'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?'

[adwityagrata]

Instead of calling Nehru 'chacha' ...... a more appropriate name would have been mama nehru

no wonder this generation wonder boy pappu became mama's boy 

My Grandfather ( a freedom fighter himself ) attended one rally of Nehru's in late 50's. He says that Nehru talked about NAM and foreign policy and what not for more than half of the time he spoke. That too when the audience consisted of poor farmers and porters and ricksawwalas mostly..
He came back from the rally cursing all the way and has never voted for anyone since then..

This is the funniest post ever. Your Grandfather was so traumatized that he never voted in any election ?

This $hit is so funny that it must be true.

 

[ELIF]

its bcz of nehru we dont have our full kashmir anyhow he is in history books and yesterday was his birthday too

 

[Nassr]

How are Sikhs responsible for any Muslims dying in Jammu and Kashmir state? the Sikh population in that state is very low. Back then it was probably less than 50 thousand total. And in Punjab Sikhs Hindus and Muslims all suffered. No one is blameless. Muslims were ethnically cleansed but so were an equal number of Sikhs and Hindus.

From the princely states of Alwar, Kapurthala, Patiala and Punjab. I stated it in my post. 

Is there a source for all these claims?

That little voice in the head....

Pulling things from thin air... do you have source for this gibberish?

Here are some of the references:

Cristopher Snedden, What happened to Muslims in Jammu? Local Identity, the Massacres of 1947 and the Roots of the Kashmir Problem, South Asia, Vol. XXIV, no. 2 (2001), 111-134.

J. K. Rady, Mass Killings of Muslims in Jammu Province, Nawa-i-Waqt, (Lahore), 29 October, 1947, p. 3.

A gem of a book written by Ahmed Shuja Pasha, Kashmir (Urdu), Published by Sang-e-Meel Publications Lahore.

Copland, The Further Shores of Partition: Ethnic Cleansing in Rajasthan, 1947, Past and Present, 160, (1998): pp. 203-239.

Pakistan Times, (Lahore) 19 September 1947.

Nawa-i-Waqt, (Lahore), 29 October, 1947, p. 2.

Nawa-i-Waqt, (Lahore), 20 November 1947, p. 6.

Elimination of Muslims from Jammu, Part II, The Times, (London), 10 August 1948, p. 5.

Daily Telegraph , (London), 12 January 1948.

Planned Massacre of Muslims in Jammu

http://www.kashmiri.info/Kashmir-Fi...raf/planned-massacre-of-muslims-in-jammu.html

Jammu Genocide Of Mid September 1947

Jammu Genocide Of Mid September 1947 | Kashmir Uprising- Coverage on Kashmir Freedom Struggle

Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing of Jammu Muslims in 1947

http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/studies/PDF-FILES/Artical - 7.pdf

Jammu Massacre 1947

Jammu Massacre 1947 » Kashmir Global

1947-When Jammu’s Rivers Turned Red

1947-When Jammu’s Rivers Turned Red | Jammu Regional Muslim's Research Organisation

 

[INDIC]

The Pathans came to safeguard the Muslims from these hordes of marauding Sikhs and fundamentalist Hindus and Pakistan Army moved in later when regular Indian Army had already invaded IOK.

Pathan didn't come to safeguard Muslims, they treated Kashmiri Muslims like trash. How you find the Sikh connection to Kashmir.

 

[adwityagrata]

Gained enemity of China? Maybe you should read Patel's letter to Nehru about China, not a friendly one. Had Patel more say, Kashmir might not be part of India, not the other way around. Patel as HM could only issue orders on Nehru's behalf, not on his own. Nehru's dithering should be understood in the context of stated policy of the INC with regard to accession of princely states. People must read more, not fall prey to their existing biases.

Of course Nehru was responsible for making China our enemy.

That dumb fcuk was more worried about what UK and US thought, rather than be pragmatic and be sensitive to china's feelings. It is no wonder he was held in such contempt by the Chinese leadership.

Nehru was a man who was born under colonials, lived under the colonials and lived like the colonials. He rejected everything Indian, Indian religion, Indian culture, Indian heritage .......he admired everything western. No amount of white washing by the congress can deny this fatal flaw that nehru had.

Sardar Patel fortunately had the advantage of NOT going to Cambridge education and was rooted to the ground. He studied in Nadiad and later bombay. He finished his matriculation at the age of 22 years. His only went to UK to become a barister which was only possible in UK. (a 36 month course which he finished in 30 months and came first)

Nehru on the other hand received primary education under the guidance of an English governess. He was taught to converse in English from an early age and taught british customs. His father then sent him to Harrow, the elite Public school in England and later joined Cambridge and then studied in Inner Temple for becoming a barrister like his father. His entire education and mind moulding was by the british. There was nothing Indian about him. Such things are hard to change, almost impossible.

This is the same difference between Chaiwala Narendra Modi and Manmohan singh.

Nehru sought to encourage china to attack tibet so that he could swallow parts of tibet and call in India. He failed miserably, and we now suffer the consequence of his stupidity.

 

[Nassr]

In a speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, Nehru said, “It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.” If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict “and we would change our Constitution about it”. This he tells his own people in the Lok Sabha.

However, India’s double face was revealed in Nehru’s Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948. He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), “Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948.

In his 1948 Note, Nehru also mentioned that, Kashmiris “are not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living”; “We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power”; the U.N. is impotent. “Doubts in the minds of leaders percolate to their followers and to the people generally… What is required is a firm and clear outlook, and no debate about basic issues.”

Lieutenant-General B.M. Kaul in his book The Untold Story (1967), states that, Sheikh Abdullah understood the games being played by Nehru and India and was so disgusted that he decided to declare independence of Kashmir from India in 1949. He says, Bakshi and Dhar knew well in advance that Sheikh Saheb was going there “in a few days’ time to meet certain ‘friends’ from across the border which was only seven miles away”. He would then arrest Bakshi, Dhar etc and declare Kashmir independent (page 143). Though many Indians do not agree with his version of events, but it makes one thing very very clear, the Indian double face became quite apparent even to Sheikh Abdullah.

What Nehru then and India even now, does not realize that it is the people who move and transform their leaders’ opinion and not the other way around. Sheikh Abdullah couldn’t go against the will of Kashmiris. Sheikh Abduallah remained a leader of Kashmiris as long as he voiced their feelings. Nehru expected that Sheikh Abdullah would be able to change the opinion of Kashmiri people, which he couldn’t. Sheikh Abdullah turned a Becket to Jawaharlal Nehru’s Henry II. He was thus arrested and put in jail for next 11 years.

In Nehru efforts to cheat the whole world, least did he realize that he was wrong and left a legacy, where we still stand at that moment in 1947, where Kashmir still remains unsolved even after 60 years of Indian efforts to retain it, even after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and to what end!

The same kind of policy followed by Indians elsewhere in India and resultantly, North East India is also in flames, the Naxals have risen against their own government, the Dalits are still untouchables except a few who have become a bit powerful and minorities are killed with impunity to tell them as to who rules India – the majority Hindus. How many more will the Hindu rulers of India kill to keep India together as a so-called multi-ethnic/religious union of unity in diversity.

 

[Kloitra]

Gained enemity of China? Maybe you should read Patel's letter to Nehru about China, not a friendly one. Had Patel more say, Kashmir might not be part of India, not the other way around. Patel as HM could only issue orders on Nehru's behalf, not on his own. Nehru's dithering should be understood in the context of stated policy of the INC with regard to accession of princely states. People must read more, not fall prey to their existing biases.

From what I know, to stop the war mid way and go the UN was Nehru's decision while Patel was against it. This had nothing to do with accession, or could have continued the military campaign despite, without any consequence regarding it. Nehru was more idealistic than realist, compared to Patel. Correct me if I am wrong here. Though this is ifs and buts..

Some more Ifs and buts: I never said Patel would not gone to war with China, but India would not have been so humiliated. The army chief would probably be still be Thimmaya, DM other than Menon. And army well prepared since 50's.

But this is a fact that Nehru failed in his foreign policy. Keeping India socialist is one thing, totally failing to gain economic support of west is another. This is something Pak earned and developed on. He failed to foresee the effect of Tibetian issue, or paranoia of Mao. Kept wrong people around, listened to an arrogant DM over army intel. Took Kashmir to UN. Despite calling China as a brother, continued the forward policy. Give asylum to who they perceived terrorist and than wonder why they would attack you! What is it about his foreign policy that you like?

 

[Nassr]

Gained enemity of China? Maybe you should read Patel's letter to Nehru about China, not a friendly one. Had Patel more say, Kashmir might not be part of India, not the other way around. Patel as HM could only issue orders on Nehru's behalf, not on his own. Nehru's dithering should be understood in the context of stated policy of the INC with regard to accession of princely states. People must read more, not fall prey to their existing biases.

Nehru's briefing to the newly appointed head of Indian Intelligence Bureau, on the eve of partition, clearly indicated that there were only two enemies of India, China and Pakistan. That policy has since been followed and now, over 65 years after India's independence, these two countries almost completely and strategically surround India along its continental borders, except for the small corridor through Burma. India's relations with Burma are far from the cordiality which India seeks. In the Indian Ocean as well, Sri Lanka and Maldives etc no longer depend India's good will.

 

[Bang Galore]

Of course Nehru was responsible for making China our enemy.

That dumb fcuk was more worried about what UK and US thought, rather than be pragmatic and be sensitive to china's feelings. It is no wonder he was held in such contempt by the Chinese leadership.

.......

Nehru sought to encourage china to attack tibet so that he could swallow parts of tibet and call in India. He failed miserably, and we now suffer the consequence of his stupidity.

I continue to be astounded by what people withskewed knowledge of history are able to dream up, with the nosensical caricaturisation of Nehru. Nehru was both insensitive to Chinese feelings & complicit in Tibet's invasion...?? Takes a special kind of intelligence to understand that. Unless people are able to look at Nehru apolitically, there is little point in trying to understand history as it was.

 

[livingdead]

Nehru's remit was far greater than patels, hence he had to think of everything. Patel was not a PM material, he was more of a bully.. perfect for HM role.

 

[Nassr]

In a military forum rudiments of military activities are expected.

Of course troops would have been kept as a part of contingency planning. This happens all the time , even now plans would exist for troops to move at short notice for things like floods, riots or for military tasks.

Had the signature not happened the troops would have been asked to stand down.

Whats new ?

I am sorry I disagree with you. When one carefully reads the environment as they existed at that time, such a possibility did not exist.

 

[third eye]

In a speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, Nehru said, “It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.” If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict “and we would change our Constitution about it”. This he tells his own people in the Lok Sabha.

However, India’s double face was revealed in Nehru’s Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948. He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), “Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948.

In his 1948 Note, Nehru also mentioned that, Kashmiris “are not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living”; “We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power”; the U.N. is impotent. “Doubts in the minds of leaders percolate to their followers and to the people generally… What is required is a firm and clear outlook, and no debate about basic issues.”

Lieutenant-General B.M. Kaul in his book The Untold Story (1967), states that, Sheikh Abdullah understood the games being played by Nehru and India and was so disgusted that he decided to declare independence of Kashmir from India in 1949. He says, Bakshi and Dhar knew well in advance that Sheikh Saheb was going there “in a few days’ time to meet certain ‘friends’ from across the border which was only seven miles away”. He would then arrest Bakshi, Dhar etc and declare Kashmir independent (page 143). Though many Indians do not agree with his version of events, but it makes one thing very very clear, the Indian double face became quite apparent even to Sheikh Abdullah.

What Nehru then and India even now, does not realize that it is the people who move and transform their leaders’ opinion and not the other way around. Sheikh Abdullah couldn’t go against the will of Kashmiris. Sheikh Abduallah remained a leader of Kashmiris as long as he voiced their feelings. Nehru expected that Sheikh Abdullah would be able to change the opinion of Kashmiri people, which he couldn’t. Sheikh Abdullah turned a Becket to Jawaharlal Nehru’s Henry II. He was thus arrested and put in jail for next 11 years.

In Nehru efforts to cheat the whole world, least did he realize that he was wrong and left a legacy, where we still stand at that moment in 1947, where Kashmir still remains unsolved even after 60 years of Indian efforts to retain it, even after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and to what end!

The same kind of policy followed by Indians elsewhere in India and resultantly, North East India is also in flames, the Naxals have risen against their own government, the Dalits are still untouchables except a few who have become a bit powerful and minorities are killed with impunity to tell them as to who rules India – the majority Hindus. How many more will the Hindu rulers of India kill to keep India together as a so-called multi-ethnic/religious union of unity in diversity.

Why does it sound so difficult to believe ?

Leaders & politicians lie all the time & when they do not lie they change their statements too. Their word is not the word of God that cannot be changed.

Remember in 71 the nation was not told of the fall of Dhaka till the world press brought it to light.

Zia promised elections many times.. & so many more.

Such things happen.

 

[[Bregs]]

History of India shall not be viewed on partisan lines but for some there is no other option as they could rule India only for 5-6 years only.

 

[adwityagrata]

I continue to be astounded by what people withskewed knowledge of history are able to dream up, with the nosensical caricaturisation of Nehru. Nehru was both insensitive to Chinese feelings & complicit in Tibet's invasion...?? Takes a special kind of intelligence to understand that. Unless people are able to look at Nehru apolitically, there is little point in trying to understand history as it was.

LOL. Whats with the self pity, condescending remarks and desperate attempt to caricature me ?

I see that you have only posted Rhetoric's. Does this 'astound' you too ?

 

[third eye]

I am sorry I disagree with you. When one carefully reads the environment as they existed at that time, such a possibility did not exist.

You are welcome to your views & I respect them.

However, keeping troops in readiness for contingencies is routine. In this case New Delhi knew of the incursion of PA into J&K so 1 Sikh was kept ready to move on signatures of Hari Singh & they did not move before he signed.