Why Nehru delayed Kashmir's accession to India: Kiren Rijiju on what really happened

A recent article that I wrote on Jawaharlal Nehru’s ‘Panch Bhool’ or ‘Five Blunders’ on Kashmir has invited varied reactions. Among or things, I wrote that Maharaja Hari Singh’s government wanted to accede to India even before August 15, 1947, but it was Nehru who refused. This assertion was based on a version of events narrated by Nehru and no one else.

It is in this context that response to my article by Dr Karan Singh is deeply disappointing. He completely skipped or four blunders of Nehru – suo motu insisting that accession was provisional; moving UN under wrong Article after Pakistan’s invasion, reby making it a party to dispute inste of an aggressor; letting myth of a UN-mandated plebiscite perpetuate; and creation of divisive Article 370.

Obviously, re were no answers or even a modicum of plausible defence. But on first and primary blunder – of Nehru delaying accession itself – Dr Karan Singh has presented a sanitised history, resorted to poor wordplay, and, that too, in a roundabout way to somehow extricate Nehru. However, this was not enough for Congress. A lifetime of devotion to Nehru despite voluminous evidence of his blunders, could still not save Dr Karan Singh from acerbic reminder of his place by Jairam Ramesh of Congress.

That Congress and its ruling dynasty puts Nehru (and later members of dynasty) first and India later, is a well-established fact. But it is time for students of history to find courage, in light of facts, to set history right, clear name of those unfairly besmirched by family historians to make Nehru look good.

To specific points raised, here is a brief set of facts.

On timing of accession

clincher should be Nehru’s speech dated July 24, 1952, in Lok Sabha where he mentioned that question of accession “came up before us informally round about July or middle of July” and furr stated that “we h contacts with popular organisation re, National Conference, and its leers, and we h contacts with Maharaja’s Government also“. Nehru n, in same speech, went on to assert his own stance – “ vice we gave to both was that Kashmir is a special case and it would not be right or proper to try to rush things re”.

Since circuitous denial of this history has been resorted to, let us n look at furr primary as well as corroborative evidence.

First, on October 21, 1947, in a letter to MC Mahajan, Prime Minister of Kashmir, Nehru wrote, “It will probably be undesirable to make any declaration of hesion to Indian Union at this stage". What do se words convey? Who was asking for accession and who was delaying it? Pakistan h alrey inved Kashmir on October 20, 1947. On October 21, a day later, Nehru was still vising Kashmir government not to accede to India till his personal wishes and agenda were fulfilled (which he explicitly enunciated in same letter). Will this evidence be denied as well?

Second, in a speech delivered on November 25, 1947, in Parliament, when issue was still evolving internationally, Nehru stated – “We did not want a mere accession from top but an association in accordance with will of her people. Indeed, we did not encourage any rapid decision".

As clear as daylight, not once but on multiple occasions, Nehru himself stated as to who was putting conditions on accession and reby delayed it till personal agenda was fulfilled. But this is not only evidence, although more than sufficient as it is, available that throws a light on chain of events.

Third, Acharya Kripalani, president of Indian National Congress, visited Kashmir in May 1947. A report published in  Tribune on May 20, 1947, recorded this about Kripalani’s views: “Hari Singh was keen to accede to India and that it was not correct on part of National Conference to raise demand of ‘Quit Kashmir’ against Hari Singh. ‘He is not an outsider’…He appealed to National Conference in particular to give up call of ‘Quit Kashmir’". 

‘Quit Kashmir’ movement was launched by Sheikh Abdullah in 1946. He was supported in this agitation by Nehru. Hari Singh, a Dogra king, was not an outsider to Kashmir and h as many rights in Kashmir Valley as anyone else. Every or Congress leer understood absurdity of replicating ‘Quit India’ call against colonial British with a ‘Quit Kashmir’ call against a Kashmiri Hindu ruler. Yet, Nehru plunged helong in support of Abdullah and even landed up in Kashmir to support him. This started a chain of events that h deces-long tragic consequences.

As early as 1931, during Round Table Conference in London, Hari Singh h asserted in House of Lords as Vice-Chancellor of Chamber of Prince’s: “I am an Indian first, and n a Maharaja". same Hari Singh was, thus, obviously pleing to join India in 1947 on multiple occasions but was thwarted on each occasion till Nehru’s agenda was fulfilled.

Fourth, Nehru’s note to Lord Mountbatten before his visit to Kashmir in June 1947 is unequivocal on what Hari Singh actually wanted. Nehru wrote in para 28 of that note – “ normal and obvious course appears to be for Kashmir to join Constituent Assembly of India. This will satisfy both popular demand and  Maharaja’s wishes". So, Nehru was absolutely aware in June 1947 of what Hari Singh actually wanted. only stumbling block was Nehru’s own agenda.

Fifth, with July 1947 attempt of accession rebuffed by Nehru, an attempt was me by Hari Singh in September 1947 as well, a full month before Pakistan’s invasion. Mahajan, Prime Minister of Kashmir at time of accession, recounts his meeting with Nehru in September 1947. Writing in his autobiography, Mahajan states: “I also met Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India…  Maharaja was willing to accede to India and also to introduce necessary reforms in ministration of state. He, however, wanted question of ministrative reforms to be taken up later on. Panditji wanted an immediate change in internal ministration of state". 

Thus, we see that statements by Nehru, not once but on multiple occasions, and letters written by Nehru, along with corroborative evidence, unambiguously establish fact that only cause that delayed Kashmir’s accession to India was Nehru’s own personal obsession.

What actually happened?

Abdullah h given a call of ‘Quit Kashmir’ in May 1946. Hari Singh h him arrested on May 20, 1946. Nehru rushed in to support Abdullah, Hari Singh detained him at border. An aide of Nehru recorded in a note Nehru’s reaction on being detained – “He violently trampled his foot on floor and told m that one day Maharaja of Kashmir would have to repent and apologise to him for discourtesy shown to president-elect of Indian National Congress". Nehru, so embittered, ruthlessly chose his time to avenge discourtesy.

sequence of events of 1947

Kripalani in May 1947 vised to drop insistence on ‘Quit Kashmir’ and facilitate accession, which Hari Singh wanted, but to no avail. Nehru was aware even in June 1947 that all that Hari Singh wanted was to join Indian dominion. Nehru stated as much in his note to Mountbatten.

Hari Singh’s government actually approached Indian leership in July 1947 (per Nehru’s own statement) to join India but Nehru declined. For no or princely ruler was criteria of popular support invented to determine accession. It was neir a legal requirement nor necessitated by statecraft. Yet, only for Kashmir, Nehru conveniently invented this ruse to thwart accession until his demand pertaining to Abdullah was met.

Undeterred, Hari Singh tried again, this time through a new person. Mahajan, now PM-designate of Kashmir, personally approached Nehru to join India in September 1947. Hari Singh, by this time, h agreed to most demands me by Nehru, accepted to change ministration of Kashmir but only requested that it be done after accession. Nehru still remained amant and wanted ministration change – installation of Abdullah – first and accession later.

With Nehru amant to have his way, Hari Singh me a furr concession and released Abdullah from prison on September 29, 1947. Armed with this concession, Hari Singh’s government again approached Nehru to accede to India on October 20, 1947. Nehru refused again through a letter on October 21, and this time put in writing what he actually wanted – installation of Abdullah to he a provisional government. Nehru was very clear in his sequencing. Abdullah first, accession later.

In case anyone doubts this incontrovertible sequence of events, n re is one more proof – again by Nehru himself, and in writing. In a letter to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on September 27, 1947, Nehru wrote: “re is no or course open to Maharaja but this: to release Sheikh Abdullah and National Conference leers, to make a friendly approach to m, seek ir cooperation and make m feel that this is really meant and n to declare hesion to Indian Union".

Nehru could have forced Hari Singh to accept anything he wanted after accession. This is exactly how it panned in every or princely state. Logic, national interest and common sense dictated that Nehru first get country united, forever close door to Pakistan by making Kashmir irrevocably accede to India and n later, if he was so enamoured by Abdullah, make him he government. This would have been ‘India First’ approach. But for some inexplicable reason, Nehru put Abdullah first and India second.

Ultimately, history panned out way it did. Pakistan got time to inve Kashmir and become a party and occupy large portions of it. Subsequent tragic events in Kashmir have all been a corollary of this original sin. As for Hari Singh – well, he indeed h to ‘Quit Kashmir’ and only his ashes returned later.

On prior intelligence regarding Pakistani invasion

Dr Karan Singh also mentioned in his article that re was lack of prior intelligence regarding Pakistani invasion. Perhaps, he meant Hari Singh h no intelligence inputs. But same is not true about Nehru. In his Parliament speech dated November 25, 1947, Nehru accepted that he was aware in vance. “In September, news reached us that tribesmen of northwest frontier province were being collected and sent to Kashmir border". In same speech, Nehru furr states, “About this time, state authorities asked us to supply m with arms and munition. We agreed to do so in normal course. But in fact, no supply was me till events took a more serious turn". 

Before this speech, on November 2, 1947, Nehru h dressed nation on Kashmir. In this long speech, Nehru stated, “We were asked by Kashmir state to provide m with arms. We took no urgent steps about it and although sanction was given by our state and defence ministries, actually no arms were sent". 

This clarifies furr callous role Nehru was playing with security of region – using it as a tool to get his demands fulfilled. Kashmir region, in particular, and India, in general, are still paying price for this gamesmanship by Nehru.

Or interventions

Many ditional interventions have also been me on accession chronology that essentially regurgitate old establishment ory of a diring Hari Singh and a keen Nehru. New facts and documents, some of which have come into public domain only recently, when studied holistically, present a new perspective on accession chronology. Nehru’s writings and speeches, as events unfolded, are sufficient proof of what actually happened.

Finally,  Congress has reacted in a predictable manner to an article that relied on Nehru’s own speech as primary evidence. Such was desire of Congress to falsify history that y fielded Jairam Ramesh, who crudely reminded Dr Karan Singh of his actual standing in party that he has served his entire life. I am sure that response of Congress to this article as well, which is again entirely based on Nehru’s own writings and speeches – and or primary corroborative evidence – would be to again crudely indulge in assertion of fact-free history. This has been method of Congress in last seven deces – of shutting down any scholarly debate that challenges glorification of dynasty, and I am sure it will be same again. Research will not be answered by research (since re can be no answer) but it will be answered by abuse and name-calling.

However, it is time for rest of us as a nation to rebuff attempts to falsify history and stand true to people of region of Jammu, Kashmir and Lakh. people of this region, along with rest of India, deserve to know truth of what actually happened during those tumultuous months and years.