Jammu & Kashmir: The issue of Accession

Home

Search By

Back to Article List

by Mohan Krishen Teng

on 18 Oct 2010

Distortion of the history of the partition of India, false propaganda and lies, shroud the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India in 1947, as well as the exclusion of the State from the Indian Constitutional organization by virtue of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution in 1950.

The Indian political class in its attempt to substitute “greater autonomy” of the State for the “right of self-determination” that Pakistan and Muslim separatist forces have been demanding during the last six decades, has undermined the national consensus on the unity of India and the secular integration of the people of the State and the people of India on the basis of the general right to equality.

Today, the whole nation is confronted with a situation which threatens to disrupt the unity of the country and endanger its territorial integrity. The people of India need to stand up as one man to expose the perfidy which has virtually pushed the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the brink of disaster. Nearly half of the State is under the occupation of Pakistan. To allow the reorganization of the other half into a separate sphere of Muslim power, will eventually pave the way for the disintegration of the civilisational boundaries of the Indian State.

Partition and the States

The creation of two Dominions of India and Pakistan was restricted to the division of British India and the separation of the British Indian provinces of Sindh, Baluchistan, North-west Frontier Province, the Muslim majority contiguous regions of the province of the Punjab, the Muslim majority eastern region of the province of Bengal, along with the Muslim majority regions of the Hindu majority province of Assam. The princely States, which formed an integral part of the British Indian Empire, were not brought within the scope of the partition plan.

The process of the transfer of power envisaged the lapse of Paramountcy, the authority the British Crown exercised over the States, liberating them from British imperial authority. The lapse of Paramountcy underlined the reversion of the powers which the British exercised in respect of the princely States, to their rulers, who were required in accordance with the transfer of power, to accede to either of the two dominions or come to such agreements with them as they deemed fit. The British as well as the Muslim League insisted upon the lapse of Paramountcy and reversion of powers to determine the future of the States, to their rulers. Both the British as well as Muslim League stubbornly opposed the proposals made by the Indian National Congress to empower the people of the States to determine the future disposition of their States in respect of their accession.

It is important to note that the States formed an integral part of the British Empire in India and were never recognized as independent entities by the British during their rule over India. The lapse of Paramountcy did not imply independence of the States. This was made expressly clear by British under-Secretary of State for India during the debate on the Indian Independence Bill in the British Parliament, when he categorically stated that the British Government would neither accord the status of Dominions to any princely State nor recognize its independence. In fact, the truth is that while negotiations on the partition plan were in progress, the British officials assured Nehru and the other Indian leaders that if the partition plan was accepted, the Hindu majority provinces and regions of British India as well as the princely States would be united in the Dominion of India.

The Indian Independence Act did not lay down any provisions in respect of the procedure for the accession of the princely States to the two dominions and the terms on which the accession would be accomplished. After the 3 June Declaration, the States Department of the Government of India was divided into two sections: the Indian Section which was placed under Sardar Patel and the Pakistan Section which was placed under Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar of the Muslim League.

The task of laying down the procedure of the accession of the States to India was entrusted to the Indian Section and the task of laying down the procedure for accession of the States to Pakistan was entrusted to the Pakistan Section. The Indian Section drew up an Instrument of Accession for the accession of States to India. So did the Pakistan Section for the accession of States to Pakistan. The Instrument of Accession enshrined the procedure and the terms in accordance with which the rulers acceded to either of the two Dominions.

The Instrument of Accession drawn up by the Indian Section laid down two sets of terms and procedures, one for the larger princely States and the other for the smaller princely States. It is important to note here that the States were provided no option, except to accede to India on the terms and conditions laid down by Indian Section, or to accede to Pakistan on the terms and conditions laid down by the Pakistan Section of the Indian States Department. All the larger princely States which acceded to India, including Jammu and Kashmir, signed the same standard form of the Instrument of Accession and accepted the terms it enshrined.

The Instrument of Accession enshrined acceptance by the rulers of princely States to unite their domains with the Dominion of India on terms and conditions and in accordance with the procedure laid down by it. It has been already noted here that princely States were never recognized by the British as independent entities. They formed a subsidiary structure of the British colonial organization of India which was subject to the British Crown. The lapse of Paramountcy did not alter their status. Yes, the dissolution of the Paramountcy opened the way for them to stake claim to independence. Several princely States in fact did stake their claim for independence. When the British refused to recognize the independence of the States, the Nawab of Bhopal, then Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes, approached the American Diplomatic Mission in India to solicit support for the independence of the States. The American Mission promptly turned down the request. That left no option for the Nawab except to accede to India, which he did without any loss of time. The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir was not among the rulers who staked claim for independence of his State.

The Instrument of Accession signed by the rulers of the princely States, including Jammu and Kashmir, stipulated the unification of the States with the two successor States of the British Empire in India. The transfer of power in India underlined the creation of only two successor States of the British Indian Empire: the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. The lapse of the Paramountcy put the States on the inevitable course which led them to accede to either of the two successor States.

The rulers located within the geographical boundaries of the Dominion of Pakistan, acceded to Pakistan. The ruler of Kalat, who was opposed to the accession of Kalat to the Dominion of Pakistan, was smothered into submission by the Muslim League with the active support of the British. All other princely States were situated in the geographical boundaries earmarked for the Dominion of India. The State of Jammu and Kashmir was contiguous with both India and Pakistan. Its borders stretched along the boundaries of the Dominion of Pakistan in the West and South-west, while its borders in the East and South-east rimmed the frontiers of the Dominion of India. The ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, harboured no illusions about the accession of his State to Pakistan and eagerly awaited a clearance from the Congress leaders, who had secretly advised him not to take any precipitate action in respect of the accession of his State, till Hyderabad and Junagarh were retrieved. He himself was aware of the dangers of any wrong step on his part, which he knew would lead to a chain reaction in the States ruled by the Muslim rulers. He did not want his State to be used as a pawn by Pakistan.

Pakistan had no special claim to Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the Muslim majority composition of its population. As already mentioned, the Muslim League strongly opposed any suggestion to recognize the right of the people of the princely States to determine the future of the States. It was only when Pakistan failed to grab Jammu and Kashmir after it invaded the State in October 1947, and the Indian military action frustrated its designs to swallow Hyderabad and Junagarh, both States located deep inside India, that Pakistan raised the bogey of self-determination of the Muslims of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of their numerical majority.

Accession

The Instrument of Accession was executed by the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir State on the terms specified by the Dominion of India. Neither the ruler of the State, Maharaja Hari Singh, nor the National Conference leaders played any role in the determination of the terms the Instrument of Accession underlined. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and many National Conference leaders were in jail when the transfer of power in India was accomplished by the British. Sheikh Abdullah was released from jail on 29 September 1947, about a month and a half after the British had left India.

Three days after his release, the Working Committee of the National Conference met under his presidentship and took the decision to support the accession of the State to India. The decision of the Working Committee was conveyed to Nehru by Dwarka Nath Kachroo, the Secretary General of the All India States Peoples’ Conference, who was invited to attend the Working Committee meeting of the National Conference as an observer. Kachroo was a Kashmiri Pandit who had steered the movement of the All India States Peoples’ Conference during the fateful days in 1946-1947, when partition and the transfer of power in India were on the anvil.

Interestingly, the National Conference leadership kept the decisions of the Working Committee a closely guarded secret. Within a few days after the Working Committee meeting, the National Conference leaders sent secret emissaries to Mohammad Ali Jinnah and other Muslim League leaders. While Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah held talks with a number of Muslim League leaders of the Punjab, who had come to Srinagar after his release, he sent two senior most leaders of the National Conference, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq, to Pakistan to open talks with Muslim League leaders. Jinnah spurned the offer of reconciliation the National Conference leaders made and refused to meet the emissaries. Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq was still in Pakistan when Pakistan invaded the State during the early hours of 22 October 1947.

While the invading army spread across the State, Hari Singh sent his Prime Minister, Mehar Chand Mahajan to Delhi to seek help to save his State from the invasion and offered accession of the State with India. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had already reached Delhi. He made no secret of the danger the State faced and asked Nehru to lose no time in accepting the accession and ensuring the speedy dispatch of Indian troops to the State. The instrument of Accession was taken to Jammu by V.P. Menon, where it was signed by the Maharaja. Menon then rushed back to Delhi and got the Instrument accepted by Mountbatten. Next day, the air-borne troops of the Indian Army reached Srinagar.

Hari Singh laid no conditions for the accession of the State to India. The National Conference leaders were nowhere in the process of the Accession of the State, to lay down any condition for the accession of the State to India. The Congress leaders including Nehru made no promises to the National Conference leaders. The terms of the Instrument of Accession were not altered in any respect by the Viceroy. Neither Nehru, Patel, nor any other Congress leader gave any assurance to the Conference leaders about autonomy or Special Status of the State. In fact the National Conference leaders did not make any such demands at any time, while the process of accession was in progress.

National Conference leaders demanded the exclusion of Jammu and Kashmir from the Indian constitutional organization in the summer of 1949, when the Constituent Assembly of India was in the midst of framing the Constitution of India. This was the time when foreign power intervention in Jammu and Kashmir had just begun to have its effect on the deliberations of the Security Council as well as the developments in the State.

Legal platitudes apart, the letter written by Mountbatten to Hari Singh suggesting he elicit the opinion of his people, did not prejudice the stipulations of the Instrument of Accession. The Governor General of India did not have the power to alter the stipulations of the Instrument of Accession, nor did Nehru, Prime Minister of the Interim Government, have any such power.

The Instrument of Accession was an act performed by the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir to unite his domains with the State of India. Mountbatten, in his capacity as last Viceroy and first Governor General of India, had only one power in this respect: to accept the Instrument of Accession executed by the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. His power derived from the Indian Independence Act, which was strictly limited to his acceptance of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir that Hari Singh offered. It is important to note that Mountbatten could not refuse to accept the Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, or indeed, of any other princely state. Hence he did not refuse to accept the accession of Junagarh, which was accomplished in a political crisis caused by the rebellion of the people of the State against the ruler.

Moreover, Mountbatten did not write the covering letter to Maharaja Hari Singh because the National Conference leaders had laid down any condition to that effect or because the population of Jammu and Kashmir was dominantly Muslim. Both Mountbatten’s letter and Nehru’s commitment to elicit the opinion of the people was in continuation of commitments Congress rulers had made to rulers and the people of Hyderabad and Junagarh.

The Nawab of Hyderabad was keen to align his State to Pakistan against the wishes of his people. Hyderabad lay deep inside the Indian mainland, south of the Vindhyas; Junagarh was situated in the midst of Kathiawad States which had acceded to India. The accession of Junagarh to Pakistan and the insistence of the Nawab of Hyderabad threatened to disrupt the unity of India and balkanize it. Nehru and Patel pleaded with the Nawab of Hyderabad to ascertain the wishes of his people in respect of the accession of his State. Nehru and Mountbatten repeatedly requested the leaders of Pakistan to agree to refer the accession of Junagarh to Pakistan, to the people of the State.

While Mehar Chand Mahajan was pleading with Nehru to accept the accession offered by Hari Singh, Junagarh was in a state of civil war and the Nawab of Hyderabad was secretly plotting with Pakistan the course of action he would take after Hari Singh had acceded to India. Nehru sought to reinforce his interests in Hyderabad and Junagarh by repeating the offer of eliciting the opinion of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in respect of their accession.

The Instrument of Accession was a political instrument and the accession of Jammu and Kashmir was a political act, which had international implications as it formed a part of the process of the creation of the State of India. As such, the Instrument of Accession executed by Maharaja Hari Singh was irreversible and irreducible, irrespective of the circumstances and events in which it was accomplished.

Finally, the princely states were not required to execute any Instrument of Merger. The claim made in some quarters in Jammu and Kashmir that the State had not signed the Instrument of Merger and that this it from being integrated in to the constitutional organization of India is a travesty of History. The State Department of India laid down a procedure for the integration of smaller princely States into administratively more viable Unions of States. To complete the procedure of this integration, the State Department drew up an Instrument of Attachment, erroneously described as an Instrument of Merger. The major Indian States, including Jammu and Kashmir, were not required to sign the Instrument of Attachment. Moreover, the Instrument of Accession had no bearing on the integration of the States into the Indian Constitutional organization.

The withdrawal of the invading army of Pakistan from territories of the State under its occupation was the precedent condition, laid down by Mountbatten, Nehru and the Security Council, for any reference to the people of Jammu and Kashmir State. Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces from the occupied territories of the State. It has so far distorted the discourse regarding the accession of the State to suit its denial.

Prof MK Teng is Political Adviser, Panun Kashmir, and retd. Professor & Head of the Political Science Department, Kashmir University, Srinagar

User Comments Post a Comment

I am sure that not even a single member of the J&K assembly is aware of the true history of accession irrespective of their tall claims.I wish they get educated with such historical facts and do not distort history for their selfish ends. But alas! most of the scholars who could educate them have been forced out of Kashmir and the few left behind have been gagged.

Ashok Kaul
October 18, 2010

Report Abuse

Kashmir is Pakistani territory, Manvadar is Pakistani territory and Junagarh is Pakistani territory. Half of Kashmir has been liberated, but the other half is still occupied. Manvadar and Junagarh is still occupied.There has been a lot of activity on discussing Kashmir, however there has been little progress.Historians have looked at the promises of previous Indian leaders on the subject,there is a huge contraversy on the Article of Accession. Recently the grand daughter of Shaikh Abdullah described the AOA as “provisional". Many world historians have gone further and do not accept the notion that any such document exists.Kashmiri Letter of Accession has never been shown to Pakistan or the UN, is lost, if it ever existed.Kashmiris have lost 100,000 lives for ”tehrik e ilhaq e Pakistan“. Ladakh now is a Muslim majority area.The people of Srinagar are under occupation, under threat of rape, killing, and forced deportation. How can a person with a knife on his/her head be able to tell the truth? They are not free to say what they want to Indian newspapers.Occupied Srinagar is influenced by the Kashmiri traitors Abdullah and sons who sold out to India and even changed the name of their party “Plebiscite Front”. The question of an “independent” Kashmir is a red herring, a conspiracy and false trial balloon floated by India to keep it under her wraps. According to the “1946 Act of Independence”, the more than 500 states had only two choices, either join India or join Pakistan. There was no third choice. Hyderabad tried to exercise the third choice, and faced Indian Police action and elimination. Manvanagar and Junagarh acceded to Pakistan, but Indian forces occupied them. The Muslim ruler of Junagarh, a state with Hindu majority population, announced his decision to join Pakistan. India responded by aiding and abetting the establishment of a so-called “Provisional Government” of Junagarh on Indian territory, which attacked Junagarh with Indian connivance and support. Subsequently Indian forces also invaded Junagarh, despite protests from Pakistan, in order to “restore law and order”. A farcical plebiscite was organized under Indian auspices, and India annexed Junagarh. Similarly, in Hyderabad, a Hindu majority state, the Muslim ruler of the state wanted to retain an independent status. India responded by attacking Hyderabad and annexed the state by force. India sought to justify its aggression against Hyderabad and Junagarh on the plea that the rulers of Junagarh and Hyderabad were acting against the wishes of their people.The occupied territory of Junagarh is located in current Gujarat.According to the census of 1941, 80 percent of the population of Junagadh were Hindus. But the ruler was Muslim. (Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu King and about 80 percent of his subjects were Muslim.) Two days after Independence newspapers reported that the Nawab of Junagadh had acceded to Pakistan. New Delhi has always found it expedient to postpone the issue of Kashmir and other issues of contentions in the vain hope of it being consumed by time and exhaustion. Emphasis on short-term objectives, employing myopic tactics- " bereft of a vision or a long-term strategy" – has marked its response to the inconvenient ground reality; it has unprofitably managed to dodge an encounter with the reality of the Azadi sentiment.Rather than taking advantage of interludes of relative ‘calm’ on the streets of Kashmir, the establishment has deluded itself- " and the unsuspecting Indian public" – into believing that the end of ‘Pakistan sponsored militancy’ was a harbinger to Kashmiri’s acquiescence to the Indian rule.For how long Indians will continue to tread the weather beaten path of the bygone era, the dillydallying tactics.With best regards.

observer
October 18, 2010

Report Abuse

It is crystal clear that Observer -regardless of hisnationality or location- is a full time Pak disinformation operative, not interested in facts, truth or reason but to play his hate India/Hindusrecord-which is not in India's interest. India/Hindu haters are not entitled to Indian hospitality. It was Hindu haters who invaded our sacred land including Kashmir and killed almost 80 million of our ancestors and destroyed thousands of our temples.Details are available
on Google: Hindu Genocide. This jihadi atrocity is the biggest in the history of mankind. Historian Will Durant called it the
bloodiest holocaust in history. It far far exceeds the collective casualties of the two world wars, plus the Armenian genocide and the genocide of Amerindians. The soil of Kashmir is drenched with the blood of our pre-Islamic native people-mostly Hindus.
The world did not begin with Islam. So Kashmir will remain forever India. Before Observer comes up with his next comment he should read the google listings under Hindu Genocide. It will take him several years. Otherwise he is simply not qualified to talk about Hindus.

kashmirIsIndia
October 18, 2010

Report Abuse

Prof.Mohan Krishen Teng deserves Bharat Ratna for making clear to the nation and the world what actually is the reality of the accession of J&K to India.Will Indian political class correct its perverted discourse and ask for the resignation of Foreign minister S M Krishna who has misguided the people of J&K on accession and suppoeted the baseless statement of Omar Abdullah.Wake up Indian nation and be on the side of truth and reality.Absolutely matchless ,Prof Mohan Krishen Teng whole nation is proud of you and your matchless scholarship.The nation salutes you,sir!!!!!

MAHESH KAUL
October 19, 2010

Report Abuse

Thanks for the article.
Pls visit http://www.cifjkindia.org for complete info on JNK.

seadog4227
October 19, 2010

Report Abuse

To the previous commentator who advised/ordered me to check out the so called "Hindu Genocide"on some search engine,let me pop her/his bubble by revealing that most of these web sites have an agenda to stir up emotions and hatered just to further their dark ideologies.Like her/him there are so many other innocent people who fall into this trap and unknowingly start believing into all that crap that is on these sites.Now if we all remember that there was much Hindu-Muslim Unity in the latter half of the 19th century and a united front would have thrown out (the events of 1857 united revolt) the “farangis” foreigners from South Asia. The British– masters at deception began inculcating the Hindu elite (divide and rule) by telling them that once the British leave, they would hand over the power to the Hindus. This was magic to the ears of a population that had not been in charge of South Asia ever. John Princep began his so called “research” and came up with a composite figure of “Ashoka” who had not been mentioned in any history book before. Ashoka’s name had not appeared in Greek texts on local South Asian narratives. In coming up with Ashoka, John Princep came up with the notion of the ephemeral “Akhand Bharat” a mythical kingdom that existed from Kabul to Raj Kilhani a mythical land east of Bali.This “research” was music to the ears of Pandit Radhakantta–who along with others began crafting this version of history which did not exist before 1837. Unfortunately, this version of British manufactured history is taught in India and also in other countries of the world. Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, Ashoka has become an icon of Bharat. Gandgharan symbols have been adopted by the state organs, and Ashoka the mythical figure is the icon of the state machinery.Ashoka never existed and is simply a figment of the imagination of the Hinduvata who needed a figure to justify the myth that India belonged to the Hindus and on one else.As we all know that history is usually written by the victors. The Dalits have not had a voice for thousands of years. The Dalit discrimination has to be aired by all peace loving people on the planet. Many Dalits believe that the discrimination perpetuated against them for centureis is based on thier ethnicity and the color of their skin. Dalit leaders have proposed that their status in the Hindu caste system is based on their Dravidian roots. Dalits leaders are openly calling for the mass conversion of the 150 million Dalits to Islam which would offer them equality. The Hinduvata reaction to the conversion of Dalits is ferocious and violent. The poor penury stricken Dalits must remain in bondage for perpetuity. Rape and murder have been institutionalized. 3 to 6 million women have been raped for being Dalit. 3 million Dalits have been killed for being Dalit. Indian secularism has not touched the 150-250 million Dalits or the 150 million Muslims.You will never find this information on your so called "Genocidal" web sites.Let me finish my reply by a qoute by Dr. Tulsiram..."About three million Dalit women have been raped and about 3 to 6 million Dalits killed from the time of Independence. This is 25 times more than number of soldiers killed during the wars fought after independence. That is why Dalits do not need Aryan culture or Hindu Dharma based on caste any more. …” Thanks and have a great day.

observer
October 19, 2010

Report Abuse

I browsed the Google listings under Hindu Genocide (by jihadi invaders) and found the
info given above by 'kashmir is India' correct.
Observer claims that the info given by himself above about Dalits etc. cannot be found anywhere else. That is because he is a habitual purveyor of falsehoods about Hindus in particular. I showed his comments to a psychiatrist who said the person must be schizophrenic, unable to tell fact from fiction.

liebuster
October 19, 2010

Report Abuse

Observer is a blasphemer against everything that Hindus hold sacred. What he is most afraid of are
facts, truth and reason. When asked to read about
Hindu Genocide on google he pompously declares such "genocidal" sites as "all that crap"-which exposes his closed and prejudiced mind. His mind is filled with hatred towards Hindus and all those who question his ideology
on valid grounds. While doing all this he scatters the words peace, brotherhood, spirituality in his comments, and sends his Best Regard-a master of disinformation.
What a travesty and mockery! For serious commentators he provides a case study in disinformation using all the tricks of the trade.

fighteragainstBS
October 21, 2010

Report Abuse

Mean minded British history bereft of facts and full of colonial lies are currently taught in Hindustan. In Baqistan (the so called utopia named Pakistan created by Dracula like Jinnah minus Bangladesh) Hindu hate filth is being taught to students as history.

krishnakumar
October 21, 2010

Report Abuse

To the above three commentators,if someone analysis all of your comments,it could easily be concluded that all of you posses the same anti Pakistani/Islam/Muslim mind set ,which prevails the Indian psychy from the day one,that was "THE" reason for the Muslims to demand for a seperate home land.One could easily judge by the comments by one of our esteemed reader Mr.Krishnakumar ,"In Baqistan (the so called utopia named Pakistan created by Dracula like Jinnah minus Bangladesh) Hindu hate filth is being taught to students as history.",the hate and detest that he has for "Baqistan" and the "Dracula Jinnah" is errupting all over.Remarks like these makes me feel more proud and increases my determination in Pakistan and my resolution gets stronger to the next level.Jinnah read the Hindu mind set really well ,he knew what will happen to Muslims of India in particular and lower castes in general after the British left,you can see its evidense all over India today,In 1947 India had the opportunity to build a South Asia for the Asians, which would have kept the intruders out. It opted for an empire,if India had not illegally taken over Junagarh, Manvadar, Hydrabad and Kashmir, if she had not forced a partition of Bengal from Assam, if she had not broken up the Punjab, there would be no violence and death in 1947.Territory will not make India great–friends in South Asia will.If Kashmir had joined Pakistan, there would have been no war in 1948, and no war in 1965. Hence there would have been no 1971. Pakistan would not have joined SEATO and CENTO, hence the Sri Lankan Civil war would have been avoided. Also because there was not SEATO and CENTO, Russia would not have invaded Afghanistan, and the current terror that has visited South Asia would never have happened. SAARC would have been very powerful. None of the countries would have spent so much money on arms. Their people would have been prosperous, and happier.India has to learn the lesson of history,it can never hope to be a Superpower, or even a regional power, without the support of the neighbors,the USSR, the USA and China had peaceful borders, because they helped the countries of the neighborhood. As long as India is the big bully, it will remain embroiled in petty squabbles of the neighborhood.It is about time to change this type of arrogant thinking,and like some one said lets first talk to the man in the mirror and convince him to take the first step and then move onwards.With best regards.

observer
October 21, 2010

Report Abuse

Enemies of Hindus and ideologically motivated
haters of innocent humanity are doomed to perish.The law of nature and the law of karma operate inexorably. For those who kill and destroy in God's name retribution is inevitable.
Word spinning cannot save anyone from the
consequences of evil deeds.

fighteragainstBS
October 21, 2010

Report Abuse

Mr. fighterman,are you talking about the Safforonists,this is exactly their agenda that you just mentioned?

observer
October 21, 2010

Report Abuse

"Enemies of Hindus and ideologically motivated haters of innocent humanity are doomed to perish."How Hindus thrown Bhuddist of this country same way those who hate Hindus today they too will be thrown out in future. Already Muslims are on back foot after Ayodaya Verdict, this itself will ensure countries highest judiciary system will punish them for their act if not people of this country will do. How Gujarat kept Muslims on check same will be followed in some other parts of country or else Suzzane Roy and Geelani will keep shouting for Azadi.

Jay Kumar
October 22, 2010

Report Abuse

NEHRU’S speeches on KASHMIR
From, Independence and After, A collection of the more important speeches of Jawaharlal Nehru from September 1946 to May 1949. The Publications Division, August, 1949.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
A talk broadcast from New Delhi, November 2, 1947.

we made a condition that the accession would have to be considered by the people of Kashmir later when peace and order were established.
We were anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity being given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It was for them ultimately to decide.

And here let me make clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a State to either Dominion, the decision must be made by the people of that State. It was in accordance with this policy that we added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.

Our troops are there to help in this struggle, and as soon as Kashmir is free from the invader our troops will have no further necessity to remain there and the fate of Kashmir will be left in the hands of the people of Kashmir.

We on our part have no intention of using our troops in Kashmir when the danger of invasion is passed.

We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to t the people and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer.

khan Sahib
October 23, 2010

Report Abuse

Kashmir a Moslem majority state ruled by a Hindu Raja acceded to India in 1947. At that time the then Indian Prime Minister committed some fatal mistakes that have now made the Kashmir solution well nigh impossible.

The Sikh empire during the nineteenth century had a dubious Prime Minister in the shape of Gulab Singh. He was the Prime Minister when Ranjit Singh ruled The Punjab. This man was in league with the British. Accordingly for his perfidy the British rewarded him by making him Maharajah of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is a Moslem majority state and the Maharajah was a Hindu. So long as the British were the paramount power in India, the Kashmir Maharajah was secure on his throne. However after the British decided to leave India, they gave an option to all the princely states to exercise an option and either join India or Pakistan.

The maharajah however dreamt of independence and he was not ready to sign the instrument of accession to India. This delay proved disastrous as tribal warriors aided by regular Pakistan army soldiers invaded the Valley. In no time Gilgit and the western part of Kashmir was lost and the Maharajah’s troops put to the sword. The tribal’s now surged toward Srinagar and had they not tarried at the picturesque resort of Baramulla to rape and pillage, they may well have captured Srinagar.
As the tribal’s neared Srinagar the Maharajah panicked and signed the instrument of accession to India. After that the Indian Army moved in and slowly, but surely began to push the Pakistan raiders and soldiers back. The fighting was severe and the Indian Prime Minister Nehru, more of a thinker and idealist than a hard boiled leader had no stomach for any type of war or battle. He was eager to just have all around peace.

The Indian Army pushed the invaders back and the valley was soon cleared. The Army now made plans to recapture Gilgit and Western Kashmir. But Nehru accepted a UN sponsored cease fire.This, in itself was a blunder of the first magnitude, as it brought in a foreign element into the Kashmir issue. In fact his decision to take the Kashmir issue to the UNO is a blunder and can only be explained by the fact that Nehru had no idea of power politics.
He subsequently made another silly promise. He assured all and sundry that a plebiscite would be held in Kashmir to ascertain the wishes of the people of Kashmir. This is now like an anchor around the neck of the present rulers who are facing the wrath of the Kashmir people, who want this promise of Nehru to be honored.

In his misguided zeal Nehru also enacted article 370 of the Constitution giving special rights to the Kashmiri people. One cannot imagine a sillier act by any other world leader. Thus at one stroke he insured that Kashmir could never be integrated completely with India. The Indian nation may have to pay a heavy price for the follies of Nehru.

Khan Sahib
October 23, 2010

Report Abuse

KhanSahib is Observer and vice versa. It is the mindset of the ideology of hate and insult to the majority of mankind and the Creator. A complex, convoluted and self-justificatory reasoning springs from that but convinces no rational person.
They think they know God's mind better than anyone else. Those filled with hate-reflected in their attitude and language-cannot experience God. Hope both of them see the light. If they keep an open mind it is still possible!

lightofasia
October 23, 2010

Report Abuse

Hiding behind "mindset of the ideology of hate and insult to the majority of mankind and the Creator". What a joke!!

Also hiding behind the curtain of "Makar & Dhokabaz" not going to solve your problems.

Do you know what God is about?

The truth bites does'nt.

khan Sahib
October 24, 2010

Report Abuse

for KhanS-Hindus believe that everything around us and we ourselves are an expression of the divine. We didn't create it. The divine is within us. So we don't need to hate, convert or kill anyone- like some brainwashed people- to experience the divine. God is not anyone's private possession and in god's eyes there is no
so-called kaffir. For a section of people to allege that others are infidels is blasphemous and
sacrilegious. God has given you intelligence-just
use it. Truth is meant to bite those who bury their heads in sand. It doesn't hurt but enlightens. No amount of hate, abuse, rhetoric can help. God is always watching hatemongers but his compassion will heal them over time.

o-bs-erve3
October 24, 2010

Report Abuse

Instrument of accession NEVER existed. The back dated forged document too with India is missing now, why ? Patiala Sikh Troops intruded Kashmir in July1947(The Sunday Observer, Bombay, 26 October, 1997, p.2), landed Srinagar on 17 Oct., 1947, before Pathan Tribal invasion on 22 October, 1947. Maharaja's army, Indian army; RSS, Hindu Mahasabha & Akali Sikh militants massacred 5 lakh Muslims in Jammu Zone & made equal no. flee towards Pakistan in Aug-mid Oct., 1947, reported by Kashmir Times edited by G K Reddy. 2000 Pathan's attack was a response to that. Jammu was not linked by pukka road & river bridge on Ravi on 15 th August, 1947. Indian engineers & lakhs of workers made both from Aug to mid Oct 1947 to enable India's army enter & capture Kashmir by land. Because of this King Hari Singh delayed accession to avert any public revolt in Aug 1947 itself. India says 26 Oct,19 47 as date of accession but her representative V P Menon was in Delhi & returned from airport b coz of delay & reached Jammu on 27 Oct., as reported in diary of Miss Maniben Patel too. Anyway, Indian troops landed Kashmir much before signing anything by Hari Singh. Nations are not built on bluff, treachery, fraud, forgery, manipulation & violence. Plebiscite was never held. That can be "free & fair" only when all armies of India & Pakistan & all non-Kashmiri outsiders get out & UN conducts that under control of neutral multi national UN army(to avoid any rigging). That is UNEQUIVOCAL solution in ONE STEP(simplest process).

Salahuddin Ahmad
April 07, 2013

Report Abuse

In my earlier comment I missed to write that for military action by India, a pukka road between Pathankot of India & Jammu city & a bridge on Ravi river coming on the way was needed to withstand heavy military vehicles. A floating strong bridge on Ravi was made on war footing. The road from Pathankot to Jammu was made pukka within two months by the help of Indian Union(Book : Patel, A Life by Raj Mohan Gandhi). Those did not exist earlier, & so, Maharaja did not execute accession. About 61 % public of Jammu & 97 % of Kashmir were against Maharaja as it was visible too when stones were pelted on car of Gandhiji during his visit to Kashmir(1-3 Aug., 1947). Maharaja's regime was overthrown & he fled from Srinagar by car convoy in night's darkness on 26 th October, 1947. He was NOT people's representative. Entire J & K public lighted houses on 14 th August, 1947 & observed a complete black out the next day. All are on press records. Read books of Alastair Lamb, Wolpert, P N Bazaz & Victoria Scofield too. All facts are documented in British Records too.

Salahuddin Ahmad
April 07, 2013

Report Abuse

Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at editorvijayvaani@gmail.com