what about taking kashmir issue to UN? there is blunder made by each Political Leaders in past...
I have a different take and actually think Nehru is the reason we own two thirds of J&K and he deserves the credit. He gets slammed for losing parts of it to Pakistan and China but people forget without him we might not have got anything.
How many know that at partition J&K was not included in India by the Brits. It was given to Pakistan. All of it. The Radcliffe line lopped it off completely.
The raja didn't want that. In fact he wanted to be independent. Belonging to neither. Sensing that the handover wasn't proceeding as intended one British major posted in what is PO J&K pulled the rajas flag down and raised the Pakistan flag. That was the start of the land grab.
Raja sensing his forces were being overrun approached India and as you know signed an accession agreement in exchange for defense. The conflict that occurred isn't known as a war but officially as 'Operations in J&K'. Of which we managed to secure two thirds and the remaining third was left.
This is where the controversy begins. Gen Thimaya said he needed no more than a fortnight to get it back. Nehru refused and took the matter to the UN. He had a lot of faith in the institution since it had just been setup and had lofty goals. Sometimes it's not clear why civilian leaders do things but they outrank military in our system. A good example is Vajpayee setting the condition that no Indian troops cross the Loc during Kargil. Making the militaries job much harder but ultimately was the reason Clinton saw Pakistan as the aggressor and withdrew support to them. Ending Kargil in India's favour.
So why did Nehru do it? To get legitimacy from the world. If J&K was not given to India and India now has two thirds, then isn't India the landgrabber here? Don't forget Pakistan agreed to be a frontline state for the west against the soviets. The west would look more favourable at Pakistans complaint here than India who they did not trust. This was the reason for Pakistan to be created in the first place. An obstacle in between Russia and India. So soviets don't get access to warm water ports.
Not if this issue could be resolved at the UN with a plebiscite held after to settle the matter once and for all.
Conditions for holding the plebiscite was as the aggressor the Paks would have to withdraw first followed by the Indians. The Paks never withdrew and the matter rested there. Which is curious because inspite of J&K being majority Muslim they weren't confident to put it to a vote. Better to hold on to what they have than risk it all over some noble idea like plebiscite.
So the fault lies with Pakistan and we hold onto J&K. The world regards it as a disputed area. The US position on this matter remains unchanged since Kennedy. But main point is India isn't seen as an aggressor by the world.
We ended up doing something similar after '71. Winning the war was half the battle. Getting the world to accept Bangladesh as a new country was the final half where our diplomats excelled. Without whom the world could have rejected the outcome and invited Pakistan to take over as victims of an Indian adventure. Paks tell themselves that '71 was not a loss as they didn't care much for East Pakistan so then why did Bhutto storm out of the UN when it was clear Bangladesh would be formed
Very few borders have changed since WW2 because most see it as tantamount to a wider conflict. So india redrawing the map is quite an achievement.
As an example of when the world disagrees look at the conflict Indonesia had in the 60s. They called it Confrontasi. In effect an attempt to recreate an undivided Indonesia. So no Malaysia or Brunei which were carved out of Indonesia. This triggered a conflict where the Brits & Australians entered against Indonesia and ultimately Indonesia lost.
So if India disagreed with partition and moved to recreate Akhand Bharat then we would face a similar scenario.
So now you understand the delicate balancing act Nehru had to play to keep J&K.
m.rediff.com
