vijay wrote:

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. 

I guess you are not used to listening to different view points in a discussion forum, rather stick to your own guns and consider your opinion as being final ....

Opinions vary. And that is the very core of these discussion forums. And these variations spice up the discussions. No member's opinion is final and the ultimate.

I always belive rather it is my conviction that it is possible to be different without being dogmatic and disrespectful in our views . Each of us bring in fresh perspective and new inputs to enliven proceedings of a forum. I am not here to ram my views down others' throats. If my views are found to be acceptable ,it is fine,otherwise forget them!

Very true Chinmoy. These forums are meant for exchange of members opinions. You know better than anybody else here. I have seen you many times simply expressing your point of view without forcing others to accept and abide by what you expressed. By this act the forums are spiced up.

usha manohar wrote:

vijay wrote:

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. 

I guess you are not used to listening to different view points in a discussion forum, rather stick to your own guns and consider your opinion as being final ....

VIJAY is wrong. Sardar patel never visited kashmir. In fact he was kept out by Nehru from all matters of  J an K

Kashmir can only be integrated by iron will.We give too much credit to Sardar Patel. The fact is he was Deputy Prime minister. Yet he never exerted himself and opposed Nehru History tells us he kept quiet. The situation has now snowballed and I am reminded of that famous rhyme Humpty Dumpty sat on wall..... All the kings horses and all the kings men could not put Humpty Dumpty together again. 

Again I repeat the army is fighting insurgency in valley for 25 years and morale is sapping. This is the clue, a strong leadership MUST integrate or solve this problem. Modi is just not that great man India needs.

Kashmir can only be integrated by iron will.We give too much credit to Sardar Patel. The fact is he was Deputy Prime minister. Yet he never exerted himself and opposed Nehru History tells us he kept quiet. The situation has now snowballed and I am reminded of that famous rhyme Humpty Dumpty sat on wall..... All the kings horses and all the kings men could not put Humpty Dumpty together again. 

Again I repeat the army is fighting insurgency in valley for 25 years and morale is sapping. This is the clue, a strong leadership MUST integrate or solve this problem. Modi is just not that great man India needs.

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.

 

In a discussion facts must be presented . article 370 is NOT part of Instrument of accession. The full instrument of accession can be read on Wikipoedia.

 

MG Singh wrote:

Kashmir can only be integrated by iron will.We give too much credit to Sardar Patel. The fact is he was Deputy Prime minister. Yet he never exerted himself and opposed Nehru History tells us he kept quiet. The situation has now snowballed and I am reminded of that famous rhyme Humpty Dumpty sat on wall..... All the kings horses and all the kings men could not put Humpty Dumpty together again. 

Again I repeat the army is fighting insurgency in valley for 25 years and morale is sapping. This is the clue, a strong leadership MUST integrate or solve this problem. Modi is just not that great man India needs.

This article covers the article 370 and its implications from every angle and it is not impossible to scarp it if the state and central governments have the will do so. however,  as things stand as long as the Abdullahs' are there they will never let that happen, may even take outside help to do so !!!

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/understanding-article-370/article5426473.ece

MG Singh wrote:

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.

 

In a discussion facts must be presented . article 370 is NOT part of Instrument of accession. The full instrument of accession can be read on Wikipoedia.

 

I have not stated that Article 370 is part of instrument of accession. I have stated that the Article gives constitutional guarantee or recognition to the instrument of Accession.  And that is why if it is scrapped then the parties who signed it Kashmir and India become independent of each other @Chinmoy is not appreciating this and is major difference between its scrapping and amendments done to Articles quoted by him, which can be said to a breach of promise but it did not lead to de-merger of princely states from India.