History in
Pakistan was distorted to make the “Villians” look “Heros”. Liaquat Ali Khan
after having run away from Hindoo”s decided to act tough once ensconced in
Pakistan by showing fists. This is an image that has taken root in Pakistan.
Nobody is going to question that; Liaquat Ali Khan turned round to Sardar
Shaukat Hayat Khan and said; “Sardar Sahib, have I gone mad to give up
Hyderabad which is much larger than Punjab for the sake of the rocks of
Kashmir?” We ended up losing Kashmir, Hyderabad, Junagadh because of our
incapable leadership of Liaquat Ali Khan, the naked Indian aggression, and the
refusal of the then Commander in Chief of Pakistan Army to obey Jinnah orders
of military action against the Indian offensive in Kashmir. The rest is history. The
problem was most ML leadership was from India and their thoughts were on
Hyderabad, Junagadh, New Delhi, etc. Kashmir was not on their mind. The
strategic threat to Pakistan if Kashmir fell in India's hand dawned on them
later.
The First
Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister of India Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was
happy to let Kashmir go to Pakistan in exchange for Hyderabad-Deccan. Lord
Mountbatten, the last viceroy of India, took Patel's offer to Pakistan on the
exact day the Indian Army landed in Srinagar to push back intruders from
Pakistan in October 1947. But the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, Urdu
Speaking Hindustani Muhajir of Uttar Pradesh Liaquat Ali Khan “who understood
neither history nor geography” refused the detail and insisted to take Hyderabad-Deccan.
Liaquat Ali Khan had set his heart on Hyderabad-Deccan and not the “rocks of
Kashmir” while Sardar Patel felt Kashmir was Pakistan's for the asking but
surely not Hyderabad-Deccan.
Saifuddin
Soz, former Congress minister, and a prominent Kashmiri politician has made a
startling claim that; “From the very first day Sardar Patel was adamant that
Kashmir should go to Pakistan. In the partition council, he tried his level
best to convince Liaquat Ali Khan to take Kashmir and leave Hyderabad-Deccan.”
Soz said, “There was a fight; Chaudhry Mohammed Ali and our Reddy was there.
Sardar Patel told Liaquat Ali Khan; do not even talk about Hyderabad-Deccan. It
is not even connected with Pakistan. You leave Hyderabad to us and take
Kashmir. “I will tell you a very fascinating story,” Soz said. “When our army
landed in Srinagar, the same afternoon Mountbatten went to Lahore. There was a
dinner with Governor-General of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Prime Minister of
Pakistan Liaquat Ali Khan, and four Pakistan ministers. Mountbatten said; I
have brought a message from the strongman of India, Sardar Patel. Take Kashmir
and forget Hyderabad-Deccan, it's not even connected with you.”
Sardar
Shaukat Hayat Khan in his book, The Nation That Lost Its Soul relates how at a
dinner, Lord Mountbatten conveyed a message from Patel. “Patel had said that
Pakistan could take Kashmir and let go Hyderabad Deccan which had a majority
Hindu population and was nowhere near Pakistan by sea or land.” Hayat Khan goes
on to say; after delivering this message, Lord Mountbatten went to sleep in the
Lahore Government House. I being the overall in-charge of the Kashmir
operations went to Liaquat Ali Khan. I suggested to him that as the Indian army
had entered Kashmir in force and we would be unable to annex Kashmir with
tribal Mujahids or even with our inadequate armed forces, we should make haste
to accept Patel's proposal. Nawabzada (Liaquat Ali Khan) turned round to me and
said, “Sardar Sahib, have I gone mad to give up Hyderabad which is much larger
than Punjab for the sake of the rocks of Kashmir?” I was stunned by the Prime
Minister's reaction and ignorance of our geography and his lack of wisdom. I
thought he was living in a fool's paradise and did not understand the importance
of Kashmir to Pakistan while hoping to get Hyderabad, which at best, was only
quixotic wishful thinking. It was not connected with Pakistan anywhere. As a
protest, I resigned from the position I was holding in Kashmir Operations.”
Sardar
Shaukat Hayat Khan wrote in his book, “Liaquat Ali Khan neither understood
history, nor geography.” So, he did not accept the offer. Sardar Patel was
giving Kashmir on a plate, but for sentimental reasons and lack of knowledge
Liaquat Ali Khan wanted to keep Hyderabad-Deccan, a Hindu majority area that
would have been surrounded by miles of Indian Territory. It figures out that
Kashmir was lost due to one of the greatest blunders of Pakistan history. We
should have accepted this exchange that Pakistan takes the whole of Kashmir
state while India takes Hyderabad state. It would have been illogical to try to
keep Hyderabad-Deccan which was located in the heart of India and was a Hindu
majority area with a Muslim ruler. Pakistan is sparing Liaquat Ali Khan's
stupidity. Liaquat Ali Khan should have accepted this exchange. This failing
was what led to disgruntled Maj. Gen. Akbar Khan to get involved in the
Rawalpindi Conspiracy. He was furious that Kashmir had been effectively given
away because of failures by Liaquat Ali Khan's political leadership.
Kuldip
Nayar, in his book Beyond the Lines—An Autobiography writes on Sardar Patel's
consistent view that Kashmir should be part of Pakistan. Nayar writes, “My
impression is that had Pakistan been patient it would have got Kashmir automatically.
India could not have conquered it, nor could a Hindu Maharaja has ignored the
composition of the population, which was predominantly Muslim. Instead, an
impatient Pakistan sent tribesmen along with regular troops to Kashmir within
days of Independence.” Nayar goes on to say; “While it is true that Nehru was
keen on Kashmir's accession to India, Patel was opposed to it. Even when New
Delhi received the Maharaja's request to accede to India, Patel had said, “We
should not get mixed up with Kashmir; we already have too much on our plate”.”
Patel remained consistent on his perception that while Pakistan should not talk
of Hyderabad, Kashmir should go to Pakistan.
Chaudhry
Mohammad Ali gives us an interesting detail on Patel's perception of Kashmir in
his book The Emergence of Pakistan. He writes, “While attending a meeting of
the Partition Council, Sardar Patel, although a bitter enemy of Pakistan was a
greater realist than Nehru. In one of the discussions between the two Prime
Ministers at which H.M. Patel and I were also present, Liaquat Ali Khan dwelt
at length on the inconsistency of the Indian stand with regard to Junagadh and
Kashmir. If Junagadh, despite its Muslim ruler's accession to Pakistan,
belonged to India because of its Hindu majority, how could Kashmir, with its
Muslim majority, be a part of India simply by virtue of its Hindu ruler having
signed a conditional instrument of accession to India? If the instrument of
accession signed by the Muslim ruler of Junagadh was of no validity, the
instrument of accession signed by the Hindu ruler of Kashmir was also invalid.
If the will of the people was to prevail in Junagadh, it must prevail in
Kashmir as well. India could not claim both Junagadh and Kashmir.”
Chaudhry
Mohammad Ali writes, “When Liaquat Ali Khan made these incontrovertible points,
Patel could not contain himself and burst out, “Why do you compare Junagadh
with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir and we could reach an agreement”.”
Chaudhry Mohammad Ali comments further, “Patel” views at this time and even
later were that India's effort to retain Muslim majority areas against the will
of the people was a source not of strength but of the weakness of India. He
felt that if India and Pakistan agree to let Kashmir go to Pakistan and
Hyderabad to India, the problems of Kashmir and Hyderabad could be solved
peacefully and to the mutual advantage of India and Pakistan.”
A.G.
Noorani, an accredited scholar having considerable knowledge on the Kashmir
issue has quoted Liaquat Ali Khan's attitude to Patel's proposals. In his
article, “A Tale of Two States” Noorani tells us, “A quarter-century later, on
27 November 1972, the President of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, told a tribal
Jirga at Landikotal that India's first Home Minister and Minister for the
States, Sardar Patel had at one stage, offered Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange
for Junagadh and Hyderabad. But, he added, Pakistan “unfortunately” did not
accept this offer with the result that it not only lost all the three native
states but East Pakistan as well.”
As for
Jinnah, he was a lawyer. He proposed an outright exchange of Kashmir for
Junagadh as both states were a mirror image of each other in many ways. Kashmir
was a Muslim majority state whose Non-Muslim ruler had acceded his state to
India. Junagadh was a non-Muslim majority state whose Muslim ruler had acceded
his state to Pakistan. Jinnah argued that as Junagadh had become a part of
Pakistan legally, he, being the governor-general of Pakistan, had the right to
discuss the future of the state with India. But as the ruler of Hyderabad had
not acceded his state to Pakistan, he had no right to discuss the future of the
state or coerce the ruler of Hyderabad to accede his state to India against his
will.
