Author: Balbir K Punj
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: June 20, 2003
One of the national problems we
inherited at the birth of India is Kashmir. The origin of the problem and
its continuance till today as a millstone round the neck of the country
in a way underline the naïve nature of Hindu society, which refuses
to learn anything new from the history.
Even at the cost of repetition,
here is a quick recapitulation of historical events. On October 22, 1947,
a full-scale invasion of Pakistani tribesmen-namely, the Afridis and Mahsuds-equipped
with modern weapons and backed by Pakistani regulars began in Kashmir.
The state army tried its chivalrous best to battle with the invasion, even
when riddled with large-scale (one-third) desertion of Muslims under spell
of Islamic propaganda. Brigadier Rajinder Singh Jamwal fought valiantly
near Uri till he was grievously injured. He ordered his men to leave him
by the roadside with a revolver in his hand, for then the enemy could only
cross over his dead body.
But one Col Hari Singh, who had
had received an order from Srinagar to disarm his Muslim troops, frowned
upon the very idea. He could not imagine that comrades-in-arms who had
fought side by side with him in World War II would betray him. He was found
murdered by one of them while asleep-another example of Hindu complacency.
Maharaja Hari Singh approached the
Government of India for assistance. But he could formally be offered such
help only when accession was solemnised. The Instrument of Accession was
signed on October 26. Indian Army units were flown into the Valley from
October 27 onwards. By November 14, they were able to wrest back Baramulla.
Indian forces would have redeemed the whole of Kashmir after the winter
was over, but Jawaharlal Nehru made a blunder by taking the matter on January
1, 1948, to the United Nations. What the UN effected was an inconclusive
ceasefire, and Kashmir has been hanging fire between India and Pakistan
ever since, apart from being enmeshed in international power politics.
The UN Resolution of August 13,
1948, opened the door for plebiscite: "The Government of India and the
Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of Jammu
& Kashmir shall be determined in accordance to the will of the people."
It is well-known how Sheikh Abdullah
was so pampered by Nehru that he felt close to carving out a 'Sheikhdom'
in Kashmir, independent of India and Pakistan and part of the Anglo-American
bloc. His dream might have come true if he were not dismissed, arrested
and thrown behind the bars in August 1953. That he found a sympathiser
in the Western bloc was evident from a speech of Clement Attlee on November
1953: "Kashmir should belong neither to India nor to Pakistan but be independent."
A Plebiscite Front was founded by
Mirza Afzal Beg on August 9, 1955, inspired by Sheikh Abdullah. Its activities
increased by 1964, when Kashmiris were repeatedly exhorted to "throw away
the Indian yoke". Sheikh Abdullah was originally no Islamic fanatic, and
that had brought him to clash with MA Jinnah in the pre-Indepen-dence days.
But during the heydays of the Plebiscite Front Sheikh Abdullah, otherwise
dubbed an Indian stooge, became a hero in Pakistan and was offered a Pakistani
passport.
If the Kashmir issue was ever truly
bilateral between India and Pakistan, it was at Shimla in 1972, just after
India had convincingly won the India-Pakistan war of 1971. At the time,
Sheikh Abdullah and Mirza Afzal Beg had started making conciliatory speeches.
The situation in 1972 was fully conducive to India realising that power
was universally respected. But the Shimla Agreement solemnised between
Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto only envisaged respect for the Line
of Control, resulting from ceasefire on December 17, 1971. It did not solve
the issue of Kashmir because we faltered when it came to capitalising on
the situation.
But this was the umpteenth deja
vu for Hindus. Here are some examples from the history of the community.
Col Tod (of The Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan fame) said, "Abul Fazal
relates this victory and dilates on (Maharana) Kumbha's greatness of soul
in setting his enemy at liberty, not only without ransom but with gifts.
Such is the character of Hindus; a mixture of arrogance, political blindness,
pride and generosity. To spare a prostrate foe is the creed of the Hindu
cavalier and he carries all such maxims to excess ... Political blindness
and misplaced generosity on the part of Hindus so often illustrated in
the history of India, has been the cause of their political downfall. They
prided themselves on their chivalry, which consisted of sparing foes, setting
them at liberty after capturing them, and allowing them to return home
unmolested. This no doubt proves that they were chivalrous and fearless,
and lived on a high spiritual and moral plane; but it also proves that
they were not men of foresight, and were, so far as politics go, novices
and therefore unfit to preserve their liberties."
Biographer Har Bilas Sarda (1867-1952)
observed with reference to Maharana Kumbha: "Several instances of such
misplaced generosity may be cited. The Hun invader Mihirkula, who greatly
oppressed the people of the Punjab, was defeated and taken prisoner about
AD 431, but was sent home with all honour by Baladitya, with the result
that Mihirkula invaded India again, treacherously murdered the King of
Kashmir and seized his kingdom. Sultan Shahbuddin Ghori was defeated and
captured by Emperor Prithvi Raj Chauhan on the field of Tiraori in AD 1191,
but was liberated and allowed to return to his country. He reinvaded India
with an army of 1,200,000 horsemen and assisted by the Rajas of Kanauj
and Anhilwara Patan, destroyed the Hindu Empire of India."
Even Rana Sanga fell a victim to
this suicidal mindset when he not only released by reinstated the throne
of Mahmud Khilji II, King of Malwa whom he had defeated and imprisoned
in 1519. Soon after chivalrous Sanga's death, the ungrateful Mahmud Khilji
II sent an army to attack his successor, Maharana Ratan Singh.
How often do these stories fit with
our experience of Islamic neighbours in the subcontinent? Bhutto returned
generously treated from Shimla 1972, without having to part with Pakistan-occupied
Kashmir and after ensuring release of his 93,000 Pakistani soldiers in
Indian captivity. Remember this is the very socialist jihadi who had spoken
about a 'thousand-year war' with India. Returning to Karachi, he swore
Pakistan would develop the 'Islamic atom bomb' even if the entire country
had to eat grass.
Of late, we have been celebrating
December 16 as Vijay Divas (Victory Day). 1971 was a spectacular victory
indeed but, contrary to what some people think, it was no cakewalk. The
fruits of the war that were won by men such as Sam Manekshaw, JS Aurora
and JFR Jacob were squandered away. Indira Gandhi did not reach any realistic
agreement with Sheikh Mujibur Rehman either. It did not solve the problem
of the persecuted Hindu minority. Within Indira Gandhi's own lifetime,
Bangladesh had become a Bengali Pakistan for Hindus and the hub of anti-India
feeling-an instance of the hard-earned labour of soldiers wasted by politicians.
Ironically, the three advisors of Indira Gandhi at Shimla-PN Haskar, TN
Kaul and DP Dhar-who had ill-guided her to be soft and generous to Bhutto
were all Kashmiri Hindus.
Like Nehru, they thought of impressing
world with Hindu generosity. But did they envisage that, in return, their
community would be cleansed from the Valley? Nehru's fanciful 'internationalism'
at the cost of Hindu identity was not totally born of Anglicised education.
Jinnah was so Anglicised that the only language he could speak was English.
And he knew little about Islam. The failings of the first Prime Minister
of India and later his daughter have deeper roots, and many precedents
in Hindu history.
