chinmoymukherjee wrote:

My principal and substantive questions still remain unanswered or are unappreciatively dodged! Were the merger of princely states unconditional ? Were the continuation of privy purse and recognition of rights as to titles etc.as incorporated under Article 291 and 362 of the Constitution as permanent provisons ,not conditions? If the abrogation of these Articlrs did not lead to restoration of independent status of these princely states how can we think of a scenario in J&K's case. Legally constructed and considered the terms of the Instrument  of Accession provided for accession  of the entire state ,were honoured and India was not allowed to have full control- thanks to Nehru's bungling who by that time moved the UN!My humble question is if one part of obligations of a contract is not discharged by a party, Maharaja in this case who had the obligation to ensure accession of the entire J&K- not the truncated one- why did we accede to the demands in the form of Art.370 and my question regarding its appearance as a transitional device also remains  unanswered. It shows tearing hurry on the part of the Nehru government in its utter failure to evolve a suitable strategy to deal with a situation which he made more complex than what it originally was.We can be and should be objective about Nehru- not unnecessary touchy and delusional!

 

Answers are provided provided you are prepared to  accept other's viewpoints. 

Yes the merger  of all Indian princely state were unconditional , except Kashmir.

There was no linkage between merger and privy purses. Thus when amendments were done to withdraw them it did not affect merger status.

Kashmir maharaja made an conditional accession with Indian Union which had to be provided for in Constitution and ism now known as Article 370.

Yes it is a mystery as to why the Indian Army was not allowed to go beyond present cease fire line and clear Pakistanis from whole of J&K as then Pakistan would not be having 1/3 rd of its land .

Nehru's handling of this aspect  was a fatal mistake for which we are paying a heavy price.

My submission is that constantly berating Nehru and Congress is not going to help. It is a historical fact.  

How to find solution is far more important than pouring venom on Nehru.

Hope answers are found satisfactory by you.

vijay wrote:

chinmoymukherjee wrote:

My principal and substantive questions still remain unanswered or are unappreciatively dodged! Were the merger of princely states unconditional ? Were the continuation of privy purse and recognition of rights as to titles etc.as incorporated under Article 291 and 362 of the Constitution as permanent provisons ,not conditions? If the abrogation of these Articlrs did not lead to restoration of independent status of these princely states how can we think of a scenario in J&K's case. Legally constructed and considered the terms of the Instrument  of Accession provided for accession  of the entire state ,were honoured and India was not allowed to have full control- thanks to Nehru's bungling who by that time moved the UN!My humble question is if one part of obligations of a contract is not discharged by a party, Maharaja in this case who had the obligation to ensure accession of the entire J&K- not the truncated one- why did we accede to the demands in the form of Art.370 and my question regarding its appearance as a transitional device also remains  unanswered. It shows tearing hurry on the part of the Nehru government in its utter failure to evolve a suitable strategy to deal with a situation which he made more complex than what it originally was.We can be and should be objective about Nehru- not unnecessary touchy and delusional!

 

Answers are provided provided you are prepared to  accept other's viewpoints. 

Yes the merger  of all Indian princely state were unconditional , except Kashmir.

There was no linkage between merger and privy purses. Thus when amendments were done to withdraw them it did not affect merger status.

Kashmir maharaja made an conditional accession with Indian Union which had to be provided for in Constitution and ism now known as Article 370.

Yes it is a mystery as to why the Indian Army was not allowed to go beyond present cease fire line and clear Pakistanis from whole of J&K as then Pakistan would not be having 1/3 rd of its land .

Nehru's handling of this aspect  was a fatal mistake for which we are paying a heavy price.

My submission is that constantly berating Nehru and Congress is not going to help. It is a historical fact.  

How to find solution is far more important than pouring venom on Nehru.

Hope answers are found satisfactory by you.

 

Here I am tempted to cite M.S, Golwalkar, RSS ideologue in Bunch of thoughts- "There is no settled fact in history. If anything is considered settled, we are here to unsettle.". He was referring to creation of Pakistan.  Pakistan is a hard nut to crack. But Kashmir should be relatively small issue. Now the disciples of Golwalkar are at helms of affairs.  I wonder if they can 'unsetlle' the fact of 'conditional merger of J & K' and scrap Article 370. I believe they have no courage. .  

 

We only know about causalities on Indian side but I think there are too large casualties on enemy front, the war is there. 

I hope you are as much  satisfied with yours as I am with mine.I have not come across any firm and clinching evidences to alter my position. Thanks for your responses. By the way Nehru's stature is towering enough to withstand some criticism which may not be equated with 'venom'!

Actually the merger agreements were made many times. First, these provided full autonomy to states. The princely states were differently managed. The prince es were ceremonial heads of states. They were known as Raja Prumukh. In view of smaller princely states, a council of princes (Naresh Mandal) was also formed. The princes would be Raj Prumukh by turn. Later the merger agreements were revised and the princes stripped off all powers and allowed o0nly ceremonial salutes, property, privy purses. Privy purses were to be reduced at each succession and ultimately these were to end. It os alleged by many that the subsequent redrafting of new treaties with princes was a sort of blackmail. Initially, princes believed that they would retain autonomy and center would look after foreign affairs and defence. But not only autonomy was gone but also the very existence of princes vanished. However princes need not lament. Many of them have been rehabilated in the new constitutional framework. Example- Scindia of Gwalior.  

It is no use ov er emphasizing Sardar Pately and under estimating Nehru. Both were in union cabinet and there is principle of joint responsibility. To whom does the credit of freeing Goa goes. Is this not Nehru. 

Not just Nehru bur a lot of other people fought for the liberation of Goa and laid down their lives..

TheUnited Frontof Goans (led by Francis Mascarenhas) forced the Portuguese to retreat from the colonialenclaveofDadra, a smalllandlocked territoryborderingNagar Haveli. A group of volunteers from the National Movement Liberation Organisation (NMLO), an umbrella organisation involving revolutionary groupsRashtriya Swayamsevak Sanghand Azad Gomantak Dal, led an attack onNagar Havelion 28 July 1954, and took it on 2 August.^[13]Despite successfully conquering the territories, India did not immediately assimilate these enclaves into the Indian Union. For some time, both enclaves functioned asde factoindependent states, administered by the Varishta Panchayat of Free Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

The successful annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli provided the dormant Goa anti-colonial movement with renewed vigour and motivation to continue the anti-colonial struggle.^{[citation needed]} On 15 August 1954, hundreds of people crossed the Portuguese Goan borders, defying a ban by the Indian government on participating in Satyagrahas. The Portuguese responded to the action by injuring and fatally shooting many Satyagrahis.^{[7] ( wikipedia)}

usha manohar wrote:

Not just Nehru bur a lot of other people fought for the liberation of Goa and laid down their lives..

TheUnited Frontof Goans (led by Francis Mascarenhas) forced the Portuguese to retreat from the colonialenclaveofDadra, a smalllandlocked territoryborderingNagar Haveli. A group of volunteers from the National Movement Liberation Organisation (NMLO), an umbrella organisation involving revolutionary groupsRashtriya Swayamsevak Sanghand Azad Gomantak Dal, led an attack onNagar Havelion 28 July 1954, and took it on 2 August.^[13]Despite successfully conquering the territories, India did not immediately assimilate these enclaves into the Indian Union. For some time, both enclaves functioned asde factoindependent states, administered by the Varishta Panchayat of Free Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

The successful annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli provided the dormant Goa anti-colonial movement with renewed vigour and motivation to continue the anti-colonial struggle.^{[citation needed]} On 15 August 1954, hundreds of people crossed the Portuguese Goan borders, defying a ban by the Indian government on participating in Satyagrahas. The Portuguese responded to the action by injuring and fatally shooting many Satyagrahis.^{[7] ( wikipedia)}

 

True. Pt Nehru was no freedom fighter for Goa. Many others including Dr. Lohia played prominent role in freedom of Goa. Ultimately Govt. of India under Prime ministership of Pt Nehru resorted to military action after which Goan freedom was attained. 

Let us not overestimate or underestimate Nehru.Just judge him in the light of truths and historical.Theory of joint responsibility won't cover up his grave lapses.I admire him but not to the point of idolatry! I don't do it in relation to any great for that matter!

We have deviated from the main topic in the thread. It is becoming a referendum on Nehru. Like all great persons he too had his quota of faults. The decisions taken in his tenure were taken in the environment of those times. We are evaluating them in today's polarized environment with not full knowledge at our command. Some of us keep sticking to our perceptions even when proper answers have been provided. A wedge is sought to be created between Nehru and Patel. When decisions went right then credit is given to Patel's sagacious advice and when things have gone wrong then it is highlighted that Patel was loyal to Nehru and followed his wrong orders also. Patel was a tall leader like Nehru and both gelled very well and had couirage to oewn up joint responsibility. As soon as Kashmir acceeded to India the first person to dash to Srinagar in a army Dakota plane was Sardar Patel who took an army briefing at the  airport itself and cut short his stay promising supplies and troops immediately on return to Delhi. 

When a statement is made that Nehru liberated Goa a member has given a list of many others who fought for its liberation. but when a mistake is committed it is only Nehru who has to be blamed.