Connect with us

Opinion

Modi says Sardar Patel would have handled Kashmir differently, history says otherwise

Arti Ghargi

Published

on

Nehru

Considering the prejudiced approach to understating Kashmir issue and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s role in it, one would tend to believe what Modi said was correct.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s dislike of Jawaharlal Nehru is not a secret. Some might say, as the opponent party PM Modi attacking Congress’ roots is quite fair in politics. However, from the nature of the attacks, it is evident that Modi perhaps despises Nehru personally. On February 7, addressing the Lok Sabha amidst the ruckus by the opposition, Modi accused Congress of partition. Modi said, “The country was partitioned, the seeds of poison were sown. You divided the country for electoral and petty gains…people are suffering even today.” Then turning to the issue of Kashmir, he said, “Had Sardar Patel been the Prime Minister of the country, a part of my Kashmir would not have been with Pakistan.”

Considering the prejudiced approach to understating Kashmir issue and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s role in it, one would tend to believe what Modi said was correct. However, going through the pages of history would easily give us a peek into all the political turmoil surrounding Kashmir during the time of independence.

PM Modi’s claim that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as Prime Minister of India would have ensured the entire Kashmir including PoK to be ours; when weighed on the balance of facts, lacks credibility. To understand the roles of both Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel on Kashmir, we first need to understand their thoughts on Kashmir.

Kashmir and Junagadh:

Junagadh, a state on the southwestern end of Gujarat had an overwhelming Hindu population. It was ruled by a Muslim ruler Manabhar Khanji. On August 15, 1947; Nawab of Junagarh acceded to Pakistan. While Jinnah accepted the accession, Patel, on the other hand, considered it not legitimate. Patel feared that if Junagadh accedes to Pakistan, it would lead to communal unrest in surrounding regions of Gujarat. He also felt that by accepting Junagadh which had dominant Hindu population, Pakistan itself is contradicting two nation theory proposed by Jinnah. Not able to reach any definite conclusion, Patel suggested giving Pakistan time to void the accession and hold a plebiscite in Junagadh. Samaldas Gandhi formed a government-in-exile of the people of Junagarh. Later, Patel ordered the annexation of Junagarh’s three principalities. Junagarh, facing financial collapse, invited the Government of India to accept the reins of power.

Sardar Patel

Nawab of Junagadh, Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III

Contrary to Junagadh, Kashmir had a predominantly Muslim population and it was ruled by Hindu King Raja Hari Singh. According to historical documents, Maharaja Hari Singh too was hesitant to accede to India as a majority of the state’s population was Muslim. However, instead of acceding to Pakistan, he signed a Standstill Agreement (preserving status quo) with it. In the meantime, the rumours of Kashmir acceding to India spread through Pakistan, after which Pakistan army marched in to take Kashmir by force. In September 1947, Pashtun tribals backed by Pakistani paramilitary forces invaded Kashmir. Kashmir being ill-equipped on the security front, asked for India’s help. However, Indian constitution did not permit the armed forces to intervene in Kashmir as it did not come under India’s territory. Desperate to save the state, Maharaja acceded Kashmir to India and signed the Instrument of Accession. The rest is History that is reminded to us every day without fail.

Sardar Patel

Hindu King of Kashmir Raja Hari Singh

Sardar Patel and Kashmir:

Many people still think Sardar Patel would have handled the Kashmir issue in a very profound manner than Nehru. But unlike their belief, Sardar Patel had always called the Kashmir issue as ‘a severe headache’. The first ever mention of this is found in Integration of the Indian States, a book written by V P Menon, the former political adviser to Mountbatten in 1956. Lord Mountbatten, while on his Kashmir visit two months before independence told Hari Singh that India would not consider it unfriendly if Kashmir decides to accede to Pakistan. Viceroy though also cared to add, “he had a firm assurance on this from Sardar Patel himself”.

The second mention is found in My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel, written by V Shankar, then political secretary to Patel. Shankar wrote that while Mahatma Gandhi had pinned his hope on Raja Hari Singh to join India, Sardar Patel had no reservations over Kashmir Joining Pakistan.

Sardar Patel

Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru with Mahatma Gandhi

In his 1991 biography, Patel: A Life, writer and historian Rajamohan Gandhi throws more light on Patel’s stand on Kashmir. He writes, “Vallabhbhai’s lukewarmness about Kashmir had lasted until September 13, 1947. However, Patel’s attitude changed later that same day — when he heard that Pakistan had accepted Junagadh’s plea for accession.”

Sardar Patel Centenary Volume 2 also mentions an excerpt from Patel’s speech in Junagadh. Patel says, “Pakistan attempted to set off Kashmir against Junagadh. When we raised the question of settlement in a democratic way, they (Pakistan) at once told us that they would consider it if we applied that policy to Kashmir. Our reply was that we would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad.”

The instances in History are enough to tell that Sardar Patel initially was not really keen on getting Kashmir in India as opposed to the recent portrayal of his thoughts.

Rajamohan Gandhi further in his book also divulged that Patel was definitely not happy with many of ways India opted to tackle the Kashmir issue, including the plebiscite and approaching United Nations. However, nowhere in the history, it is noted that Patel vehemently opposed Nehru’s decisions on Kashmir or offered any decisive solution for the issue.

Sardar Patel

Sardar Patel in a meeting with King of Kashmir Hari Singh

But it is interesting to look at Patel’s other statements on Kashmir. In a letter to the founder of the Socialist Party of India-Achyut Patwardhan, Patel had indeed said, “I can solve Kashmir in six months. I would send Sikh settlers to the Valley.”  Referring to his unhappiness with the plebiscite he had told R K Patil, member of the first Planning Commission on September 28, 1950, “In Kashmir, we are spending crores, (yet) if there is a plebiscite in the Valley, we are bound to lose.”

While the historical documents and witnesses available are still in ambiguity over how Patel would have tackled Kashmir, it would be no short than misjudgement to say that Patel would have found the definitive solution to Kashmir.

Patel, Nehru and Kashmir from Modi’s lens:

Sardar Patel

Narendra Modi paying obituary to Sardar Patel

Modi’s odious obsession with Nehru is not just a part of whataboutery that every political party plays. But it also pits two greatest leaders and modern India’s architects against each other posthumously. What is the point in scraping a wound rather than doing something to heal it? In the four years since Modi stormed to power in 2014, the number of terrorist attacks in Kashmir has increased. More than 800 instances were reported. While 183 Indian army men lost their lives in these attacks, 65 civilians were also killed. The recent attacks on Sunjwan Army camp and past incidents of attack on Pathankot, Gurdaspur and Uri, bare open Modi’s government’s tall claims of reducing numbers of terror attacks under the Modi government.

So if Nehru has to be blamed for the failure to address the Kashmir problem, Modi’s lackadaisical Kashmir policies have also carved a space for himself on the list.

Opinion

Pakistan’s Punjab province minister sacked for anti-minority remarks, but when will India learn?

Smita Sahu

Published

on

Pakistan

It was yesterday that Pakistan’s Punjab Province minister Fayyazul Hassan Chohan was sacked over his anti-Hindu remarks.

However, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan was quick to take notice of such chauvinism, and directed chief minister of Punjab province Usman Buzdar to remove him immediately, stated the party sources.

The official Twitter account of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf tweeted, “PTI Punjab government has removed Fayyaz Chohan from the post of Punjab Information Minister following derogatory remarks about the Hindu community”.

It further stated, “Bashing someone’s faith should not be a part of any narrative. Tolerance is the first & foremost pillar on which #Pakistan was built.”

A spokesman for the Punjab chief minister stated that Chohan submitted his resignation, which was immediately accepted.

Later, according to a senior government official, the chief minister had “forgiven” Chohan after he apologised in public for his remarks, but the prime minister directed Buzdar to immediately remove him from the ministry.

Earlier in the day, Chohan apologised for his remarks following intense criticism. He said, “I was addressing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Indian armed forces and their media not the Hindu community in Pakistan.” He further said, “I apologise if my remarks hurt the Hindu community in Pakistan,” Chohan said. “My remarks were in no way directed at Pakistan’s Hindu community.”

While his remarks attracted much of grave criticism from the minority community and senior party leaders for not watching his remarks and exhibiting insensitivity to the said community, could we in India, say with inflated chests that our political leaders irrespective of the political parties they represent, have not been guilty of putting on display the same kind of approach?

Sample this:

On 19th February Meghalaya governor Tathagata Roy asked for a straight boycott of Kashmir in the wake of the Pulwama attack on his twitter handle.

 

He tweeted, “An appeal from a retired colonel of the Indian Army: Don’t visit Kashmir, don’t go to Amarnath for the next 2 years. Don’t buy articles from Kashmir emporia or Kashmiri tradesman who come every winter. Boycott everything Kashmiri. I am inclined to agree.”

For a person who holds a stature of the governor of a state, Roy’s comments do not just pose to be insensitive but come at a time when particularly the students in Kashmiris are being victimized, and only seem to invoke people against Kashmiris. Worse still, his statements are also flagrant of constitutional principles which he, as governor, is obligated to maintain.

And the array of scathing anti-minority remarks just does not stop at Roy’s statements.

We also have controversy’s favourite child Minister of State for Skill Development.

anantkumar-hegde

Turns out, he was an accused in a hate speech case, under Section 295 A of the IPC, for reportedly making seditious statements about Islam at a press conference in Sirsi town on February 28, 2016. Responding to a question on a number of Muslim youths from Bhatkal town in his constituency being arrested on terrorism charges, Hegde was alleged to have said, “As long as there is Islam in this world, there will be terrorism. Until we eradicate Islam from the world, we will not be able to eliminate terrorism from the world.” He also allegedly called Islam a “ticking bomb”. Result, nothing good came out of the FIR that was registered against him.

And then amidst all of this, how could someone like Sakshi Maharaj let himself abstain and desist from making such communal comments.

Sakshi Maharaj

 

In fact, the BJP MP felt that the problem of the surging population needed his instantaneous attention so that he could cash on the opportunity right ahead of the elections where the polling dates had been already announced by the Election Commission. This was in January 2017. He said, “The population rise is not because of Hindus. The population has risen due to those who support the concept of four wives and 40 children.”

He was later booked in Meerut under section 298 of IPC besides other provisions of law for hurting religious sentiments of Muslims and violation of model code of conduct. But then, as is usually the case, one does not know as to what further action was taken in this regard.

With all this blatant exhibition of hatred and antagonism for the minorities in a secular nation like ours, how is it that not one of these was told to resign? What has been done as a corrective measure to ensure that a line is drawn to such seditious statements? With Pakistan bringing in such welcome changes into its governance, it is high time the ruling dispensations follow our neighbouring country’s example and start bringing such remedial into action to curb such anti-minority remarks.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Air strike will help BJP to win more than 22 Lok Sabha seats in Karnataka, claims BS Yeddyurappa

News Desk

Published

on

karnataka

Bengaluru | BJP leader and former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa on Wednesday said that the recent IAF Air strike on terror camps in P0K will help BJP to win more than 22 Lok Sabha seats in his home state Karnataka and help reelect PM Narendra Modi in upcoming Lok Sabha polls.

Addressing media during his visit to Chitradurga in Karnataka, Yeddyurappa claimed that PM Modi’s decision to instruct Indian Air force to conduct airstrike on terror camps across the border has raised the feeling of nationalism among the citizen and will indirectly help BJP to win maximum seats in upcoming Lok Seats in Karnataka. The former CM said, “The Indian Armed Forces proved their mettle by destroying the terrorists’ hideouts. The impact of this strike will help BJP win more than 22 seats in state.”

Yeddyurappa’s statement has come after the recent Airstrike by the Indian Air force on the terror camps of terror organistaion especially Jaish-e-Mohammed which claimed responsibility of the terror attack on the CRPF convoy in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama. According to govt sources more than 300 terrorists were killed in the IAF airstrike in Pakistan’s Balakot, Muzzafarabad.

 

Continue Reading

Opinion

Raghuram Rajan says coalition govt may slow down economy. Does history support his claim?

Arti Ghargi

Published

on

Raghuram Rajan

It was during UPA’s coalition govt. a tenure that India’s GDP growth rate touched the two-digit number for the first time.

“These days’ efforts are being made to popularize a failed experiment in the history of Indian politics by the name of Mahagathbandhan,” fired PM Modi from the podium at BJP’s national convention at Ramleela Maidan. His attack on the opposition came few days before the United Opposition rally at Kolkata’s brigade ground. “These people are trying to make a ‘majboor sarkar’ (a helpless government) and not a “Majboot Sarkar” (A strong government),” he charged further.

This notion that the coalition governments are weaker and not capable of delivering on their promises has been prevalent in the Indian electorate and media for a long time. On Thursday, former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan too expressed the possibility that the Indian economy may slow down if a coalition government comes to power after the 2019 Lok Sabha election. His comments took many by surprise as he has been critical of the demonetization and other economic policies launched by the Modi government-a majority government.

But, does the hysteria that coalition governments are bad for the economy, hold any water? Well, to answer that we first have to look at the history. India has had a long list of coalition governments. Since the time of Morarji Desai to Manmohan Singh’s UPA, in the last fifty years, India has mostly been under the coalition government. The only two elections when the political parties were able to get the majority were- general elections of 1984 and 2014.

Let us first go through India’s GDP growth figures over the years, as it is considered the core indicator of development. We will present the numbers since 1991, as the economy was liberalized in the year. Incidentally, the major economic reform was brought by the PV Narasimha Rao-led coalition government.

According to the World Bank data, in the year 1991, India’s GDP growth was 1.05%. The country was on the brink of an economic crisis when the PV Narasimha Rao government brought in measures to resurrect the economy. From ending license Raj, introducing LPG policy to opening up India’s equity market for the foreign investors, the government transformed the economy. The success of the government in bringing the required economic reform can be gauged by the sheer amount of Foreign Direct Investment. India grew from the minuscule US $132 million in 1991–92 to $5.3 billion in 1995–96. In the last year of the coalition government’s term, the GDP growth of India was recorded at 7.55%.

After the hung parliament in 1996 General Elections, 13 different non-congress, non-BJP political parties came together to form United Front with Deve Gowda as the Prime Minister. He held the office for a brief term before stepping down from the post and making a way for his successor IK Gujaral. During the United Front government, the GDP Growth rate for 1997 and 1998 were 4.5 and 6.1 respectively.

After the United front government, came the coalition government led by BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In his five-year tenure from 1999 to 2004, the GDP growth of India went through many ups and downs. While in 1999, the growth rate was 8.84%, in the subsequent years it fell to 3.84%, 4.82% and 3.80% respectively before taking a jump and hitting 7.86% growth rate in 2003. In the next year, it moved slightly upward and registered 7.9% growth rate.

In its term of five years, the Vajpayee government worked towards increasing foreign investment, modernisation of public and industrial infrastructure, the creation of jobs, rising the high-tech and IT industry.  The policy shift was focused on the salaried class urban and young people.

Then came the UPA government led by the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. As many as 22 parties came together to form the United Progressive Alliance that ruled the country for 10 years from 2004 to 2014. During the first term and half-way through the second tenure, India’s GDP remained constantly rising, except in 2008 when it collapsed to 3.89%. It was during UPA’s tenure that India’s GDP growth rate touched the two-digit number for the first time. The 2006-08 was a period when the poverty fell down drastically.

There was a high rate of growth in manufacturing industries between 2004-05 and 2010-11. In 2012, the UPA government decided to disinvest in the public shares, if successful there would have been a receipt of 20,300 crores that would have provided some relief to the fiscal deficit. The aim of UPA was to bolster economic growth and make India an attractive destination for foreign investment. In 2013, it introduced 51% FDI in the multi-brand retail sector. However, it was met with a lot of opposition.

After 2014, when the Modi government came to power with an absolute majority, India’s growth rate was 7.41%. It rose to 8.41 the subsequent year and then plunged to 7.1% and 6.6% in 2016 and 2017 respectively. The major economic reform that the Modi government undertook was the introduction of GST.

Well, history does not lie but it gives us lessons. And even the former RBI governor YV Reddy agreed that the coalition government produce a better economic result. However, bringing major economic changes mostly depends upon how stable is the prevailing government- coalition or majority. As HW News Business Editor remarked that even if there is a coalition government, the dominant party should be strong enough to push through the economic policies. “A fractious coalition may lead to compromise on various Economic policy issues,” he said.

Continue Reading

Popular Stories

Copyright © 2018 Theo Connect Pvt. Ltd. info@hwnews.in