'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?'

[kaykay]

@Nassr well what Nehru said in 52 can't be treated as the final words without considering further circumstances. And at that time many leaders said many things but many of those things are still to be fulfilled such as Jinnah also said during independence that Pakistan would treat all minorties as equal and it'll respect secular values. But alas things went opposite....

 

[Bang Galore]

From what I know, to stop the war mid way and go the UN was Nehru's decision while Patel was against it. This had nothing to do with accession, or could have continued the military campaign despite, without any consequence regarding it. Nehru was more idealistic than realist, compared to Patel. Correct me if I am wrong here. Though this is ifs and buts..

Some more Ifs and buts: I never said Patel would not gone to war with China, but India would not have been so humiliated. The army chief would probably be still be Thimmaya, DM other than Menon. And army well prepared since 50's.

But this is a fact that Nehru failed in his foreign policy. Keeping India socialist is one thing, totally failing to gain economic support of west is another. This is something Pak earned and developed on. He failed to foresee the effect of Tibetian issue, or paranoia of Mao. Kept wrong people around, listened to an arrogant DM over army intel. Took Kashmir to UN. Despite calling China as a brother, continued the forward policy. Give asylum to who they perceived terrorist and than wonder why they would attack you! What is it about his foreign policy that you like?

It is not about liking Nehru's foreign policy, it is a bout the distortions of history that creep in. Patel wasn't very interested in Kashmir & would not have cared much for it in the first place. True that Patel was a realist & Nehru an idealist but that by itself is not the worst criticism. Both had their place.

Patel was a hard-nosed realist on China while Nehru was enamoured of a India-China friendship. Nehru did let Tibet & by that action, India down on the China issue and that remains a most telling indictment of his foreign policy but since Patel wasn't alive by then, there is little scope to have had hope for a different take. Giving Dalai Lama refuge was not an easy act, Nehru was against the Dalai Lama coming ibto India but honoured him as a guest when he did come. That criticism is not valid unless you believe that India's China policy must be to do what the Chinese want you to do. Give them Arunachal?

Socialism is far more difficult to object to when you realise it was the 50's & early 60's. There sisn't look like any other way to go, not for a country that had just freed itself from colonialism. The flaws of socialism would show up later & it was Indira Gandhi who was more to blame for that mess.

 

[INDIC]

@Nassr well what Nehru said in 52 can't be treated as the final words without considering further circumstances. And at that time many leaders said many things but many of those things are still to be fulfilled such as Jinnah also said during independence that Pakistan would treat all minorties as equal and it'll respect secular values. But alas things went opposite....

Jinnah even said all princely state would be free to decide their fate. Jinnah said on 17th June 1947 that "constitutionally and legally the Indian States will be independent sovereign states on the termination of paramountcy and they will be free to decide for themselves to adopt any course they like. It is open to them to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly, or the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, or decide to remain independent"

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Gained enemity of China? Maybe you should read Patel's letter to Nehru about China, not a friendly one. Had Patel more say, Kashmir might not be part of India, not the other way around. Patel as HM could only issue orders on Nehru's behalf, not on his own. Nehru's dithering should be understood in the context of stated policy of the INC with regard to accession of princely states. People must read more, not fall prey to their existing biases.

Not convincing.

Please post Patel's Letter.
A country is ruled with the interests of the State in mind and not 'stated policy of the INC'.

 

[adwityagrata]

Nehru's remit was far greater than patels, hence he had to think of everything. Patel was not a PM material, he was more of a bully.. perfect for HM role.

Nehru did not have the ability to 'think of everything'. That is why he was such a lousy PM. The One who's legacy we are still suffering.....enmity of pakistan, enmity with china, glorifying poverty, institutionalizing caste via constitution and massive illiteracy.

Patel was PM Material. Everybody in the congress thought so. Which is why everybody voted for him, not Nehru. Nehru got ZERO nomination. That is what other congress leaders thought of nehru.

Let me tell you a true story that shows how much of a 'bully', Sardar Patel was.

Sardar Patel dream was to go to UK and study and become a Barrister. However he was too poor to be able to afford that. So he worked hard, saved money, borrowed books to study and finally applied for a passport and visa. However when his papers arrived, His elder brother Vitthalbahi Patel got jealous and asked Sardar Patel to hand over the money and papers to him so that he could go to UK and study.

Sardar Patel the 'bully' quietly handed over both to his brother and even sent him some more money to help him finish his education in UK. Sardar Patel then continued to save money for himself and then finally was able to go to UK and pass the Barrister examination and stood First.

This same character of Sardar Patel being a 'Bully' is again visible, when Gandhi asked him to step down and allow nehru become the PM.


Next time, its better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a Fool, than open your Mouth and confirm their doubts.

 

[Bang Galore]

Not convincing.

Please post Patel's Letter.
A country is ruled with the interests of the State in mind and not 'stated policy of the INC'.

Remember the time, the state was still being formed. The official position of the INC was important to both Nehru & Patel.

The link to the letter of Patel is below (shows how sharp he was in his reading of China as compared to the idealist Nehru):

Sardar Patel's Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru (7 November 1950)
| Friends of Tibet (INDIA)

NEW DELHI
7 November 1950

My Dear Jawaharlal,

Ever since my return from Ahmedabad and after the Cabinet meeting the same day which I had to attend at practically 15 minutes notice and for which I regret I was not able to read all the papers,I thought I should share with you what is passing through my mind.

I have carefully gone through the correspondence between the External Affairs Ministry and our Ambassador in Peking and through him the Chinese Government.I have tried to peruse this correspondence favourably(sic) to our Ambassador and the Chinese Government as possible,but I regret to say that neither of them comes out well as a result of this study,The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professins of peaceful intentions.My own feeling is that at a cruicial period they managed to instil into our Ambassador a false sense of confidence in their so called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means.

There can be no doubt that during the period covered by this correspondence,the Chinese must have been concentrating for an onslaught on Tibet.The final action of the Chinese,in my judgement,is little short of perfidy.The tragedy of it is that the Tibetans put faith in us;they chose to be guided by us;and we have been unable to get them out of the meshes of Chinese diplomacy or Chines malevolence.From the latest position,it appears that we shall not be able to rescue the Dalai Lama.

Our Ambassador has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions.As the External Affairs Ministry remarked in one of their telegrams,there was a lack of firmness and unnecessary apology in one or two representations that he made to the Chinese Government on our behalf.

It is impossible to imagine any sensible person believing in the so-called threat to China from Anglo-American diplomacy or strategy.This feeling,if genuinely entertaind by the Chinese in spite of your direct approaches to them,indicates that even though we regard ourselves as friends of China ,'THE CHINESE DO NOT REGARD US AS THEIR FRIENDS(EMPHASIS MINE!!).With the Communist mentality of 'whoever is not with them being against them',this is a significant pointer,of which we have to take due note.

During the last several months,outside the Russian camp,we have been practically alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into the UNO and in securing from the Americans assurances on the question of Formosa.We have done everything we could to assuage Chinese feelings,to allay its apprehensions and to defend its legitimate claims in our discussions and correspondence with America and Britain and in the UNO.In spite of this,China is not convinced about our disinterestedness;it continues to regard us with suspicion and the whole psychology is one,at least outwardly,of scepticism,perhaps mixed with a little hostility.

I doubt if we can go any further than we have done already to convince China of our good intentions,friendliness and goodwill.In Peking we have an Ambassador who is emunently suitable for putting across the friendly point of view.Even he seems to have failed to convert the Chinese.Their last telegram to us is an act of gross discourtesy not only in the summary way it disposes of our protest against the entry of Chinese forces into Tibet but also in the wild insinuation that our attitude is determined by foreign influences.It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a "POTENTIAL ENEMY"(EMPHIS MINE).

With this background,we have to consider what new situation we are now faced with as a result of the disappearance of Tibet,as we knew it,and the Chinese expansion almost upto our gates. Throughout history, we have been seldom worried about our North-East frontier. The Himalayas have been regarded as an impregnable barrier against any threat from the North. We had a friendly Tibet , which gave us no trouble. The Chinese were divided. They had their own domestic problems and never bothered us about our frontiers.

In 1914,we entered into a convention with Tibet,which was not endorsed by the Chinese.We seem to have regarded Tibetan autonomy as extending to (an) independent treaty relationship.Presumably,all that we required was the Chinese counter-signature.The Chinese interpretation of suzerainty seems to be different.We can,therefore,safely assume that very soon they will disown all the stipulations which Tibet has entered into in the past.That throws all frontier and commercial settlements with Tibet,in accordance with which we had been functioning and acting during the last half a century,into the melting pot.

China is no longer divided.It is united and strong.All along the Himalayas in the North and North-East,we have on our side of the frontier a population not ethnologically or culturally different from Tibetans or Mongloids.The undefined state of the frontier and existence on our side of a population with affinities to Tibetans or Chinese has all the elements of potential trouble between China and us.Recent and bitter history also tells us that communism is no shield against imperialism,and that COMMUNISTS ARE AS GOOD OR AS BAD IMPERIALISTS AS ANY OTHER(EMPHSIS MINE!!).

Chinese ambitions in this respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side but also include important parts of Assam.They have their ambitions in Burma also.Burma has the added difficulty that it has no McMohan Line around which to build up even the semblance of an agreement.Chinese irrentism and communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism of the Western Powers.The former has an ideological cloak,WHICH MAKES IT TEN TIMES WORSE(EMPAHSIS MINE!!).

Racial,national or historical claims lie concealed in the guise of ideological expansion.The danger from the North and North-East,therefore,becomes both communist and imperialist.While our Western and North-Western threat to security is still as prominent as before,A NEW THREAT HAS DEVELOPED FROM THE NORTH AND NORTH-EAST(EMPHASIS MINE!!).

Thus for the first time after centuries,India's defence has to concentrate on two fronts simultaneously.Our defence measures have so far been based on calculations of superiority over Pakistan.We shall now have to reckon with communist China in the North and North-East,A COMMUNIST CHINA WHICH HAS DEFINITE AMBITIONS AND AIMS AND WHICH DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SEEM FRIENDLY TOWARDS US(EMPHASIS MINE!!)

Let us also consider the political conditions on this potentially troublesome frontier.Our Northern or Northeastern approaches consist of Nepal,Bhutan,Sikkim,Darjeeling and tribal areas in Assam.They are weak from the point of view of communications.Continuous defensive lines do not exist.There is an almost unlimited scope for infiltration.Police protection is limited to a very small number of passes.There,too,our outposts do not seem to be fully manned.Our contact with these areas is by no means close and intimate.

The people inhabiting these portions have no established loyalty or devotion to India.Even the Darjeeling and Kalimpong areas are not free from pro-Mongloid prejudices.During the last three years,we have not been able to make any appreciable approaches to the Nagas and other hill tribes in Assam.European missionaries and other visitors have been in touch with them,but their influence was in no way friendly where Indians were considered.There was political ferment in Sikkim some time ago.It is quite possible that discontent is smouldering there.

Bhutan is comparitively quiet,but its affinity with Tibetans would be a handicap.Nepal has a weak oligarchic regime based almost entirely on force;it is in conflict with a turbulent element of the population,as well as with enlightened ideas of modern age.In these circumstances,to make people aware of the new danger,or to increase the defensive strength is a very difficult task indeed;and that difficulty can be got over only by enlightened firmness,strngth and a clear line of policy.

I am sure the Chinese and their source of inspiration,Soviet Russia,would not miss any oppurtunity of exploiting these weak spots,partly in support of their ideology and partly their ambition.In my judgement, therefore,the situation is one in which we cannot afford to be either complacent or vacillating.We must ahve a clear idea of what we wish to acheive and the methods by which we should acheive it.Any lack of decisiveness in formulating our objectives or pursuing our policy to attain them is bound to weaken us and increase the threats.

Along with these external dangers,we shall now have to face serious internal problems as well.Hitherto,the Communist Party of India has found some difficulty in contacting communists abroad,or in getting supplies of arms,literature etc.from them.They had to contend with the difficult Burmese and Pakistan frontiers in the East or with the long seaboard.They shall now have a comparitively easy means of access to Chinese communists,and through them to other foreign communists.Infiltration of spies,fifth columnists and communists would now be easier.

The whole situation thus raises a number of problems on which we must come to an early decision so that we can,as I said earlier,formulate the objectives and methods of our policy.

It is also clear that the action will have to be fairly comprehensive,involving not only our defence strategy and state of preparations,but also problems of internal security.We shall also have to deal with administrative and political problems in the weak spots along the frontier to which I have already referred.

It is,of course,impossible for me to exhaustively set out all the problems.I have,however,given below some of the problems which,in my opinion,require early solutions,around which we have to build our administrative or military policy measures.

1. 
   
   
   • A military and intelligence appreciation of the Chinese threat to India ,both on the frontier and internal security.
   • An examination of our military position and such re-disposition of forces as might be necessary,particularly with the idea of guarding important routes or areas which are likely to be the subject of dipute.
   • An appraisement of the strength of our forces and,if necessary,reconsideration of our retrenchment plans for the Army in the light of these new threats.
   • A long term consideration of our defence needs.My own feeling is that unless we assure our supplies of arms,ammunition and armour,we should be MAKING OUR DEFENCE POSITION PERPETUALLY WEAK(EMPHASIS MINE!!) and would not be able to stand up to the double threat of difficulties both from the West and Northwest,North and Northeast.
   • The question of the Chinese entry into UNO.In view of the Chinese rebuff,and the method it has followed in dealing with Tibet ,I doubt whether we can advocate its claims any longer.The UNO would probably threaten to virtually outlaw China in view of its active participation in the Korean War.We must determine our attitude on this question also.
   • The political and administrative steps which we should take to strengthen our Northern and Northeastern frontiers.This would include the entire border.ie. Nepal , Bhutan , Sikkim , Darjeeling and the tribal territory in Assam .
   • Measures of internal security in the border areas,such as U.P, Bihar , Bengal and Assam .
   • Improvements of our communications,road,rail,air and wireless in these areas and with the frontier outposts.
   • Policing and intelligence of frontier outposts.
   • The future of our mission at Lhasa and the trade posts at Gyangtse and Yatung and the forces we have in operation in Tibet to guard the trade routes.
   • The policy in regard to the McMohan Line.

It is possible that a consideration of these matters may lead us into wider questions of our relationship with China,Russia,America,Britain and Burma.This,however would be of a general nature,though some may be important.For instance,we might have to consider whether we should not enter into closed association with Burma in order to strengthen the latter in its dealings with China.

I do not rule out the possibility that,before applying pressure on us, China may do the same to Burma.With Burma ,the frontier is entirely undefined and the Chinese territorial claims are more substantial.In its present position, Burma might offer an easier problem for China and,therefore,might claim its first attention. I suggest that we meet early to have a general discussion on these problems and decide on such steps as we might think to be immediately necessary and direct quick examination of other problems with a view to taking early measures to deal with them.

Yours,

Vallabhai Patel.

Patel died a month later and we know the course of history.

 

[Nassr]

@Nassr well what Nehru said in 52 can't be treated as the final words without considering further circumstances. And at that time many leaders said many things but many of those things are still to be fulfilled such as Jinnah also said during independence that Pakistan would treat all minorties as equal and it'll respect secular values. But alas things went opposite....

We are discussing Nehru and Kashmir here. Why are bringing Jinnah in this discussion and the treatment of minorities in Pakistan. Please stick to the topic. 

It is not about liking Nehru's foreign policy, it is a bout the distortions of history that creep in. Patel wasn't very interested in Kashmir & would not have cared much for it in the first place. True that Patel was a realist & Nehru an idealist but that by itself is not the worst criticism. Both had their place.

Patel was a hard-nosed realist on China while Nehru was enamoured of a India-China friendship. Nehru did let Tibet & by that action, India down on the China issue and that remains a most telling indictment of his foreign policy but since Patel wasn't alive by then, there is little scope to have had hope for a different take. Giving Dalai Lama refuge was not an easy act, Nehru was against the Dalai Lama coming ibto India but honoured him as a guest when he did come. That criticism is not valid unless you believe that India's China policy must be to do what the Chinese want you to do. Give them Arunachal?

Socialism is far more difficult to object to when you realise it was the 50's & early 60's. There sisn't look like any other way to go, not for a country that had just freed itself from colonialism. The flaws of socialism would show up later & it was Indira Gandhi who was more to blame for that mess.

I do not understand as to why do you people belittle Nehru so much. He was a realist as well and a cold one at that. Please read "Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru" and you may be surprised at some of the things he did as a cold hearted Kissinger type of a realist. Atleast this is how I look at him. And yes he was a visionary as well. One can not lead a country through to independence unless there is a vision.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Remember the time, the state was still being formed. The official position of the INC was important to both Nehru & Patel.

The link to the letter of Patel is below (shows how sharp he was in his reading of China as compared to the idealist Nehru):

Sardar Patel's Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru (7 November 1950)
| Friends of Tibet (INDIA)



Patel died a month later and we know the course of history.

Though I will take it as genuine, if you can post a reference or two

I don't think that was Patel's China hatred, instead there was a genuine reflection of the threat perception. The only advice it gave was actually very sane - be prepared and rethink relations with all major nations in the world.

 

[Nassr]

Why does it sound so difficult to believe ?

Leaders & politicians lie all the time & when they do not lie they change their statements too. Their word is not the word of God that cannot be changed.

Remember in 71 the nation was not told of the fall of Dhaka till the world press brought it to light.

Zia promised elections many times.. & so many more.

Such things happen.

The legacies don't go away and the decisions markedly effect the future. Are we proud of fall of Dacca or Zia's shenanigans. No, as we suffered due to decisions taken by a few.

 

[third eye]

The legacies don't go away and the decisions markedly effect the future. Are we proud of fall of Dacca or Zia's shenanigans. No, as we suffered due to decisions taken by a few.

Agreed

The point I was trying to make is that things can , do & will change all the time based on realities.

 

[adwityagrata]

We are discussing Nehru and Kashmir here. Why are bringing Jinnah in this discussion and the treatment of minorities in Pakistan. Please stick to the topic. 


I do not understand as to why do you people belittle Nehru so much. He was a realist as well and a cold one at that. Please read "Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru" and you may be surprised at some of the things he did as a cold hearted Kissinger type of a realist. Atleast this is how I look at him. And yes he was a visionary as well. One can not lead a country through to independence unless there is a vision.

No one belittle Nehru when speaking about him during India's freedom struggle. He conducted himself well and was a true leader during the freedom struggle.

It is his actions and results as a PM of free India that has led to loss of respect. He was poorly equipped to lead Independent India. Nominating him was one of Gandhi's biggest blunder. We can only take consolation in the fact that no body is perfect. (though Sardar Patel came close)

 

[Bang Galore]

Though I will take it as genuine, if you can post a reference or two

Sardar Patel saw through China

I first read this letter in Jaswant Singh's book.

I don't think that was Patel's China hatred, instead there was a genuine reflection of the threat perception. The only advice it gave was actually very sane - be prepared and rethink relations with all major nations in the world.

Nobody had hatred, it is quite simply a reading of what our national interests were.

 

[Nassr]

No one belittle Nehru when speaking about him during India's freedom struggle. He conducted himself well and was a true leader during the freedom struggle.

It is his actions and results as a PM of free India that has led to loss of respect. He was poorly equipped to lead Independent India. Nominating him was one of Gandhi's biggest blunder. We can only take consolation in the fact that no body is perfect. (though Sardar Patel came close)

You can not compare a Prime Minister's work with that of a Home Minister. Particularly when the Home Minister is advising the Prime Minister on country's foreign policy instead of internal affairs. Either the Home minister was not doing his own work or he wanted to become the Foreign Minister.

 

[Dash]

Though I will take it as genuine, if you can post a reference or two

I don't think that was Patel's China hatred, instead there was a genuine reflection of the threat perception. The only advice it gave was actually very sane - be prepared and rethink relations with all major nations in the world.

That letter is genuine...I have seen that letter in many books written about Sino-Indian war. 

Sardar Patel saw through China

I first read this letter in Jaswant Singh's book.



Nobody had hatred, it is quite simply a reading of what our national interests were.

And I read it in Major Dalvi's book "The Himalayan Blunder"

 

[Bang Galore]

Though I will take it as genuine, if you can post a reference or two

Further to my post. A reference you might like:

Sardar Patel had warned Nehru against China, says Modi.
Ahmedabad, Oct 1(ANI): Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday said that first Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had warned first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru against China in November 1950.

Modi said this while inaugurated a community hall at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Memorial in Ahmedabad city, where President Pratibha Patil was also present.

Addressing the assembly, Modi said: "In November 1950, Sardar Patel had written a letter to Nehru. In the letter he had written that India should reconsider and change its defence policy in reference to China. He said we should not come under the nfluence of China as it can pose a great danger to us."

"In November 1950, while lying on the deathbed he had warned Nehru in his letter. And history has witnessed that how right he was in estimating the danger. Today also China is responsible for the rise of several problems," Modi added.

Sardar Patel had warned Nehru against China, says Modi. - Free Online Library