Indus Nationalism could have avoided the tragedy of Partition

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

You're either academically lazy or deliberately misleading your readers to push your own "innocent old India was forced by evil pakizz to take JnK" narrative bullcrap.

Recollecting observations between Patel, Nehru and Manekshaw during a meeting in late 1947:
"It was Sardar Patel’s intervention that delivered the dispatch order to Manekshaw. He recollected for Jha:
As usual Nehru talked about United Nations, Russia, Africa, Godalmighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, ‘Jawaharlal, do you do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away’. He [Nehru] said, ‘Of course, I want Kashmir.'Then he [Patel] said ‘Please give your orders’. And before he [Nehru] could say anything Sardar Patel turned to me [Manekshaw] and said. ‘You have got your orders’."

If you wish to pursue your original arguments, feel free, but kindly desist from inventing history to support said arguments.

by that time Pakistan had already attacked Kashmir and Indian blood had been spilt to defend it....No question of giving up gains after that point of no return

 

[magra]

You're either academically lazy or deliberately misleading your readers to push your own "innocent old India was forced by evil pakizz to take JnK" narrative bullcrap.

Recollecting observations between Patel, Nehru and Manekshaw during a meeting in late 1947:
"It was Sardar Patel’s intervention that delivered the dispatch order to Manekshaw. He recollected for Jha:
As usual Nehru talked about United Nations, Russia, Africa, Godalmighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, ‘Jawaharlal, do you do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away’. He [Nehru] said, ‘Of course, I want Kashmir.'Then he [Patel] said ‘Please give your orders’. And before he [Nehru] could say anything Sardar Patel turned to me [Manekshaw] and said. ‘You have got your orders’."

If you wish to pursue your original arguments, feel free, but kindly desist from inventing history to support said arguments.

Hey, it is interesting you talk about Manekshaw in the context of Kashmir in 1947. He would have been much lower in army hierarchy at that time. Why would Nehru / Patel talk to him directly?

Patel headed the ministry to get all princely states within India. He was amenable to a deal with Jinnah to stop meddling in Hyderabad and let Kashmir be with Pak. Had India wanted J&K come what may, Sardar / Nehru would not have waited for Pak irregulars to first invade Kashmir. India would have sent army first to secure J&K borders.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

by that time Pakistan had already attacked Kashmir and Indian blood had been spilt to defend it....No question of giving up gains after that point of no return

So Nehru only wanted Kashmir because pathaans invaded? Then why did he go to the UN and practically surrender a third of this land that his countrymen's blood had been spilled over?

You're simply making up a narrative as you go along.

Hey, it is interesting you talk about Manekshaw in the context of Kashmir in 1947. He would have been much lower in army hierarchy at that time. Why would Nehru / Patel talk to him directly?

Patel headed the ministry to get all princely states within India. He was amenable to a deal with Jinnah to stop meddling in Hyderabad and let Kashmir be with Pak. Had India wanted J&K come what may, Sardar / Nehru would not have waited for Pak irregulars to first invade Kashmir. India would have sent army first to secure J&K borders.

I'm not disputing Patel's position. I'm clarifying Nehru's. And Manekshaw was simply following orders.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

So Nehru only wanted Kashmir because pathaans invaded? Then why did he go to the UN and practically surrender a third of this land that his countrymen's blood had been spilled over?

You're simply making up a narrative as you go along.

Cuz he had a point to prove...He had a point to prove that non-white people could build great countries, resolve fierce disputes through international consensus, and live in peace and harmony when given stewardship of their own nations..the fight in those times were not against fellow brown people, but rather a fight for self respect in a deeply white supremacist world...you can only understand the perspective of those times when you talk to the people from those times

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Nehru wanted his ancestral lands to be part of India. He dithered because of his true secularist outlook, wanting Abdullah to be leader of the state and perhaps genuinely wanting autonomous rights for the people therein. Nevertheless, this dithering didn't overturn his actual desire for JnK to be part of the Indian union.

 

[magra]

So Nehru only wanted Kashmir because pathaans invaded? Then why did he go to the UN and practically surrender a third of this land that his countrymen's blood had been spilled over?

You're simply making up a narrative as you go along.

I'm not disputing Patel's position. I'm clarifying Nehru's. And Manekshaw was simply following orders.

I just went and read about this conversation. Here is the link to it

Rediff On The NeT: An interview with Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw

www.rediff.com

This conversation happened after accension papers were already signed. Manekshaw (then a colonel) was advising that there was no time for indecision and if troops are not flown immediately, Srinagar airport would be lost and thus entire Kashmir valley.

Again, going to UN was Nehru's idea. Sardar wanted army to finish the job of pushing Pak completely out of J&K.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Cuz he had a point to prove...He had a point to prove that non-white people could build great countries, resolve fierce disputes through international consensus, and live in peace and harmony when given stewardship of their own nations..the fight in those times were not against fellow brown people, but rather a fight for self respect in a deeply white supremacist world...you can only understand the perspective of those times when you talk to the people from those times

So pragmatic statesmanship applied to his opinion on Kashmir, but gets thrown under a bus when Hyderabad and Junagadh revolt?

Glad to know your nascent polity is riddled with such consistency.

I just went and read about this conversation. Here is the link to it

Rediff On The NeT: An interview with Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw

www.rediff.com

This conversation happened after accension papers were already signed. Manekshaw (then a colonel) was advising that there was no time for indecision and if troops are not flown immediately, Srinagar airport would be lost and thus entire Kashmir valley.

Again, going to UN was Nehru's idea. Sardar wanted army to finish the job of pushing Pak completely out of J&K.

The point is that it alludes to Nehru's true underlying intention regarding Kashmir.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

So pragmatic statesmanship applied to his opinion on Kashmir, but gets thrown under a bus when Hyderabad and Junagadh revolt?

Glad to know your nascent polity is riddled with such consistency.

The point is that it alludes to Nehru's true underlying intention regarding Kashmir.

No it was seen as hypocrisy on Jinah's part when he accepted Junagadh's accession when he himself said that Hindus and Muslims cannot live with eachother with the Two Nation Theory....Nehru never made such claim..So Nehru had put his foot down and remind Quaid-e-Azam of his inconsistency

 

[GumNaam]

Two Nation Theory based Partition was tragedy as it was built on the corpses of one million innocent souls...Indus Nationalism based Partition would have been a blessing, as it would have been a bureaucratic affair and without any explosion of hatred

you only have the hindu racism & discrimination to blame. in other words, you only have yourself to blame.

 

[magra]

Nehru wanted his ancestral lands to be part of India. He dithered because of his true secularist outlook, wanting Abdullah to be leader of the state and perhaps genuinely wanting autonomous rights for the people therein. Nevertheless, this dithering didn't overturn his actual desire for JnK to be part of the Indian union.

Majority Kashmiris of the time saw Abdullah as their leader. And Abdullah wanted Kashmir to be an autonomus state under India's protection.
So what was wrong to desire J&K in such a context. Even then, Nehru did not proceed to send in army first. It was sent only after Pak initiated with sending its irregulars and subsequently Hari Singh signing assension papers.

No it was seen as hypocrisy on Jinah's part when he accepted Junagadh's accession when he himself said that Hindus and Muslims cannot live with eachother with the Two Nation Theory....Nehru never made such claim..So Nehru had put his foot down and remind Quaid-e-Azam of his inconsistency

Correct. Jinnah was also pursuing Rajputana princely states to join Pak. Another inconsistency of so called '2 nation theory'.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

No it was seen as hypocrisy on Jinah's part when he accepted Junagadh's accession when he himself said that Hindus and Muslims cannot live with eachother with the Two Nation Theory....Nehru never made such claim..So Nehru had put his foot down and remind Quaid-e-Azam of his inconsistency

You overlook much of what Nehru actually said and instead try to project your narrative onto him.

"Nehru gave a note to Mountbatten before his departure for Srinagar on June 17 (1947) in which he clearly brought out that “National Conference has stood for and still stands for Kashmir joining the constituent assembly of India”."

Indeed, even Patel was playing both sides of the argument.

"On July 3, 1947, Patel had proposed to Hari Singh that the interest of Kashmir lay in joining the Indian Union and its constituent assembly without further delay. To allay apprehensions of the Maharaja, Patel reminded him that Nehru was proud of being Kashmiri and he can never be your enemy. The same day, Patel had also raised the issue of continued detention of Sheikh Abdullah with Ramchandra Kak, PM of J&K, seeking his release."

How Kashmir was won from Mountbatten & Jinnah

Lord Mountbatten was the first person to raise the issue of the future of the state of Jammu and Kashmir with Maharaja Hari Singh once the partition plan was announced on June 3, 1947.

www.google.com

Again, that Nehru dithered indecisively on how to actually achieve his lofty ambitions were more a function of the inherent difficulties in reconciling a hostile takeover of a Muslim majority state with his own secularist and democratic outlook. To his credit, he did want some degree of autonomy for kashmiris, a desire which has of course now been spat upon by real Indians.

Majority Kashmiris of the time saw Abdullah as their leader. And Abdullah wanted Kashmir to be an autonomus state under India's protection.
So what was wrong to desire J&K in such a context. Even then, Nehru did not proceed to send in army first. It was sent only after Pak initiated with sending its irregulars and subsequently Hari Singh signing assension papers.

Correct. Jinnah was also pursuing Rajputana princely states to join Pak. Another inconsistency of so called '2 nation theory'.

Knowing full well India's malevolent designs in Kashmir, Pakistan was correct to pursue Pakistani interests in states ruled by Muslim Nizams. You forget that Jinnah knew precisely how the forked tongues of India's early leadership manipulated those around them.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

it was seen as hypocrisy on Jinah's part when he accepted Junagadh's accession when he himself said that Hindus and Muslims cannot live with eachother with the Two Nation Theory....

No surprises in your interpretation here. Junagadh was a litmus test for Nehru and his promises. Jinnah simply put pressure on Nehru to prove his consistency in approach viz the princely states. Well aware that Indians would argue for both Junagadh and Hyderabad on the grounds of popular will, Jinnah, Mountbatten and everyone outside of India knew that the same principle would need to be applied to Kashmir. India only really succeeded in revealing its amateurish hypocrisy by holding on to all 3 states.

It was entirely in Pakistani interests to reveal India's underlying machinations in all 3 states.

 

[Dalit]

Who says partition was a tragedy? Partition was a blessing.

 

[magra]

Knowing full well India's malevolent designs in Kashmir, Pakistan was correct to pursue Pakistani interests in states ruled by Muslim Nizams. You forget that Jinnah knew precisely how the forked tongues of India's early leadership manipulated those around them.

How do you say that India had any malevolent design in Kashmir?
India only responded to Pak's attack on Kashmir and that too only after getting the legal go-ahead (accension paper)
Your support to Hyderabad Nizam did not help him in anything. He was needlessly humiliated a year later. Had he willingly signed accension, he would have got a better bargain and lot of bloodshed could have been avoided.

 

[S.Y.A]

Any kind of partition would have involved alienating some sections and thus violence. 'No partition' was the least violent approach, but Muslim league was adamant to get Pakistan, so that scenario also would have led to violence. No easy answers. Just have to accept what happened and move on.

nope, Muslim League asked for autonomy for Muslim majority areas, under the Union of India. Your leaders, like Nehru and Gandhi, were unwilling to give that. It was after that stubborn refusal by congress, that ML went all in for the demand of Pakistan. before that, the demand for Pakistan was a pressurizing tactic to force Congress into accepting Muslim demands.

How do you say that India had any malevolent design in Kashmir?
India only responded to Pak's attack on Kashmir and that too only after getting the legal go-ahead (accension paper)
Your support to Hyderabad Nizam did not help him in anything. He was needlessly humiliated a year later. Had he willingly signed accension, he would have got a better bargain and lot of bloodshed could have been avoided.

Ahhh, yes! the typical indian way of showing themselves as the victims even when they and their allies murder hundreds and thousands in cold blood, and have a lust for land and power and blood. the dogras had already been persecuting muslims of kashmir since ages, the uprising in kahsmir was indigenous, Pakistan came wayyyy later. and if the dogra had the right to accede to india, so did the nizam had the right to go for independence or ascension to Pakistan.

It is only the greed of indian murderers, thugs and looters like Patel and nehru who turned all of this into a tragedy.

Majority Kashmiris of the time saw Abdullah as their leader. And Abdullah wanted Kashmir to be an autonomus state under India's protection.

nope. only those who like to live like slaves. and those are the ones, obviously, who were brought into power as puppets when indian army took over kashmir. being a puppet of an occupying force doesnt grant one legitimacy or support of the majority.