As Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's cross-country 'unity' march, the  Bharat Jodo Yatra, ended its nearly 4,000 km journey in Kashmir, it got a rousing reception. At the same time some writers and commentators are using the occasion for Nehru bashing, blaming him for the difficult situation created there by India's first prime minister. Some are using this to create a binary between Nehru and his colleague, Sardar Patel, the deputy prime minister in the Nehru cabinet, yet again, stating that had Patel handled the issue it would have been "solved". This understanding is not only naïve, and accusatory but also far from the truth. This only aims to further the ruling BJP-RSS narrative on the troubled past and painful present.

As India was to gain independence from colonial rule, the princely states were given the option to either merge with India or Pakistan or even to remain Independent. Most of the princely states could be merged with ease. The problem remained with Hyderabad and Kashmir. Hyderabad was merged through the police action (Operation Polo), while the issue of Kashmir became more complicated due to its geographical proximity to Pakistan and the majority of its population being Muslims.

Maharaja Hari Singh wanted to keep J&K independent. He also offered a ‘standstill agreement’ (status quo with the use of facilities with India and Pakistan) to India and Pakistan both. Pakistan accepted this and her flags flew over the post offices in Jammu & Kashmir, as the postal system was being run by Pakistan. India did not accept this agreement. 

There was another factor in the state. Anti-Muslim violence was engineered by Maharaja Hari Singh. His understanding was that he is ruling over a Muslim-majority state, so there should be at least one area in the state where Hindus are in majority. This violence led to the massacre of nearly 200,000 Muslims in the state. Reputed columnist Saeed Naqvi writes,  “To quote a 10 August 1948 report published in The Times, London: “2,37,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated – unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border – by the forces of the Dogra State headed by the Maharaja in person and aided by Hindus and Sikhs. This happened in October 1947, five days before the Pathan invasion and nine days before the Maharaja’s accession to India.”  And it is this massacre that made Jammu a Hindu majority and partly triggered the Kashmir problem.

Patel's thinking on Kashmir

Using this as a pretext local Muslim tribals supported by the Pakistan army launched the attack on J&K. The state was unprepared to face this assault and wanted India to send its armies to quell this aggression; it was against this backdrop that the treaty of accession was signed.

Earlier Hari Singh had refused to merge with India. Also, Mohammed Ali Jinnah commented that Kashmir is in his pocket as it is a Muslim-majority state. National Conference, which was the earlier Muslim Conference, led by Sheikh Abdullah had launched a democratic agitation against the Maharaja’s rule to end the feudal structure of society. Apart from the three states (Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir) not willing to merge with India, Sardar Patel was willing to let Kashmir go to Pakistan if Junagadh and Hyderabad merge with India. 

Rajmohan Gandhi in his book “Patel: A Life”, tells us that Patel was thinking of making an ideal bargain: if Jinnah lets India have Junagadh and Hyderabad, Patel would not object to Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. He cites a speech by Patel at Bahauddin College in Junagadh, following the latter’s merger with India, in which he said: “We would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad.”

As far as handling Kashmir was concerned, unlike in other princely states of India, where Pakistan was also involved and so Nehru, being foreign affairs minister also, had to lead the issue. Patel and Nehru were on the same page in this endeavor. Patel was more interested in Junagadh and Hyderabad, while negotiations of Article 370 and the steps in handling the same were happening with him being very much around. He may not have been a central figure in the drafting of 370, but was very much in the know of the same and there is no evidence of Patel opposing it in any way. 

“Patel was neither central to Article 370 as …(some) suggests, nor is there any evidence that his centrality would have ensured full integration of Kashmir with India, as is assumed by the governmental narrative today.”

Also those suggesting that Patel would have taken the army further rather than call for a ceasefire should know that Patel in a letter to Gopalswamy Ayyangar on 4th June 1948 wrote, “The military position is not too good and I am afraid that our military resources are strained to the utmost” (Sardar Patel’s Correspondence).

Patel was on same page with Nehru

The march of the Indian army did save Kashmir from the marauding tribals (supported by the Pakistan army). The cease-fire was declared to protect civilians and also to ensure that a peaceful solution will emerge through the United Nations. The matter of being taken to the United Nations has been criticized, but that must have been the best option in that circumstance. Patel very much approved of it. 

“As regards specific issues raised by Pakistan, as you have pointed out, the question of Kashmir is before the Security Council. Having invoked a forum to the settlement of disputes open to both India and Pakistan, as members of the United Nations Organisation, nothing further need be done in the way of settlement of disputes than to leave matters to be adjusted through that forum.” (Patel’s letter to Jawaharlal Nehru dated 23 February 1950, pages 105-106,  of the book  “Sardar Patel’s correspondence 1945-50 Volume 10 Navjivan publishing house, Ahmedabad, 1974).

The attempt to create a binary between the line taken by Nehru and the probable line of Patel is a figment of fiction for political considerations of sorts, as Nehru and Patel both were on the same page on the issue. 

As far as the future of Kashmir is concerned, as its people have welcomed Bharat Jodo Yatra, it is yet another occasion to introspect and restore democratic norms while restoring its statehood.

(The writer, a former IIT Bombay professor, is Chairman, Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai. Views are personal.)