But that apart, it’s hard impossible to discuss the legacy of the Nehru-Gandhis without also discussing Kashmir. Although they were settled in the plains – Delhi and Allahabad – the Nehrus maintained their identity of ‘Kashmiri Brahmin’ – at least till Indira, and even Rajiv.

Jawaharlal’s sentimental attachment to Kashmir significantly clouded his judgment on both the Kashmir problem vis-a-vis Pakistan and the Aksai Chin problem vis-a-vis China, in one fell swoop messing up India’s relations with both neighbors for over half a century. This part of the Nehruvian legacy is rarely analyzed through this lens, and richly deserves to be.

In the current scenario, when a losing captain of a Pakistani team apologises to all the Muslims of the world for the loss and Sharia being the state law of Pakistan, people talking about a federation or union should have their heads examined.. There is nothing beneficial for India to sign up on those lines.

–> I agree to the point about the lack of necessity for India signing up for a federation but not to questioning the sanity of those suggesting it. That is taking things too far.

162 amber pilsner

The Indian Muslims have rights in India as citizens of the secular republic. But the secular republic only exists because of Hindu will. Confederation=Islamization.

–> So, you are saying secular republic is not driven by secular considerations per se but by the underlying magnanimity of hindu majority. Isnt that a breathtaking swipe at contributions by minorities in India ? Does Hindu will include Nehru’s actions also ? Last I checked he was agnostic. The secular republic of india exists because of the will of its people of whom the majority are hindu. That doesnt automatically mean secular republic only exists because of hindu will.

I suggested in a different thread that all of South Asia ought to move toward a (con)federation. Just as Scotland might separate from Great Britain, but still stay in the EU – similarly, if ‘Kashmir’ wants to leave ‘India’, they should be able to, but they would not secede from the federation of South Asia, they’ll see it in their overwhelming interest to stay. EU becomes stronger just as Great Britain might become ‘weaker’.

–> Maybe South Asia will do that after we have had our own War, Hitler like figure and enormous losses in population, economy and pride. Didnt Belgium(brussels being the seat of EU) have its hands full fighting partition into north and south portions ? Maybe they will have a better appreciation if they recognize the north and south portions will remain in EU but Belgium ceases to exist.

Whatever the local Hindu-Muslim etc dynamics might have been, Pakistan wouldn’t have been born or survived as an independent state unless it also served both ‘Great Game’ and ‘Cold War’ strategic purposes, both vis-a-vis India and vis-a-vis (Soviet) Central Asia.

–> Cold War propped up Pakistan but that doesnt mean Cold War caused the birth of Pakistan ? New theory, perhaps ?

The AQ Khan issue and the North Korean entanglement of Pakistan, for example, makes world system managers think – that this is ultimate result of the creation of two mutually antagonistic states in South Asia in 1947, so perhaps we should address the core issue, which is not just Kashmir, but the logic of Partition itself.

–> That Pakistan is a broken down state doesnt mean it is the result of creation of India-Pakistan as “two mutually antagonistic nations”. Both examples you cited are the result of the internal breakdowns of the state of Pakistan. What is next ? A dog dies in Pakistan and logic of partition is in serious jeopardy ?

131 Dhamaka

He was the worst of this sorry lot.

–> What sorry lot is this ? He made mistakes for sure but to call him worst takes denial of the worst sort.

Krishnan # 86,

I did mention and reiterate -that I cannot remember the 2 entities between whom this happened but it did happen .I meant the 62 war and not any other skirmishes that followed.Happy now?

–> I probably jumped to conclusions. Sorry.

105 Jing

Patel wanted Kashmir for two reasons, one to simply make the territory of the Indian state larger, and just as important out of pure spite towards Pakistan.

–> I am horrified Patel had spite for Pakistan. After all that happened in 1947, why didnt he go for “hindi-paki bhai-bhai” ? Being a home minister, how could he have thought making the territory of the indian state larger ? Totally selfish of him.

For an ostensibly democratic India, the legacy of Kashmir has one of military rule, fraudulent elections, and arbitrary arrests for political agitation.

–> And Pakistan is the land of freedom.

Prior to the entry of the Pathan irregulars from the NWFP and his flight to Delhi, Singh’s policy was one of systemic persecution of the Muslim population, culminating in liquidations by his Sikh and Doghra soldiers. Singh aimed to create a no man’s land between Kashmir and Pakistan by depopulating the border, driving thousands of refugees into Pakistan. The killings didn’t end with the arrival of the Indian army either.

–> I didnt know this. Can you provide some resources for this ?

If a person of his means/education can believe in such patent nonsense, I shudder to think what an average Pakistani believes.

I had a conversation with an educated Pakistani about Urdu, and how it is one of many Indian languages. He vehemently disagreed, and even sounded offended by this, and said that Urdu was a language that started in Lahore and was closer to Persian and Arabic than it was to Hindi, which was ‘bastardised’ Urdu. I told him about the historical fact of Urdu originating in Uttar Pradesh and its home being Lucknow, but he was just adamant it wasn’t so. He claimed it originated in Punjab. You don’t know what to say in the face of that kind of aggressive ignorance.

Split Kashmir at the LOC, be done with it!