Nehru's 97 Major Blunders

by Rajnikant Puranik

basic allegiance being to Britain, between them, these British were able to manipulate matters—many contr...

Much is made of Mountbatten, but he had been a failure in most of his past assignments. He belonged to navy, and in the Admiralty he was long known as the “Master of Disaster”.{Tunz/156}

Winston Churchill had accused Mountbatten of killing two million Indians!{AA/12} Mountbatten’s critic Andrew Roberts had commented: “Mountbatten deserved to be court-martialled on his return to London.”{Tunz/252}

Jinnah was so rattled he had remarked that the person most responsible for the disaster of partition was Dickie Mountbatten.{Tunz/301}

Britain wanted Kashmir, a strategic territory, to be under their influence. That was possible if it was either independent or with Pakistan, which was pro-West. Towards this aim, Mountbatten ensured that as GG he did not remain just a titular head. He manipulated to get himself appointed as the ‘Head of the Defence Committee of India’ ensuring that the C-in-C of both the Indian and the Pakistani Army and the Supreme Commander, Auchinleck, reported to him. In that capacity, Mountbatten secretively co-ordinated with the transitional British Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army; had private strategy sessions with the transitional British C-in-C of the Indian Army, without the knowledge of the Indian leaders; and manipulated to the extent feasible, decisions and actions in the direction the British Government wanted.

Nehru was mainly responsible for having Mountbatten appointed as the GG of independent India; and was perhaps the only factor in making him the Head of the Defence Committee.

Where the British interests were not affected—in respect of the other Princely States—he did try to help India. But, where the British interests clashed with the Indian interests, he helped the British interests. It was Mountbatten who made Nehru refer the J&K issue to the UN, thus internationalising a domestic issue. Mountbatten attempted to also refer the Junagadh and the Hyderabad cases to the UN.

Maharaja Hari Singh of J&K had begun to take steps towards final accession with India, including replacement of his pro-Pak PM Ram Chandra Kak with Mehr Chand Mahajan, a lawyer, and a Congress nominee on the Boundary Commission, who later became the Chief Justice of India.

When in August–September 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh indeed offered Kashmir's accession to India; most unbelievably, it was refused by Nehru, who first wanted Sheikh Abdullah to be freed and installed as the prime minister of the State—something not acceptable to the Maharaja.

(In sharp contrast you had Jinnah offering a signed blank sheet along with his own fountain pen to Maharajas of Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, and Bikaner to put down their conditions for accession to Pakistan, saying: “You can fill in all your conditions.”{BK/337})

Had the accession been accepted, the Indian army could have been deployed in Kashmir well in advance of the Oct-47 invasion by the Pakistani-raiders, preventing both the creation of the PoK, and the terrible tragedy of loot, killings and rapes.

It was undemocratic and irresponsible of Nehru, and an illegal act, not to have obtained the concurrence of the cabinet before taking such a major decision of not accepting J&K accession. It is quite likely that Mountbatten had dissuaded him from accepting accession, as the British wanted J&K to accede to Pakistan.

The Pakistani raiders were almost on the outskirts of Srinagar by 22 October 1947, and the Maharaja desperately sought help from India. Looking to the precarious situation, Sardar Patel proposed sending the Indian Army to J&K. However, Mountbatten insisted that unless the Instrument of Accession was signed by J&K in favour of India (the offer earlier refused by Nehru [Blunder#18], most likely at the instance of Mountbatten himself!), India should not send army to Kashmir, and Nehru concurred.

Notwithstanding the desperate situation, and knowing that unless help was sent immediately, both the Kashmiri Muslims and the Pandits of Srinagar would be butchered by the Pakistani raiders, and the Valley of Kashmir would be lost to Pakistan, Mountbatten still insisted that the Instrument of Accession be first signed in favour of India. Nehru simply went along with his guru Mountbatten. It didn’t seem illegal to Mountbatten and Nehru that the raiders backed by the Pakistani army had invaded J&K, which had not signed any Instrument of Accession in Pakistan’s favour;

seemed illegal to them to send Indian army help to save people getting looted, raped and butchered!

Despite tremendous practical difficulties, lack of preparation, and the short notice, the Indian Army rose to the occasion and chased the raiders out of the valley. It is worth factoring-in the fact that had the Indian army not reached Srinagar in time, there would have been a large scale massacre and mayhem by the Pakistani raiders in Srinagar and surrounding areas, which in turn would have had repercussions all over India.

With regard to J&K, it is worth re-emphasising that (a)the Instrument of Accession signed was no different from those signed by the other Princely States; (b)it was signed by Hari Singh unconditionally; and (c)it was accepted by the Governor General, Lord Mountbatten, unconditionally. That is, the whole process was no different from the one that applied to the other 547 Princely States that acceded to India

Notably, the Maharaja had put no conditions on accession. In fact, even Sheikh Abdullah, who had favoured accession to India, never insisted on this condition—rather, he wanted it to be unconditional, lest any uncertainty should remain.

One can understand conditions being stipulated by the party offering you the favour of accession. But, for the party being favoured with accession to stipulate conditions—that’s absurd.

Even if the deed was done without Nehru’s knowledge (unlikely), Nehru should have objected to it and should

have got it annulled or withdrawn.

the princely states were to regain full sovereignty with the creation of the two dominions of India and Pakistan from the British India on 15 August 1947, with the ruler of the Princely State being the ONLY authority to offer accession to India or Pakistan, or to remain independent, regardless of the religious composition of the people of that state, there being NO provision for ‘reference to the people’ or plebiscite.

J&K’s accession to India was full, final, irrevocable and totally legal as per the International Law. Legally, that separate letter of Mountbatten (please see above) made absolutely NO difference. In fact, Mountbatten’s action of writing the above letter was unconstitutional and illegal. Even Nehru had NO legal authority to approve of such a letter. What is more, there was NO cabinet sanction for it!

“The fundamental difference between the American and British positions lay in the fact that the United States was prepared in 1947-48 to recognise India’s sovereign rights in Kashmir.”{DG/121} However, Nehru failed to leverage on that.

The funny thing is that the "reference to the people" or plebiscite was requested neither by Maharaja Hari Singh, nor by Sheikh Abdullah, nor by the people of J&K, nor even by Jinnah(!!) at that time! It was only thanks to Mountbatten and Nehru!{Hing/200}

Nehru unnecessarily internationalised what was purely an internal issue by taking the J&K issue to the UN, again under the influence of the British Mountbatten.

That the member-nations of the UNSC acted in their own selfish national interests and engaged in power-game was apparently not known to the foreign-affairs expert Nehru. As usual, Nehru himself realised his blunder after the act. Nehru regretted the Kashmir issue “has been raised to an international level… by reference to the Security Council of the UN and most of the great powers are intensely interested in what happens in Kashmir… [Kashmir issue] has given us a great deal of trouble… the attitude of the great powers has been astonishing. Some of them have shown active partisanship for Pakistan… We feel we have not been given a square deal.”{BK2/159}

“Pandit Nehru promised a plebiscite in Kashmir without consulting any of his cabinet colleagues or even Mahatma Gandhi.

The CPI had denounced Kashmir's accession to India as an imperialist annexation in early 1948. The Indian army in Kashmir had been described as an army of occupation in all official Soviet publications at that time. So Pandit Nehru's communist conscience suffered persistent pricks. He not only promised a plebiscite but also ordered the Indian Army to stop its triumphant march into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. He changed his stand on a plebiscite in Kashmir only when the Soviet Union and the CPI had changed their stand and come out in support of the Indian case in Kashmir after Pakistan entered into an alliance with America. And he let loose a lying campaign against the West which was only reminding him half-heartedly of the plebiscite promise he had himself made earlier.”{SRG2/171}

Sardar Patel was opposed to Gopalaswami Aiyangar leading the Indian team in the UN. He considered him to be not competent enough. Patel had instead suggested the name of CP Ramaswami Iyer, who had been the Diwan of Travancore. CP, as he was called, was a very competent intellectual, statesman and a diplomat, with many foreign contacts in the UK and the US. He would have presented India’s case effectively. But, Nehru ignored Patel’s advice, and stuck to Gopalaswami Aiyangar.

“The Indians had made Abdullah a member of their UN delegation, no doubt in the expectation that he would be an effective spokesman for India’s cause. They could not have calculated that he would undercut their position by calling for Kashmir’s independence in a private conversation with Austin. Apparently caught by surprise, the ambassador gave Abdullah no encouragement...”{Sch} Incidentally, Warren R. Austin was the US permanent representative—their ambassador—to the UN. Nehru’s initial blunder was to take an internal, domestic matter of India to the UN, and make it international. However, having done that blunder, it was expected of Nehru to put his best foot forward, and win the case for India. Unfortunately for India, Nehru obliged Pakistan with a follow-up blunder: appointing an incompetent to present India’s case!

It was thanks to Nehru’s wrong decision that ‘Pakistan Occupied Kashmir’ (PoK) came into existence, when the Indian army was on the verge of getting the whole of J&K vacated.

Incidentally, it was this brave and competent Thimayya who was humiliated by Krishna Menon, when he was Defence Minister in Nehru’s cabinet, forcing Thimayya to resign! Later, after Thimayya withdrew his resignation at the instance of Nehru, even Nehru behaved with him in a way that amounted to his double humiliation!!

The capture of Muzzafarabad, now the capital of PoK, was imminent. The Army, however, was ordered to suspend all offensive operations with effect from 1 January 1949, even though the enemy did not cease fighting. The Indian Army was very disappointed by the decision, but orders were orders. Thanks to ordering of ceasefire with immediate effect by Nehru, PoK—Pakistan Occupied Kashmir—came into existence; else the whole of Kashmir would have been with India. And, now it is this PoK which is used by Pakistan to send terrorists into J&K.

“Our forces might have succeeded in evicting the invaders, if the Prime Minister had not held them in check, and later ordered the ceasefire… Obviously great pressure must have been brought to bear on him by the [former Governor-General]… Panditji was a great personal and family friend of Lord Mountbatten.”{BK2/160}

As per the biography of late Field Marshal KM Cariappa, they both requested Nehru in December 1948 for a little more time to clear J&K of Pakistani raiders completely, but Nehru did not heed them. Thimayya had told Nehru that the Army needed two weeks more to regain lost territory but Nehru was adamant. It is said that Thimayya found Nehru’s attitude inexplicable, and left Teen Murti Bhavan, the official residence of the PM, in disgust. When Cariappa asked Nehru about the decision a few years later, Nehru conceded that the ceasefire order ought to have been delayed!

After J&K acceded to India on 26 October 1947, Major William Brown of the Gilgit Scouts, although a British contract officer of the Maharaja of J&K, had the Governor Ghansara Singh imprisoned on 31 October 1947, as per a pre-meditated plan, and hoisted the Pakistani flag there on 2 November 1947, and declared its accession to Pakistan! This was totally an illegal action on the part of the British meant to deliberately deny India access to Central Asia. Mountbatten would surely have known of the goings on, but did nothing, or rather, allowed the illegality to quietly happen. Major Khurshid Anwar was one of the Pakistani army officers who had organised and lead the Pakistani Pathan tribal invasion of J&K. His deputy, Major Aslam Khan, took charge of Gilgit from Brown. In 1948, Brown was honoured with the “Most Exalted Order of the British Empire”.

“In truth, Nehru did not show much enthusiasm for Kashmir’s accession at the time… Both the Maharaja and [Meherchand] Mahajan [Premier of Kashmir] pressed for the acceptance of Kashmir’s accession, but Nehru would not move. [Nehru then was being guided by Sheikh Abdullah]… If our army had not received instructions to stop fighting before that date [1 January 1949], it would have cleared the raiders from whole of Kashmir… “The restrain imposed upon our army was motivated by the hope that Pakistan would be satisfied with a bit of Kashmir occupied by it. Of course, some of us opposed this view… Sheikh Abdullah was an ordinary person elevated to an extraordinary position by the Government of India [Nehru]… “I am afraid that Nehru is responsible for the prolongation of the problem through his willingness to compromise at every stage... Had Vallabhbhai [Patel] been the man to handle the Kashmir question, he would have settled it long ago. At least, he would never have settled with a partial control of Jammu & Kashmir. He would have occupied the whole of the State and would never have allowed it to be elevated to international importance.”{Mak/445-6} {DFI} {HJS}

“Nehru… ordered a ceasefire in Kashmir at a time when our forces were in a sound position and poised to roll back the enemy. Nehru’s decision, which was impulsive, was a grievous error much resented by the armed forces. Nehru’s was an imitative and an absorptive mind… Essentially, Gandhi’s was an original mind, while Nehru’s was a second-rate one. He was all heart and less mind. This is reflected in his books also.”{Mac/170}

Nehru can be squarely blamed for the creation of the J&K problem, and the creation of the PoK.

Professor Madhok was amazed at Pandit Nehru’s response—Pandit Nehru flew into a rage and yelled that they should talk to Sheikh Abdullah. Prof Madhok again told Pandit Nehru that Sheikh Abdullah was indifferent to the plight of the Jammu province and only Pandit Nehru could save the people of Mirpur. However, Pandit Nehru ignored all their entreaties and did not send any reinforcements to Mirpur.”{Swa2}

Mirpur later fell to Pakistani artillery, and became part of PoK. The Hindus and Sikhs encountered a genocide, and worst orgies of rape and barbarity.

Article-370 on J&K is thanks to Nehru, who brought it about at the instance of Sheikh Abdullah, despite opposition by many, including Dr BR Ambedkar and Sardar Patel.

Gopalaswami Aiyangar, appointed by Nehru, moved Article 306A—which later became Article 370 in the Indian Constitution—in the Constituent Assembly on 17 October 1949 guaranteeing special status to J&K. This was at the instance of Sheikh Abdullah, and with the concurrence of Nehru. Although many in the Constituent Assembly were not in favour of it, they consented, keeping in view Nehru’s wish, who was then the main person steering the J&K policy. Those not in favour included Ambedkar, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Sardar Patel, and many others.

There are many adverse consequences of Article 370. Some of them are: (1)Regionalism, parochialism and secessionism. (2)Denial of fundamental right to an Indian citizen to settle in J&K permanently. (3)Denial of fundamental right to an Indian citizen to purchase property in J&K. (4)Deprivation of right to vote to an Indian citizen, as he or she cannot become a citizen of J&K. (5)Denial of jobs—an Indian citizen, who is not also a citizen of J&K, cannot get a job in J&K. (6)A woman, who is a permanent citizen of the State, loses her property, including ancestral property, if she gets married to a man who is not a citizen of the State. Also, she can’t get a job in the State, nor can she get admission in colleges getting financial aid from the State or the Union Government. (7)Hindu immigrants who were ousted from their ancestral homes in West Pakistan at the time of partition and settled in J&K have not yet been given citizenship. This includes their children and grand-children.

Article 370 helps protect the corrupt J&K politicians from the more stringent central provisions, and keeps them out of reach of the CAG. To the general public, it does not benefit. It is actually counter-productive. If J&K were like any other state in India, there would have been much more private investment in it, leading to prosperity.

“Article 370 is nothing but a feeding ground for the parasites at the heart of paradise. It skins the poor. It deceives them with its mirage. It lines the pockets of the ‘power elites’. It fans the ego of the new ‘sultans’. In essence, it creates a land without justice...It suffocates the very idea of India and fogs the vision of a great social and cultural crucible from Kashmir to Kanyakumari... “Over the years, Article 370 has become an instrument of exploitation at the hands of the ruling political elites and other vested interests in bureaucracy, business, the judiciary and bar...It breeds separatist forces which in turn sustain and strengthen Article 370. Apart from politicians, the richer classes have found it convenient to amass wealth and not allow healthy financial legislation to come to the State. The provisions of the Wealth Tax and other beneficial laws of the Union have not been allowed to operate in the State under the cover of Article 370...”{Jag/230}

The Article 370 is labelled “Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”, and is included in Chapter 21 of the Constitution dealing with “Temporary, Transitional & Special” provisions. High time this temporary provision was done away with. Dr Subramanian Swamy tweeted on 20 June 2018: “Anyone who says Art 370 abolition needs Parliament approval is either ignorant of the Constitution or an illiterate. It just needs a Presidential Notification of a Cabinet Resolution.”

Article 35A was added to the Indian Constitution in a hush-hush manner (without routing it through the Parliament as required under Article 368) through a Presidential Order of 1954 (in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 370) on the advice of the Union Government headed by Nehru empowering the J&K state to define ‘Permanent Residents’ (PR) of the state, and accord them rights and privileges denied to other citizens of India.

Among the debilitating and discriminating provisions for the Indian citizens who don’t hold PRCs are that they can’t own immovable property in J&K, they can’t get jobs in the J&K govt, they can’t get admission in a college run by the J&K govt, nor avail of any scholarships. Also, if a woman who holds a PRC marries a man who doesn’t hold a PRC then her children and husband can’t exercise any right in the state, are not entitled to PRC, and can’t inherit her immovable property in J&K. This Article 35A, along with the Article 370, has been at the root of non-complete integration of J&K with India, and hinders development of the region, as outsiders are handicapped in investing in the region.