Didn't yet got the time to comment,was busy on something.Will do soon.Nice to hear from you sir.
I'm in the same boat. I really like Major Amin's analyses, without necessarily agreeing with every word. In this account, too, there are facts that contradict his analysis, but he deserves a serious, well-researched reply. Since I am also desperately tied up, I have been unable to respond. Do write; your work is always a pleasure to read. I will get onto this as soon as I am able to.
Niaz sb,
That is true about the Pathan tribals' conduct. There was that infamous episode at Baramulla where they stopped by for some "R&R" at a convent and lost a day in the process. It is noteworthy that they reached Srinagar on the morning of Oct 27, 1947 if my memory serves me right, while the IAF secured Srinagar airport at midnight of Oct 26. Had they not stopped at Baramulla, they wud have captured Srinagar airport on the evening of Oct 26, which would have meant effectively that India would have lost the Valley forever.
Regards
PS: I believe the IA has learnt its lessons and has built convents on both sides of the GT Road -from Wagah to Panipat.
I obviously don't have to hunt around; the nick is a dead giveaway, as is the hilarious, tongue-in-cheek comment.
Welcome to PDF; I look forward to your posts. You do understand that we will be battling each other on various issues, without rancour.
This is just history from the purely military angle, what is missing is the political scene. Winston Churchill is supposed to have said that “War is too important to be left to the generals”. One must realize that while battles may be won & lost by the military; wars are won and lost by the politicians.
I was very young at that time. We were at Sialkot and I don’t remember a lot except that trenches had been dug in our front garden as a precautionary measure.
In 1957, I became friendly with a two brothers who had been given scholarship to Gov’t College Sargodha because they were Kashmiri refugees from Mandi (Thana Mandi) Rajouri District. I even went to their house in Block 7 a couple of times. Their father was also an ex- Indian military NCO demobilised after the WW2 ended. The story told to me was:
Apparently, the Raja wanted to remain independent and his later tilt towards India was because of the revolt by some leaders of the former Muslim Conference. Additionally, because Sheikh Abdulla was for India and he was undoubtedly the most popular Muslim leader in Kashmir. Also according to my late father; all the refugees who arrived in Sialkot after Dogra soldiers started to massacre Muslims in the Jammu, spoke very highly of Sh. Abdulla.
Sheikh Abdulla had been heretofore in prison, was released on 29 September. He hurriedly organised a Kashmir militia for the defence of Srinagar after the rebel forces headed by Sardar Ibrahim attacked on October 22, 1947. It may be a coincidence, but Sheikh Abdulla was appointed as head of the Kashmir Emergency Administration on October 30, 1947.
IMO if Srinagar had fallen before the Raja signed the instrument of Accession, things could have been different. But after Kashmir Raja acceded to India on October 26, 1947; the result was a foregone conclusion on the basis of simple arithmetic.
At the time of partition, British Indian Army consisted of about 500,000 personnel. These were divided on the basis pf 36% for Pakistan & 64% for India. In October 1947, Pakistan only had about 10 infantry brigades and most of these were under 50% strength. There were nearly 500 British officers at senior positions. British officers in reality reported to Field Marshal Auchinleck who was then the C in C. Being part of the British Indian Army, all the Muslim, the Sikh and the Hindu soldiers were equally well trained, so you can’t say that one third would have overcome the balance two third in case of total war.
Of course there many 'Hawkes' such as Brig Akbar Khan (later Maj General) on Pakistan side who wanted to continue the fight. They had presumed that Pakistan Army would capture Kashmir despite that fact Indian forces joined the fray. In my view they were being naïve.
Earl Mountbatten had been Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia before his appointment as Viceroy of India and therefore Auchinleck was his subordinate. To expect that Mountbatten as Gov. General of India would have calmly accepted defeat of the Indian Army at the hands of a much smaller Pakistan Army is unrealistic
You can blame Liaqat Ali Khan & rest of the Muslim League leaders for being cowards but I blame loss of Kashmir on the indiscriminate raping & pillaging by the Pathan tribal volunteers. Since it had been made clear to Liaqat Ali Khan by Auchinleck that he should not expect aid from any quarter if he continued the fight; Liaqat Ali khan had no other choice but to accept ceasefire brokered by the UN.
My personnel opinion is that idea of relying on unruly & undisciplined Pathan tribesmen in this war was a big mistake. Northern Areas remain Pakistani to this day because the rebellion was totally indigenous. Also there was no open revolt in the valley itself. Both the rebel leaders, Sardar Ibrahim & Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan were from the Poonch District.
It is possible that without the pillage by the Pathan tribals, Kashmiri Muslim population would have been more supportive of Pakistan and the Kashmiri leaders of the Sh Abdulla’s stature would have not been pro-India.
But now a lot of water has gone under the bridge and there is little use crying over spilt milk. I would however comment that Pundit Nehru, being more wily than Liaqat Ali khan, by successfully seducing the Lion of Kashmir, managed to grab hold of the beautiful Kashmir valley.
Sir, perhaps your last line was a bit harsh on both the people concerned. The Sheikh was in any case, from 1935 onwards, inclined towards secularism and the Congress; there may not have been much seduction needed.
Interesting read.
But the following makes little sense - and this simple point has huge impact. Why did they even think it is possible when half the muslims remained in India and half in Pakistan? It sounds more like they were looking for some way to accommodate the ambitions of both Nehru and Jinnah and lacking anyother way, this was the closes they could come to for a criteria. What a price the whole population had to pay because of personal ego and ambitions of two elite oxford/cambridge guys!
Your post is reasonable and well-argued, but I beg to differ. There is a gross misunderstanding of what the creation of two Dominions out of the Crown Colony was intended to achieve.
It was intended to segregate the Muslim majority areas, NOT to segregate the majority of Muslims; in Jinnah's famous summation, the Muslims of the UP, Bihar and Bombay (Maharashtra + Gujarat) would have to make enormous sacrifices for the sake of the creation of Pakistan. The idea was that uncontrolled majoritarianism would not hold sway; the existence of (two) Muslim homelands would act as a natural check on the central non-Muslim Dominion. The idea was NOT to create an Islamic state; it was to create areas where the Islamic way of life would never be under threat. Whether the threat to Islam was real or imagined is a purely theoretical matter; whatever it was at that time, it is a more acute fear today.
Again, it is possible to argue that personal egos shaped the political agenda; that is a little unfair. After all, Jinnah (reluctantly) went along with the Cabinet Mission formula, on the understanding that the delegates from each of the three blocs would vote and work in the Constituent Assembly as indivisible blocs. It was Nehru's denial of this possibility in his press conference of the 10th of July that forced Jinnah to conclude that there was no alternative to partition. This was, IMO, forced on him by Congress intransigence.
On a very personal point, I was a little upset to read about two elite oxford/cambridge guys. Whatever do you mean? On the one hand, we have a rich man's son, educated at Harrow and at Cambridge, who never had to work for a living; on the other, there is a young man of a respectable, but by no means wealthy family, who ate his dinners at the Inns of Court, qualified as a barrister, and rose to the top of his profession. As much alike as chalk and cheese.
@SoulSpokesman
Your comments please.
"The morality of Kashmir dispute and who is morally right is beyond the scope of this book, except the simple point that as far as the broad mechanics of the philosophy governing the partition of India was concerned; i.e. division of India on a communal basis and as Non-Muslim and Muslim India, Kashmir should have been a part of Pakistan. "
Completely wrong. This is a dumbing down of the entire situation which is not at all representative of the real political arrangement. But you have quoted the earlier post, and this is nothing to do with you; I mention this here because it should be contradicted at every opportunity.
