joshi, a renowned Gujarati historian who is well known to Modi. On page 220 of his book "Sardar: The Sovereign Saint", Dr Joshi writes: "Sardar knew the reasons behind Maharaja Hari Singh's indecisiveness - the geographical and demographic conditions of Kashmir (it being a Muslim-majority state neighbouring West Pakistan). If Hari Singh decided to join Pakistan, Sardar had planned his own strategies - he would ask for Jammu and Ladakh for India and hand over Kashmir Valley to Pakistan."
This is corroborated by another acclaimed book "The Shadow of the Great Game - The Untold History of India's Partition" by Narendra Singh Sarila. The author writes (pages 343-4) that Mountbatten, the last viceroy, "told me many years later" - "I explained to HH (Hari Singh) that his choice was between acceding to India or Pakistan and made it clear that I had assurances from the Indian leaders that if he acceded to Pakistan, they would not take it amiss."
Who had given those assurances? Sarila writes: "According to VP Menon (an important civil servant, and Patel's right-hand man who played a critical role during India's partition and the integration of princely states) 'These assurances had been given by Sardar Patel, the Home Minister, himself.'"
The authenticity of this has been has been certified by none other than HV Seshadri, a former Number 2 in the RSS leadership hierarchy. In his book "The Tragic Story of Partition", Seshadri, quoting Menon, states that Patel had no objection to Kashmir going to Pakistan. (page 215)
If all this does not convince Modi and his followers, they would do well to turn to pages 186-7 of "The Biography of Bharat Kesri Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee - With Modern Implications" by SC Das. Founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Mookerjee is, after all, a BJP icon. Das tells us that Patel was keen on giving Kashmir Valley to Pakistan in exchange for East Pakistan. More significantly, he writes: "There was consensus between Dr Mookerjee and India's Iron Man Sardar Patel on this grave issue."
Why did India's Loh Purush favour Kashmir's accession to Pakistan? Most historians attribute it to Patel's pragmatism. Unlike Nehru, he was not emotionally attached to Kashmir. He probably thought that a Muslim-majority state bordering Pakistan could become a source of trouble for India. At the same time, historians also record that after Pakistan tried to forcibly seize Jammu & Kashmir by sending armed invaders, Patel became an indefatigable crusader against Pakistan.
As is well known, India's first war with Pakistan in 1947-48 ended in a stalemate, a UN-enforced ceasefire, and effective partition of J&K. It was a war in which Britain connived with Pakistan's adventure in Kashmir. In this, the erstwhile colonial masters were helped by a fact we would find hard to believe today - even after India and Pakistan had become independent, their opposing armies were still led by British nationals! The moot question here is: Did Patel take a stand that the Indian army must continue the fight until all of J&K came under Indian control?
Let us put the question in another way. "Most Indian political parties, BJP being the most vociferous among them, assert that Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir is an atoot ang(inseparable part) of Bharat. This is as much an agony as it is an assertion, since no party and no leader can present a credible strategy to get PoK back. Did Patel have one? Again, the answer would disappoint Modi and his supporters.
On this, we should listen to the views of two eminent and erudite Indian ambassadors. In his 2002 book "War and Diplomacy in Kashmir: 1947-48", Chandrashekhar Dasgupta tells us (pages 79-80) that - (a) "Sardar Patel at one stage declared that he would reject any proposal concerning a plebiscite in Kashmir unless Pakistan accepted the principle of plebiscite in Hyderabad also." In other words, Patel was not in principle opposed to a plebiscite in Kashmir. (b) At one stage, Patel offered a complete withdrawal (of Indian troops) from the Poonch area (to facilitate the holding of a plebiscite). In other words, Patel was ready to halt the Indian army's operations mid-way through the war in favour of a diplomatic-democratic solution.
All of us know no such solution emerged. But very few know that Patel, the realist, did not press for a military solution. Dasgupta's narration on this is supported by TCS Raghavan, who retired as India's ambassador in Islamabad in 2015. In his widely praised recent book "The People Next Door - The Curious History of India's Relations with Pakistan", Raghavan writes (page 9): "By the end of 1948, the war had run its course. While the tribal levies and the Pakistan military personnel were evicted from many areas in Poonch, Ladakh and Kargil, a narrow stretch bordering Pakistan and including Muzaffarabad and Mirpur and in the large area of Gilgit and Skardu further to the north remained in Pakistani control. Evicting Pakistan forces from these would require a larger offensive, a move which Prime Minister Nehru and his government, including Deputy Prime Minister Vallabhbhai Patel, had little enthusiasm for."
These, in essence, are the irrefutable facts about Patel, partition and Kashmir.
Let's now see how facts are stacked up on Modi's claim about Patel and Kashmir. Patel undoubtedly played a stellar role in the integration of over 560 princely states into the Indian Union after India won freedom. Nehru himself has praised him as the "builder and consolidator of New India". However, three princely states - Hyderabad, Junagadh and Jammu & Kashmir - remained major sources of contention between India and Pakistan. Patel's steely resolve ensured the merger of Junagadh (through plebiscite) and Hyderabad (through police action) with India. Kashmir, however, continues to bleed both India and Pakistan - morally, financially and in terms of tens of thousands of lives - with no solution in sight.
All available facts of history disprove Modi's claim that Patel could have secured a lasting and fully satisfactory solution to the Kashmir problem in 1947-48 itself. Indeed, far from wanting to get all of Kashmir for India, Patel was, initially, prepared to give away all of Kashmir to Pakistan. To know how, it is useful to listen to the unanimous voices of multiple historians. Rajmohan Gandhi in his biography "Patel: A Life", tells us that Patel was thinking of making an ideal bargain: if Jinnah let India have Junagadh and Hyderabad, Patel would not object to Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. He cites a speech by Patel at Bahauddin College in Junagadh, following the latter's merger with India, in which he said: "We would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad." (pages 407-8, 438)
Patel's other authoritative biographer Balraj Krishna writes in his book "Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel" - "But for Nehru, he could settle the Kashmir issue in no time by arranging that the Kashmir Valley go to Pakistan and East Pakistan to India. Both countries would benefit from such an arrangement." Why did he want such an arrangement? Citing a conversation on this matter between Dr Rajendra Prasad and Jayaprakash Narayan, he writes: "(According to the Sardar), when we had given away Punjab, Sind and NWFP, of what value could the small valley of Kashmir have for us?" (pages 163-4)
Let us turn to a third biographer, Dr Dinkar Joshi, a renowned Gujarati historian who is well known to Modi. On page 220 of his book "Sardar: The Sovereign Saint", Dr Joshi writes: "Sardar knew the reasons behind Maharaja Hari Singh's indecisiveness - the geographical and demographic conditions of Kashmir (it being a Muslim-majority state neighbouring West Pakistan). If Hari Singh decided to join Pakistan, Sardar had planned his own strategies - he would ask for Jammu and Ladakh for India and hand over Kashmir Valley to Pakistan."
This is corroborated by another acclaimed book "The Shadow of the Great Game - The Untold History of India's Partition" by Narendra Singh Sarila. The author writes (pages 343-4) that Mountbatten, the last viceroy, "told me many years later" - "I explained to HH (Hari Singh) that his choice was between acceding to India or Pakistan and made it clear that I had assurances from the Indian leaders that if he acceded to Pakistan, they would not take it amiss."
Who had given those assurances? Sarila writes: "According to VP Menon (an important civil servant, and Patel's right-hand man who played a critical role during India's partition and the integration of princely states) 'These assurances had been given by Sardar Patel, the Home Minister, himself.'"
The authenticity of this has been has been certified by none other than HV Seshadri, a former Number 2 in the RSS leadership hierarchy. In his book "The Tragic Story of Partition", Seshadri, quoting Menon, states that Patel had no objection to Kashmir going to Pakistan. (page 215)
If all this does not convince Modi and his followers, they would do well to turn to pages 186-7 of "The Biography of Bharat Kesri Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee - With Modern Implications" by SC Das. Founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Mookerjee is, after all, a BJP icon. Das tells us that Patel was keen on giving Kashmir Valley to Pakistan in exchange for East Pakistan. More significantly, he writes: "There was consensus between Dr Mookerjee and India's Iron Man Sardar Patel on this grave issue."
Why did India's Loh Purush favour Kashmir's accession to Pakistan? Most historians attribute it to Patel's pragmatism. Unlike Nehru, he was not emotionally attached to Kashmir. He probably thought that a Muslim-majority state bordering Pakistan could become a source of trouble for India. At the same time, historians also record that after Pakistan tried to forcibly seize Jammu & Kashmir by sending armed invaders, Patel became an indefatigable crusader against Pakistan.
As is well known, India's first war with Pakistan in 1947-48 ended in a stalemate, a UN-enforced ceasefire, and effective partition of J&K. It was a war in which Britain connived with Pakistan's adventure in Kashmir. In this, the erstwhile colonial masters were helped by a fact we would find hard to believe today - even after India and Pakistan had become independent, their opposing armies were still led by British nationals! The moot question here is: Did Patel take a stand that the Indian army must continue the fight until all of J&K came under Indian control?
Let us put the question in another way. "Most Indian political parties, BJP being the most vociferous among them, assert that Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir is an atoot ang(inseparable part) of Bharat. This is as much an agony as it is an assertion, since no party and no leader can present a credible strategy to get PoK back. Did Patel have one? Again, the answer would disappoint Modi and his supporters.
On this, we should listen to the views of two eminent and erudite Indian ambassadors. In his 2002 book "War and Diplomacy in Kashmir: 1947-48", Chandrashekhar Dasgupta tells us (pages 79-80) that - (a) "Sardar Patel at one stage declared that he would reject any proposal concerning a plebiscite in Kashmir unless Pakistan accepted the principle of plebiscite in Hyderabad also." In other words, Patel was not in principle opposed to a plebiscite in Kashmir. (b) At one stage, Patel offered a complete withdrawal (of Indian troops) from the Poonch area (to facilitate the holding of a plebiscite). In other words, Patel was ready to halt the Indian army's operations mid-way through the war in favour of a diplomatic-democratic solution.
All of us know no such solution emerged. But very few know that Patel, the realist, did not press for a military solution. Dasgupta's narration on this is supported by TCS Raghavan, who retired as India's ambassador in Islamabad in 2015. In his widely praised recent book "The People Next Door - The Curious History of India's Relations with Pakistan", Raghavan writes (page 9): "By the end of 1948, the war had run its course. While the tribal levies and the Pakistan military personnel were evicted from many areas in Poonch, Ladakh and Kargil, a narrow stretch bordering Pakistan and including Muzaffarabad and Mirpur and in the large area of Gilgit and Skardu further to the north remained in Pakistani control. Evicting Pakistan forces from these would require a larger offensive, a move which Prime Minister Nehru and his government, including Deputy Prime Minister Vallabhbhai Patel, had little enthusiasm for."
These, in essence, are the irrefutable facts about Patel, partition and Kashmir.
Is it conceivable then that a man of Patel's stature, burdened by the onerous task of cobbling together a nation, simply missed or did not appreciate the strategic importance of Kashmir that went way beyond people or their demographics?
Surely that was missed by more than just Patel, going by the fact that we had to scramble forces in response to the advancing tribals, and lost a big chunk of territory forever in the bargain. Just holding on the the valley by the skin of our teeth.
Why were we so strategically challenged at the time?
Cheers, Doc
Preventing China from flanking us.
Controling waters.
Flanking Pakistan with a direct land bridge to the Afghans.
Direct land access to the CAR as well as Iran.
Cheers, Doc
P.S. And my favorite one ...
Not having to grow up as a child in 70s India learning to freehand draw beautiful maps of my beautiful country, not knowing that that lovely mukut on top that I etched with a flourish had never been mine.
LOL.
Thanks, Doc. We lost a great strategist when you didn't join the NDA. Bad decision.