Vallabhai Patel says that Kashmir state should go to Pakistan while Hyderabad state goes to India

[MultaniGuy]

Sardar Patel was adamant, give Kashmir to Pakistan, take Hyderabad. Nehru saved it: Soz
THEPRINT TEAM 25 June, 2018

A file photo of Sardar Patel with Jawaharlal Nehru | Getty Images
Text Size:
Mountbatten took Patel’s offer to Lahore the day Indian troops landed in Srinagar. Liaquat Ali, ‘who understood neither history nor geography’ said no, Soz tells Shekhar Gupta.

New Delhi: Saifuddin Soz, former Congress minister and a prominent Kashmiri politician, has made a startling claim that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was happy to let Kashmir go to Pakistan in exchange for Hyderabad and it was Nehru’s insistence that kept it with India.

Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy of India, took Patel’s offer to Pakistan on the exact day the Indian Army landed in Srinagar to push back intruders from Pakistan in October 1947, Soz told ThePrint Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta on NDTV’s Walk The Talk show.

“From the very first day Sardar Patel was adamant that Kashmir should go to Pakistan. In the partition council, he tried his level best to convince Liaquat Ali to take Kashmir and leave Hyderabad-Deccan,” Soz said.

“There was a fight, Sardar Mohammed Ali and our Reddy were there. Sardar Patel told Liaquat Ali, don’t even talk about Hyderabad-Deccan. It isn’t even connected with Pakistan. You leave Hyderabad to us, and take Kashmir.

“I will tell you a very fascinating story,” Soz said. “When our army landed in Srinagar, the same afternoon Mountbatten went to Lahore. There was a dinner with Governor of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, and four Pakistan ministers. Mountbatten said, I have brought a message from the strongman of India, Sardar Patel. Take Kashmir and forget Hyderabad-Deccan, it’s not even connected with you.”

“But as Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan writes in his book,” Soz said, “Liaquat Ali neither understood history, nor geography.” So, he did not accept the offer.

Patel could not prevail, Soz said, because Nehru was very strong. His connection with Kashmir was very strong. He believed Kashmir should come to secular India, it will be safe here. He was very close to the National Conference. He had even come to address the Sopore session of the National Conference in 1945. He knew Kashmir’s history completely, he said.

Sheikh Abdullah had rejected the two-nation theory. He told his constituent assembly that Kashmir was independent from 15 August to 22 October, 1947. But once Pakistani raiders came it was clear that independence wasn’t possible.

He said the five countries around us, India, Pakistan, Russia, China and Afghanistan will never accept Kashmir’s independence. So that isn’t possible. Sheikh Abdullah writes this in his book, Soz said.

Sheikh Abdullah had no intention of going away from India, Soz added. He wanted to remain here “as long as India was secular, pluralistic and sympathetic to Kashmir. That’s how the Delhi agreement came.”

Unfortunately, Nehru was later voted out within his own cabinet, he said. He was forced to dismiss Sheikh Abdullah’s government and put him under detention. “He repented this and became a very lonely man. Sheikh Abdullah writes in his book that Dr Karan Singh, then Sadr-e-Riyasat, was one of the conspirators (against him) in 1953. The Constituent Assembly of Kashmir should have been allowed to continue. You ask Ram Jethmalani. Even he believes that. “

Soz said the Kashmir situation was ruined “mainly because small minds (like) Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Ajit Prasad Jain around Nehru poisoned the environment. Then, political work was given over to even smaller minds in intelligence agencies. That continues even now.”

Soz said even now the only possible solution in the near-term is to talk to Hurriyat leaders. Young Kashmiris are angry, he said, you can’t talk to them. Force will not work, he said, “in a mood when two sons of a family have already died and the third has gone to join militancy”.

ThePrint’s YouTube channel is now active and buzzing. Please subscribe here.

• 13.4K
  Shares

• TAGS
• Jawaharlal Nehru
• Kashmir
• Pakistan
• Sardar Patel
• Sheikh Abdullah

47 COMMENTS SHARE YOUR VIEWS

Second push for lateral entry into IAS sees applications fall by half
NEXT STORY


What a lost opportunity. But our leaders at that time were too shortsighted! lol.

We should have done this arrangement.

@Indus Pakistan
@BHarwana
@xyxmt

 

[MultaniGuy]

@Aamir Hussain

@waz
@Dubious
@The Eagle
@Horus

Your views?

 

[khansaheeb]

fabricated BS , never heard of it before, from the Indian ministry of propaganda.

 

[War Thunder]

I don't expect Liaquat Ali Khan to be as brilliant of a strategist or thinker as Quaid-e-Azam was.

But given the circumstances, no one would have given up on Hyderabad just like that, and it would have written a very wrong chapter in our history of favoring own interest against collective.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Sardar Patel was adamant, give Kashmir to Pakistan, take Hyderabad. Nehru saved it: Soz
THEPRINT TEAM 25 June, 2018

A file photo of Sardar Patel with Jawaharlal Nehru | Getty Images
Text Size:
Mountbatten took Patel’s offer to Lahore the day Indian troops landed in Srinagar. Liaquat Ali, ‘who understood neither history nor geography’ said no, Soz tells Shekhar Gupta.

New Delhi: Saifuddin Soz, former Congress minister and a prominent Kashmiri politician, has made a startling claim that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was happy to let Kashmir go to Pakistan in exchange for Hyderabad and it was Nehru’s insistence that kept it with India.

Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy of India, took Patel’s offer to Pakistan on the exact day the Indian Army landed in Srinagar to push back intruders from Pakistan in October 1947, Soz told ThePrint Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta on NDTV’s Walk The Talk show.

“From the very first day Sardar Patel was adamant that Kashmir should go to Pakistan. In the partition council, he tried his level best to convince Liaquat Ali to take Kashmir and leave Hyderabad-Deccan,” Soz said.

“There was a fight, Sardar Mohammed Ali and our Reddy were there. Sardar Patel told Liaquat Ali, don’t even talk about Hyderabad-Deccan. It isn’t even connected with Pakistan. You leave Hyderabad to us, and take Kashmir.

“I will tell you a very fascinating story,” Soz said. “When our army landed in Srinagar, the same afternoon Mountbatten went to Lahore. There was a dinner with Governor of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, and four Pakistan ministers. Mountbatten said, I have brought a message from the strongman of India, Sardar Patel. Take Kashmir and forget Hyderabad-Deccan, it’s not even connected with you.”

“But as Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan writes in his book,” Soz said, “Liaquat Ali neither understood history, nor geography.” So, he did not accept the offer.

Patel could not prevail, Soz said, because Nehru was very strong. His connection with Kashmir was very strong. He believed Kashmir should come to secular India, it will be safe here. He was very close to the National Conference. He had even come to address the Sopore session of the National Conference in 1945. He knew Kashmir’s history completely, he said.

Sheikh Abdullah had rejected the two-nation theory. He told his constituent assembly that Kashmir was independent from 15 August to 22 October, 1947. But once Pakistani raiders came it was clear that independence wasn’t possible.

He said the five countries around us, India, Pakistan, Russia, China and Afghanistan will never accept Kashmir’s independence. So that isn’t possible. Sheikh Abdullah writes this in his book, Soz said.

Sheikh Abdullah had no intention of going away from India, Soz added. He wanted to remain here “as long as India was secular, pluralistic and sympathetic to Kashmir. That’s how the Delhi agreement came.”

Unfortunately, Nehru was later voted out within his own cabinet, he said. He was forced to dismiss Sheikh Abdullah’s government and put him under detention. “He repented this and became a very lonely man. Sheikh Abdullah writes in his book that Dr Karan Singh, then Sadr-e-Riyasat, was one of the conspirators (against him) in 1953. The Constituent Assembly of Kashmir should have been allowed to continue. You ask Ram Jethmalani. Even he believes that. “

Soz said the Kashmir situation was ruined “mainly because small minds (like) Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Ajit Prasad Jain around Nehru poisoned the environment. Then, political work was given over to even smaller minds in intelligence agencies. That continues even now.”

Soz said even now the only possible solution in the near-term is to talk to Hurriyat leaders. Young Kashmiris are angry, he said, you can’t talk to them. Force will not work, he said, “in a mood when two sons of a family have already died and the third has gone to join militancy”.

ThePrint’s YouTube channel is now active and buzzing. Please subscribe here.

• 13.4K
  Shares

• TAGS
• Jawaharlal Nehru
• Kashmir
• Pakistan
• Sardar Patel
• Sheikh Abdullah

47 COMMENTS SHARE YOUR VIEWS

Second push for lateral entry into IAS sees applications fall by half
NEXT STORY


What a lost opportunity. But our leaders at that time were too shortsighted! lol.

We should have done this arrangement.

@Indus Pakistan
@BHarwana
@xyxmt

Yes, thanks for tagging me. I have come across this before. They [Indians] offered us Hyderabad State/Junagadh in return for Kashmir. Our heros like Liaqat Khan et al prevaricated and chose showing fists. Instead lost everything. To be honest all of the ML leadership after Jinnah died [including his sister] was useless and composed of sycophants and chest thumpers. They all needed purging. They are the cause of lot of the problems you see today in Pakistan. In fact this abject failure almost led to a military coup and the discontent would mutate into the Rawalpindi Conspiracy later on. All this has been covered up by Pakistani official history for obvious reasons.

 

[MultaniGuy]

fabricated BS , never heard of it before, from the Indian ministry of propaganda.

You could be right, bhai, but @Indus Pakistan said he has heard of this proposition before.

This could be true.

@AsianUnion, your views?

 

[waz]

You could be right, bhai, but @Indus Pakistan said he has heard of this proposition before.

This could be true.

@AsianUnion, your views?

It's 100% true, sardar Patel was giving Kashmir on a plate, but for sentimental reasons and lack of knowledge the decision makers wanted to keep Hyderabad, a Hindu majority area which would have been surrounded by miles of Indian territory, figure that one out....
Kashmir was lost due to one of the greatest blunders of Pakistan's history.

 

[MultaniGuy]

It's 100% true, sardar Patel was giving Kashmir on a plate, but for sentimental reasons and lack of knowledge the decision makers wanted to keep Hyderabad, a Hindu majority area which would have been surrounded by miles of Indian territory, figure that one out....
Kashmir was lost due to one of the greatest blunders of Pakistan's history.

It would have been illogical to try to keep Hyderabad which was located in the heart of India and was a Hindu majority area with a Muslim ruler.

We should have accepted this exchange that Pakistan takes whole of Kashmir state while India take Hyderabad state.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

You could be right, bhai, but @Indus Pakistan said he has heard of this proposition before.

This whole part of history is murky because the powers that be got to write history and they redacted anything that might expose their failings. Look anybody can see geographically Kashmir was like a ripe plum hanging in Pakistan's mouth waiting to be bit. Instead India came and walked away with 2/3rds. The only tarmaced road to Srinagar was through Rawalpindi which happened to be one of the largest military bases in the British Raj which Pakistan inheritated [today GHQ] and it took a band of tribals to almost, yes almost grab Srinagar. Just one brigade sent in early could have grabbed all of Kashmir - exactly like India did with Hyderabad State which was better armed then J&K state.

 

[Osiris]

Reminds me the story of Greedy Dog, Pakistani leaders were offered a territory in exchange for the other, but they wanted both and then got neither.

It is a well know part of subcontinental history. It was Sardar Patel, who was ready to let go Kashmir in exchange for Hyderabad. But after India -Pakistan had fought a year long war in Kashmir, his position hardened. And It was indeed Sardar Patel, who stopped Nehru from conducting a Plebiscite in Kashmir.

When neither India nor Pakistan wanted Kashmir

Liaquat Ali Khan had set his heart on Hyderabad and not the ‘rocks of Kashmir’ while Sardar Patel felt Kashmir was Pakistan’s for the asking but surely not Hyderabad

Published: 1 Jul 2018, 10:01 AM

Kuldip Nayar, in his book Beyond the Lines—An Autobiographywrites on Sardar Patel’s consistent view that Kashmir should be part of Pakistan. Nayar writes, ‘My impression is that had Pakistan been patient it would have got Kashmir automatically. India could not have conquered it, nor could a Hindu Maharaja have ignored the composition of the population, which was predominantly Muslim. Instead, an impatient Pakistan sent tribesmen along with regular troops to Kashmir within days of Independence.’

Nayar goes on to say, ‘While it is true that Nehru was keen on Kashmir’s accession to India, Patel was opposed to it. Even when New Delhi received the maharaja’s request to accede to India, Patel had said, “We should not get mixed up with Kashmir, we already have too much on our plate”.’ Patel remained consistent on his perception that while Pakistan shouldn’t talk of Hyderabad, Kashmir should go to Pakistan.

Chaudhri Mohammad Ali gives us an interesting detail on Patel’s perception on Kashmir in his book The Emergence of Pakistan.

He writes, ‘While attending a meeting of the Partition Council, Sardar Patel, although a bitter enemy of Pakistan was a greater realist than Nehru. In one of the discussions between the two Prime Ministers at which H.M. Patel and I were also present, Liaquat Ali Khan dwelt at length on the inconsistency of the Indian stand with regard to Junagadh and Kashmir. If Junagadh, despite its Muslim ruler’s accession to Pakistan, belonged to India because of its Hindu majority, how could Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, be a part of India simply by virtue of its Hindu ruler having signed a conditional instrument of accession to India? If the instrument of accession signed by the Muslim ruler of Junagadh was of no validity, the instrument of accession signed by the Hindu ruler of Kashmir was also invalid. If the will of the people was to prevail in Junagadh, it must prevail in Kashmir as well. India could not claim both Junagadh and Kashmir.’

Chaudhri Mohammad Ali writes, ‘When Liaquat Ali Khan made these incontrovertible points, Patel could not contain himself and burst out, “Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir and we could reach an agreement”.’
Chaudhri comments further, ‘Patel’s view at this time and even later was that India’s effort to retain Muslim majority areas against the will of the people was a source not of strength but of weakness of India. He felt that if India and Pakistan agree to let Kashmir go to Pakistan and Hyderabad to India, the problems of Kashmir and Hyderabad could be solved peacefully and to the mutual advantage of India and Pakistan.’

Sirdar Shaukat Hayat Khan in his book, The Nation That Lost Its Soul relates how at a dinner, Lord Mountbatten conveyed a message from Patel. ‘Patel had said that Pakistan could take Kashmir and let go Hyderabad Deccan which had a majority Hindu population and was nowhere near Pakistan by sea or land.’

Hayat Khan goes on to say, ‘After delivering this message, Lord Mountbatten went to sleep in the Lahore Government House. I being overall in-charge of the Kashmir operations went to Liaquat Ali Khan. I suggested to him that as the Indian army had entered Kashmir in force and we would be unable to annex Kashmir with tribal mujahids or even with our inadequate armed forces, we should make haste to accept Patel’s proposal.’

‘Nawabzada (Liaquat Ali Khan) turned round to me and said, “Sirdar Saheb, have I gone mad to give up Hyderabad which is much larger than the Punjab for the sake of the rocks of Kashmir?” I was stunned by the Prime Minister’s reaction and ignorance of our geography and his lack of wisdom. I thought he was living in a fool’s paradise and did not understand the importance of Kashmir to Pakistan while hoping to get Hyderabad, which at best, was only quixotic wishful thinking. It was not connected with Pakistan anywhere. As a protest, I resigned from the position I was holding in Kashmir Operations.’

A.G. Noorani, an accredited scholar having considerable knowledge on the Kashmir issue, has quoted the then president of Pakistan lamenting Liaquat Ali Khan’s attitude to Patel’s proposals. In his article, ‘A Tale of Two States’ Noorani tells us, ‘A quarter century later, on 27 November 1972, the President of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, told a tribal Jirga at Landikotal that India’s first Home Minister and Minister for the States, Sardar Patel had at one stage, offered Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Junagadh and Hyderabad. But, he added, Pakistan ‘unfortunately’ didn’t accept this offer with the result that it not only lost all the three native states but East Pakistan as well.’

Excerpts from ‘Kashmir-Glimpses of History & Story of Struggle, Rupa Books, 2018

 

[Indus Pakistan]

It's 100% true, sardar Patel was giving Kashmir on a plate, but for sentimental reasons and lack of knowledge the decision makers wanted to keep Hyderabad, a Hindu majority area which would have been surrounded by miles of Indian territory, figure that one out....
Kashmir was lost due to one of the greatest blunders of Pakistan's history.

This failing was what led to disgruntled maj. Gen. Akbar Khan to get involved in the Rawalpindi Conspiracy. He was furious that Kashmir had been effectively given away because of failures by political leadership.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Reminds me the story of Greedy Dog, Pakistani leaders were offered a territory in exchange for the other, but they wanted both and then got neither.

It is a well know part of subcontinental history. It was Sardar Patel, who was ready to let go Kashmir in exchange for Hyderabad. But after India -Pakistan had fought a year long war in Kashmir, his position hardened. And It was indeed Sardar Patel, who stopped Nehru from conducting a Plebiscite in Kashmir.

When neither India nor Pakistan wanted Kashmir

Liaquat Ali Khan had set his heart on Hyderabad and not the ‘rocks of Kashmir’ while Sardar Patel felt Kashmir was Pakistan’s for the asking but surely not Hyderabad

Published: 1 Jul 2018, 10:01 AM

Kuldip Nayar, in his book Beyond the Lines—An Autobiographywrites on Sardar Patel’s consistent view that Kashmir should be part of Pakistan. Nayar writes, ‘My impression is that had Pakistan been patient it would have got Kashmir automatically. India could not have conquered it, nor could a Hindu Maharaja have ignored the composition of the population, which was predominantly Muslim. Instead, an impatient Pakistan sent tribesmen along with regular troops to Kashmir within days of Independence.’

Nayar goes on to say, ‘While it is true that Nehru was keen on Kashmir’s accession to India, Patel was opposed to it. Even when New Delhi received the maharaja’s request to accede to India, Patel had said, “We should not get mixed up with Kashmir, we already have too much on our plate”.’ Patel remained consistent on his perception that while Pakistan shouldn’t talk of Hyderabad, Kashmir should go to Pakistan.

Chaudhri Mohammad Ali gives us an interesting detail on Patel’s perception on Kashmir in his book The Emergence of Pakistan.

He writes, ‘While attending a meeting of the Partition Council, Sardar Patel, although a bitter enemy of Pakistan was a greater realist than Nehru. In one of the discussions between the two Prime Ministers at which H.M. Patel and I were also present, Liaquat Ali Khan dwelt at length on the inconsistency of the Indian stand with regard to Junagadh and Kashmir. If Junagadh, despite its Muslim ruler’s accession to Pakistan, belonged to India because of its Hindu majority, how could Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, be a part of India simply by virtue of its Hindu ruler having signed a conditional instrument of accession to India? If the instrument of accession signed by the Muslim ruler of Junagadh was of no validity, the instrument of accession signed by the Hindu ruler of Kashmir was also invalid. If the will of the people was to prevail in Junagadh, it must prevail in Kashmir as well. India could not claim both Junagadh and Kashmir.’

Chaudhri Mohammad Ali writes, ‘When Liaquat Ali Khan made these incontrovertible points, Patel could not contain himself and burst out, “Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir and we could reach an agreement”.’
Chaudhri comments further, ‘Patel’s view at this time and even later was that India’s effort to retain Muslim majority areas against the will of the people was a source not of strength but of weakness of India. He felt that if India and Pakistan agree to let Kashmir go to Pakistan and Hyderabad to India, the problems of Kashmir and Hyderabad could be solved peacefully and to the mutual advantage of India and Pakistan.’

Sirdar Shaukat Hayat Khan in his book, The Nation That Lost Its Soul relates how at a dinner, Lord Mountbatten conveyed a message from Patel. ‘Patel had said that Pakistan could take Kashmir and let go Hyderabad Deccan which had a majority Hindu population and was nowhere near Pakistan by sea or land.’

Hayat Khan goes on to say, ‘After delivering this message, Lord Mountbatten went to sleep in the Lahore Government House. I being overall in-charge of the Kashmir operations went to Liaquat Ali Khan. I suggested to him that as the Indian army had entered Kashmir in force and we would be unable to annex Kashmir with tribal mujahids or even with our inadequate armed forces, we should make haste to accept Patel’s proposal.’

‘Nawabzada (Liaquat Ali Khan) turned round to me and said, “Sirdar Saheb, have I gone mad to give up Hyderabad which is much larger than the Punjab for the sake of the rocks of Kashmir?” I was stunned by the Prime Minister’s reaction and ignorance of our geography and his lack of wisdom. I thought he was living in a fool’s paradise and did not understand the importance of Kashmir to Pakistan while hoping to get Hyderabad, which at best, was only quixotic wishful thinking. It was not connected with Pakistan anywhere. As a protest, I resigned from the position I was holding in Kashmir Operations.’

A.G. Noorani, an accredited scholar having considerable knowledge on the Kashmir issue, has quoted the then president of Pakistan lamenting Liaquat Ali Khan’s attitude to Patel’s proposals. In his article, ‘A Tale of Two States’ Noorani tells us, ‘A quarter century later, on 27 November 1972, the President of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, told a tribal Jirga at Landikotal that India’s first Home Minister and Minister for the States, Sardar Patel had at one stage, offered Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Junagadh and Hyderabad. But, he added, Pakistan ‘unfortunately’ didn’t accept this offer with the result that it not only lost all the three native states but East Pakistan as well.’

Excerpts from ‘Kashmir-Glimpses of History & Story of Struggle, Rupa Books, 2018

No Pakistani is sparing Liaquat Ali Khan's stupidity if all this is true.

Pakistani leader should have accepted this exchange.

There is no point is having a Hindu majority province in Pakistan. lol.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Yes, Patel was willing to let Pakistan take Kashmir if India got Hyderabad and Junagadh. Mountbatten too was okay with it. Nehru, however, was not much interested in the offer.

Liaquat Ali Khan failed us.

As for Jinnah, he was a lawyer. He proposed an outright exchange of Kashmir for Junagadh as both states were a mirror image of each other in many ways. Kashmir was a Muslim majority state whose Non-Muslim ruler had acceded his state to India. Junagadh was a non-Muslim majority state whose Muslim ruler had acceded his state to Pakistan. Jinnah argued that as Junagadh had become a part of Pakistan legally, he, being the governor-general of Pakistan, had the right to discuss the future of the state with India. But as the ruler of Hyderabad had not acceded his state to Pakistan, he had no right to discuss the future of the state or coerce the ruler of Hyderabad to accede his state to India against his will.

We ended up losing all three because of our incapable leadership, the naked Indian aggression, and the refusal of the then Commander in Chief of Pakistan Army to obey Jinnah's orders of military action against Indian offensive. Rest is history

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Reminds me the story of Greedy Dog

Not quite. The problem was most of ML leadership was from India and their thoughts were on Hyderabad, Junagadh, New Delhi etc. Kashmir was not on their mind. The strategic threat to Pakistan if Kashmir fell in India's hand dawned on them later.

No Pakistani is sparing Liaquat Ali Khan's stupidity if all this is true.

Not really. History in Pakistan was distorted to make the 'villians' look heros. Liaqat after having ran away from Hindoo's decided to act tough once ensconced in Pakistan by showing fists. And this is image that has taken root in Pakistan. Nobody is going to question that.

 

[waz]

Nawabzada (Liaquat Ali Khan) turned round to me and said, “Sirdar Saheb, have I gone mad to give up Hyderabad which is much larger than the Punjab for the sake of the rocks of Kashmir?”

There you have it folks, that’s all she wrote. Pakistan’s own Achilles heel created by a mistake of our own doing.