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.
No comments:
Post a Comment