In one of his article, well-known Tibet and Kashmir expert "Claude Apri" wrote:
Everything started in early 1946 when the Indian National Congress had to elect a new president. It was an accepted fact that the leader chosen as Congress president would become the first prime minister of independent India. Three candidates were in the race: Acharya Kripalani, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel. The working committee of the INC and the pradesh committees had to send their nomination for one of the three candidates.
Sardar Patel was easily the most popular. Everyone knew his efficiency and his toughness for tackling difficult problems. Twelve out of 19 Pradesh committees nominated him. None nominated Nehru.
From the start Gandhi had indicated that he favoured Nehru. His reasoning was that his British education was an asset: 'Jawaharlal cannot be replaced today whilst the charge is being taken from the British. He, a Harrow boy, a Cambridge graduate, and a barrister, is wanted to carry on the negotiations with the Englishmen.'
Another point Gandhi made was that while Sardar Patel would agree to work as Nehru's deputy, the reverse might not happen. He also felt that Nehru was better known abroad and could help India play a role in international affairs.
Eventually, in deference to Gandhi, Kripalani nominated Nehru and withdrew from the race. Patel had no choice but to follow his colleague 'so that Nehru could be elected unopposed.' Dr Rajendra Prasad later stated: 'Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru.'
It is how India got a Kashmiri Pandit as its first prime minister.
I have always found it strange that a man professing to be above caste or religion agreed to be called 'Panditji.' Nonetheless, the fact that a Pandit was the prime minister made Kashmir a state different from the 500 other princely states.
Soon, the conflicting aspects in Nehru's persona came to the fore. On one hand, he was a democrat and revolutionary; on the other, he was often carried away by his 'Socialist' ideals to the point of blundering with India's destiny.
After his election as Congress president, he gave his support to his friend Sheikh Abdullah (he called him his 'blood brother') who had been jailed by Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir. In June 1946, he decided to go to the valley to free Abdullah. The situation was certainly not shining in Kashmir (as in the rest of India), but to take on the maharaja at this point in time was a serious mistake.
However, for Nehru, 'Anything that happens in Kashmir has a certain importance for the rest of India, but recent events there have had an even greater importance, [they] became symbols of a larger struggle for emancipation. Thus Kashmir became symbolic of the [princely] States in India.' He wanted to take on 'the autocratic and often feudal rule that prevails there.' He did not realise that the princes' support and collaboration would be indispensable during this all-important transition period for the nation.
Though prohibited to enter the maharaja's state, in July 1946 Nehru decided to defy the ban. Patel and other members of the working committee tried to dissuade him: there were more important matters to tackle in Delhi after the Cabinet Mission had come to discuss the transfer of power.
In a letter to D P Mishra, Patel explained: 'He [Nehru] has done many things recently which have caused us great embarrassment. His actions in Kashmir … are acts of emotional insanity and it puts tremendous strain on us to set the matters right.' However, Patel, always fair, added: 'but in spite of all these innocent indiscretions he has unparalleled enthusiasm and a burning passion for freedom.' Patel, thus, pointed out the two powerful (and opposing) aspects of Nehru's personality.
A year later, hardly two weeks before Independence, Nehru still wanted to go to Srinagar. He wrote to Gandhi: 'I shall go ahead with my plans. As between visiting Kashmir when my people need me there and being prime minister, I prefer the former.' Once again he had to be dissuaded.
At the stroke of the midnight hour on August 14, India awakened to life and freedom. Unfortunately, Maharaja Hari Singh remembered the events of the previous year and while most princes signed the Instrument of Accession of their state to the Dominion of India, Hari Singh prevaricated. What would happen to him and his state under Nehru's rule? He also knew that the future of his state could not lie with Jinnah and his government.
In September, he decided to offer Kashmir's accession to India. This was refused by Nehru, who first wanted Sheikh Abdullah to be freed and installed as prime minister of the state. This was not acceptable to the maharaja.
Things came to a head at the end of October 1947 when raiders from the North West Frontier Province entered the state, killing, looting, and raping along. On October 26, they had reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Hari Singh agreed to sign the Instrument of Accession.
On the same day a historic meeting was held in Delhi with Mountbatten, the governor general, as chairman. A young army colonel named Sam Manekshaw, who attended the meeting, recalled: 'As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God Almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, 'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?' He [Nehru] said, 'Of course, I want Kashmir.' Then he [Patel] said: 'Please give your orders.'
This anecdote perfectly exemplifies Nehru, who could make the greatest speeches, but was unable to take a decision at a crucial moment. Thanks to Patel's decisiveness, troops were flown to Srinagar the next morning and the airport, the only link with India, was saved. Military operations to expel the raiders started.
Nehru's colleagues soon discovered they had made another serious blunder, a collective one. They had chosen Mountbatten to be the first governor general of independent India while Jinnah had kept the post for himself in Pakistan. At that time, it was probably easier for the Congress to have a foreigner as the head of the Dominion; it conveniently avoided having to choose among themselves. However, Mountbatten manipulated matters so well that he became chairman of a newly created defence council. Nehru did not see a problem in this: Mountbatten (and his wife) were his best friends.
But this was to have grave repercussions on Kashmir policy. Mountbatten, a British officer, was now at the helm of the executive defence machinery. British generals still serving in India reported to him. Mountbatten was not working for India's interests, but the British crown's.
Nehru's sentimental attachment to the Mountbattens deeply vitiated the Kashmir issue. It was certainly the most important factor for the failure to find a solution in the first years of the conflict.
Events took a turn for the worse at the end of December 1947 when the governor general managed to convince Nehru that India had to refer the Kashmir issue to the UN instead of conducting a military counterattack in West Punjab. Patel did not agree. But at this precise point in time the Sardar, who had so far looked after the relations with the princely states, was sidetracked. On December 23, he wrote his resignation, but was prevented (by Gandhi) from pressing for it. From that day, with Patel out of Kashmir affairs, things went from bad to worse.
In the first months of 1948, during the UN hearings, the British showed where their interests lay. The original Indian complaint was completely left aside and the Security Council began adopting anti-India resolutions.
Abdullah had already started his crusade (particularly with the US administration) for Kashmir's independence. He remained Nehru's friend till his scheming became too dangerous for India. In August 1953, he was finally dismissed by Karan Singh, the sadar-i-riyasat. Two months earlier, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, who had been arrested by Abdullah and left without medical care in Srinagar, died in mysterious circumstances. Nehru had visited the capital of Kashmir a few days earlier, but did not find the time to call on his former Cabinet colleague. He later wrote to Mookerjee's mother: 'Indeed, I hoped that the healthy climate of Kashmir might lead to an improvement in Shyama Babu's health.'
Though in the following years Nehru hardened his position when different UN commissions (Dixon, Graham, Jarring) visited Delhi, it was too late. Pakistan was certainly not interested in vacating the so-called 'Azad Kashmir', rendering the plans for a plebiscite mentioned in the UN resolutions of August 1948 and January 1949 irrelevant.
A few days before his death Nehru sent a freshly released Abdullah to meet Ayub Khan with a proposal to have a confederation of India, Pakistan and Kashmir. The proposal was contemptuously rejected as 'absurd' by the Pakistani military ruler. It was Nehru's last attempt to solve the issue and it failed.
In retrospect, despite Nehru's love for great principles, his incapacity to take decisions in time, his inability to work with colleagues like Patel, and his friendship with individuals such as the Mounbattens or Abdullah, who had their own interests, blinded him so much that he did not further India's national interests. The consequences have been tragic and the muddle created 57 years ago remains far from being sorted out.
April 15, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Nice article man! Nehru’s certain other policies were also questioned by Atanu De on his blog at Deesha.org where he attributes certain bad policies to the current problem in India like poverty, illiteracy etc.
February 3, 2007 at 9:23 am
A very good article indeed. The folly committed by the “GREAT” Pandit Nehru seems to plague even the current times.So much, as is proving to be catastrophic to India’s fast paced development.
July 9, 2007 at 7:04 am
hi, hi, hi! Beautiful site.
November 20, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Its really very good observation dear. It seems that you really love your country. That’s why you seem worried about what blunders or mistakes Nehruji did according to you. But please don’t forget that he was prime minister of our country because he was selected by the people of our country only. And through this article you are telling entire world that decisions taken by him were wrong and the decision taken by Indians was wrong. I request you not to do that, especially when he is an Indian Public Figure.
April 13, 2008 at 6:29 am
THis blunder has confered ‘ownership’ of India to a particular family!
April 14, 2008 at 11:25 am
Well, I cant blame Nehru for it, what has happened to other leaders? What happened to their skills? Why we talk abt Kashmir only? Why not issues we have with NE part of India? If we start blaming our past leaders, then we wont get any where. All I can say people have changed in the last 50 yrs. It was easy for us to accept induviduals as whom they are then but surely not now.
September 21, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Well!
Thanks to Nehru we still need to spend more that 10% of budget on defense[unstable border with POK and MacMohan Line]. If we had peaceful border with our neighbors like US/Canada we could have diverted these funds for lot of so called ‘Jana Kalyan’. So now u realise just one blunder, compounded over 60 years has costed us Billions of dollars… my friend.
April 14, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Nehru was a miserable failure, in handling the external affairs of the country. I agree with the writer, that on account of Nehru’s ambivalence and indecisiveness, we lost Kashmir. If he had agreed to Sardar’s suggestion of Militiary action, a quick and permanent accession of Kashmir to India, could have been achieved.His unnecessary and controvertial friendship with Lady Mountbatten, does not speak well about a person having a High Office.Years later, his Panchsheel and India-Chini-bhai-bhai, was put to the sword by the same Chinese, who back-stabbed him and invaded and occupied a portion of Kashmir in 1962. It is said that 1962 Chinese invasion, was a brutal shock to Nehru, that he died of Heart Attack in May 1964.Again the foreign policy of Nehru failed.He could have taken American help to repulse China.It is a shame that his great-grandson Rahul’s name is proposed for P.M’s post- shame, because it shows the sub-servient and servant-like attitude of the Indian masses to the Nehru family.Shame that the democracy is so shallow in our country.
August 21, 2008 at 11:45 am
What ever may be the case we, indians should not loose Kashmir. It is india’.
August 21, 2008 at 11:46 am
What ever may be the case we, indians should not loose Kashmir. It is india’s.
August 21, 2008 at 11:46 am
What ever may be the case we, indians should not loose Kashmir. It is india’s.
December 29, 2008 at 3:03 pm
i only silver lining to the chinese attack on india was that it possibly hastened the senile nehru’s death – he was an abysmal failure when it came to foreign policies and regional politics. today, we are paying for his stupidity
June 26, 2009 at 10:39 am
I agree with vasudevan, Nehru was a failure as far as his forign policy vision was concerned.India today is paying the cost of Blunders done by nehru in china,kashmir
July 2, 2009 at 10:35 am
Nice article, but a bitter truth. Being a Kashmiri Hindu, I can personally feel the disaster that is happening right now in Kashmir and it was because of Nehru’s inclination towards Muslims (refer to Nehru history by his Pvt secretary) that forced Hindus to nigrate from their motherland and live as refuges in independent India. And now India is still not able to do anything to reclain Kashmir from Pakistan.
September 21, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Yes!
Its the misfortune of our country that we had ignorant and stupid leaders like Gandhi and Nehru who would sacrifice the national interests and people’s life to stay afloat on their lofty principles. Violence during the Indo-Pak Partition, Kashmir issue are some of the examples.
Anyways.. There is no point in bitching. The wooing still continues..First by the Forefathers now by the childrens…