Yes, kashmir issue could have resolved long back if Nehru could have keep patience for two days only, Even Indra Gandhi could not bargain after bangla desh formation.
By
kishanchand gupta, Freelancer, Base metal(copper)
| 01 26 2012 13:11:40 +0000
The approach to the J&K issue would have been different and handled more effectively and emphatically. Nehru was a meek socialist, whereas Sardar was a open minded far sighted statesman and achieved what otherwise would have been a fragmented states of India.
By
AMISH , Admin/Facilities Manager, VKVC
| 01 23 2012 07:37:47 +0000
J & K issue would not have been existed because, entire J & K would have been won by the indian Military force by removing kabailies who attack on Kashmir. Sardar could succeed to get half the kashmir back in a limited time before Nehru took the issue in UNO, quite unnecessary step when there was a winning situation for Indian Military forces. Had if Sardar was a first PM, then question of approaching UNO would not have raised and ultimately, there would not be any thing like Pak occupied Kashmir.Kashmir would have been one as it was with Maharaja Harisinh. This would have made the situation quite peaceful for all, would have saved crore of our Military Budget and what Not ? I fully support to the debate. Kamal Vasant
By
kamal vasan, MANAGER, NHAI
| 01 20 2012 11:04:18 +0000
Most Certainly. This is based on simply reading into how he enjoined the other princely states and several other decisions that he took. Not only this one several other facets would as well have been different, at least the nation's strength of character as one unit would have been much better. Would like to suggest to those saying "May be" to simply read more on historical facts".
By
Ravindra Sharma, Managing Consultant, CHEF-India
| 12 05 2011 04:53:57 +0000
I think Pt. Jawharlal Nehru our first PM was an error that we are still making us pay. Had Sardar Patel and Lal Bahadur Shastri been given the place what was due to them Kashmir issue would have not existed. I have my serious doubts whether Jinah's Pakistan would have a separate state as it is now even!!. What Mr Bhattacharya says I dont think it is futile to discuss these issues on the contrary we should give more air to these kind of urguments as these clears our understanding !...
By
Rubendra Chandra Basu, General Manager - Systems and Material, Hitech Logistics Limited
| 12 04 2011 07:59:09 +0000
Maharaja Hari Singh was equally hesitant to join either India - he felt his mostly Muslim subjects would not like joining a Hindu-majority nation - or Pakistan - which as a Hindu he was personally averse to. Pakistan's leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah coveted the Himalayan kingdom, while Indian leaders Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru hoped that the kingdom would join India. Hari Singh is even believed to have contemplated independence for his state, and did not make his decision by August 15th. A tribal invasion from Pakistan began in September 1947 and changed the situation completely. Major General Akbar Khan, a senior Pakistan Army general was in command of the raiders, and later openly admitted his and his country's involvement. India offered its help, conditional however, to the Maharaja acceding, which he did. By this time the raiders were close to the capital of Srinagar. Indian troops were sent into Jammu, and a special task force was flown into the capital. Securing the city, Indian forces proceeded to engage the raiders at Baramulla and Poonch. Indian forces succeeded in inflicting heavy casualties and pushing the raiders back, but failed to relieve all of Kashmiri territory before the onset of winter, which made much of the state impassable and fighting unteneble. Fighting continued till 1948-1949, when Prime Minister Nehru declared a ceasefire and sought UN arbitration with the promise of a plebiscite. In 1953, Indian Kashmir was fully integrated into the Indian Union. However, the northwestern portion of Kashmir is today Pakistan administered Kashmir. In 1962, China occupied Aksai Chin, the northeastern portion bordering the Ladakh region. Aksai Chin (Simplified: 阿克赛钦; Traditional: 阿克賽欽; Hanyu Pinyin: Ākèsàiqīn) is a region located at the junction of the People's Republic of China, Pakistan, and India. It is administered by China and claimed by India. Aksai Chin is one of the two main border disputes between India and China, the other being Arunachal Pradesh. Sometimes called the "White Desert", the region is almost uninhabited, although it is of considerable strategic importance for China more than it is for India. One of the proximate causes of the Sino-Indian War of 1962 was India's discovery of a road China had built through the region, which India considers its territory. The road, which connects Tibet and Xinjiang, passes through the settlement of Tianshuihai, the only sizeable town in the region, with about 1600 inhabitants. Aksai Chin is currently under the administration of the People's Republic of China, with the vast majority of it as a part of Hotan County, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. India claims the area as a part of Ladakh district of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The area is strategically important because it contains China National Highway 219, a major road between Tibet and Xinjiang. Both sides in the dispute have agreed to respect the Line of Actual Control and this dispute is considered very unlikely to result in actual hostilities. - Kashmir
- Jammu and Kashmir
- Azad Kashmir
- Northern Areas
- Tibet
By
pandianarjunan , project manager
| 11 15 2011 14:21:18 +0000
It's now a matter of speculation as to what would have vis-a-vis Kashmi happened had Sardar Patel been the prime minister of India in 1947. But, given the facts that Junagarh and Kashmir were handled by Pt Nehru and both the princely states posed problems in integrating with India. Junagarh was integrated by force. (Hyderabad too.) Kashmir remains a political problem as Nehru failed to convince the rulers and political forces of the time for a speedy integration with India. Furthermore, Pt Nehru fell prey to misplaced advice of taking the matter to the UN without pushing out the occupation forces beyond the legitimate boundaries of the then princely state and after instrument of accession, an integral part of India. And, given the political standing and acumen of Sardar Patel, he may have first ordered the army to secure the boundary and then lodge a complaint with the UN, if it was required at all. But, after 65 years of the handling or mis-handling of the issue, I feel Patel could have nipped it in the bud.
By
Prabhash K Dutta, Sr Producer, Focus TV
| 11 13 2011 07:06:43 +0000
its 100% true.This was accepted one. not for debate.He merged the state.with few no of military police.while merging Jammu the Hindu king who ruled kashmir merged the state with negotiation.He would have done a better thing.We lost Tibet the buffer state in Nehru period only.Tibet has no army. The Tibetians believed India,but in vain.They lost their empire to China, "INDI-CHINI BAI BAI" the famous slogan of Nehru costs Tibetian border.Why we have to analyze this heard abouts.History to be remembered. Historical assets is the main thing in a growth of ONE. Now a weak prime minister-Arunachala pradesh- china-whether history remembered?
By
pandianarjunan , project manager
| 11 08 2011 14:27:36 +0000
Cannot say that one person can make big change in a situation, especially issues like ths...Political leadesrs are the representatives of the people.MLAs or MPs are the real sample ofvthe people they are representing ,If there is any defect intheir personality, it is defenitely the reflection of the attitude or the nature of tha whole people and society with or in which they are living.
By
BESLY. P . SAMUEL, Marketing research, ITG Solutions
| 11 02 2011 18:51:30 +0000
for persons who knows about the working culture and capacity of " Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel " this question is just like a simple one and the answer is always yes in support of that great personality. He had the power, strenght,Diplomacy,Ambition every thing which changes the world accordingly they want. Thats why he known as " Iron man of India ".
By
Anupam Anand, Back Office Executive, Jyothy Laboratories limited
| 11 02 2011 16:20:39 +0000
Well, Sarika Mam' is right, s straight forward answer of YES, but YES in the sense that if Sardar Ballabhbhai Patel was the PM of India then...things could have been different! Nehru had his own reservation for the issue and he vehemently stood out rather than to resolve the matter. Nehru was basically a person of twin minds (his origin dates back to Pakistani land), whose demand of freedom (I doubt if he wanted to)broke India in two pieces, he became the PM, influenced (along with Lord Mountbatten) Mohd. Ali Jinnah to demand of the Domino of Pakistan...and thats that! No explanation!He cleverly got what he wanted!
By
Sourav Ghosh, Financial Analyst - RKG Global Markets Ltd
| 11 02 2011 07:36:03 +0000
YES, the economic woes that we witness on account of the policies of Nehru would not be there as well.
By
Ravichandar S, investment
| 11 02 2011 06:47:45 +0000
Yes. its totally yes... Agar Sardar and Bose ji ki baat maani gayi hoti... to PAkistan Bhi nahi hota... KAshmir samasya ki to bat hi nahi thi... Par India ki problem hai.... Bahar ke logo ko sir par baitha ke rakhne ka...and Gandhi ki Ghulami karne ka...Still vo hi ho raha hai.... Log RSS , BJP and jaane kin kin ko Corrupt bolte hai.... vo ye nahi dekh rahe... 47 se 11 tak.. 65 years me se 58 years tak Congress ki Govt. rahi hai... to Corruption me kiska haath raha hoga.....But Still people think BJP and RSS ka terrorist parties... and UPA is best... India can be Nuclear Power in 90 if congress want.. but they have no guts... or they dont wanna do ne thing good... its Sir Vajpai...who face hell protection and banning... but made india a power... Yet just because of Onions congress won... people dont even think that these Onions were used in pokran to save lots of livs of Rajasthan.... but who think this things.... we are blind people...
By
raj singh sindal, Software Test Engineer, Rishabh Software Pvt. Ltd
| 11 02 2011 05:50:05 +0000
Looking to his strength and ability to sort out issues like this, surely he would have solved this issue and India would have been in much better position today. All know how he handled the issue of gathering all small states and kingdoms and made one united India.He was a real iron man and the most deserved candidate for PM
By
Rajesh Thakkar, Key Account Manager,
| 11 02 2011 05:25:48 +0000
j & k ..i am a state subject but i still dont know whats the problem..just like farrakha barrage thing evertime u read anew manifestation appears
By
Ajay__Ziz , , jammu university
| 11 02 2011 04:56:22 +0000
|
What is the idea of such discussions on IF's AND BUTs and killing each other's time? Why not discuss what should be done for Kashmir?
By
Dipak Bhattacharya, Chief Engineer, SCSPL
| 11 14 2011 16:37:17 +0000
kashmiris are totally distinct race..unique .culture rituals . linguistic transactions. monologue based marriages / etc etc.they adapt but head strong to be swayed by any wind , ether . fire or tsunami of ideas.
By
Ajay__Ziz , , jammu university
| 11 11 2011 06:55:51 +0000
Govt. and its machinery worried about birth and death dates of Nehru family and they conveniently forget about others. October 31st is the birth date of "Iron man of India". Incidentally, it was the death day of Madam Indira. Govt. issued number of adds in different media in memory of Madam Indira, and there was no single message from the Govt. commemorating the services of Patelji. I have expected some comments from my friends on yes side on this. But......
By
Srinivas suravajhala, Asst. Manager.
| 11 08 2011 05:45:55 +0000
I totally agree with Jaygopal view. and would like to add that Sardar was the HM of the Govt that time and not a small leader Nehru and if govt at that time follow certain policy then that would had his approval also
By
Rahul Mishra, BD Manager, Appolo Educational Services
| 11 06 2011 09:21:55 +0000
I dont think we should make such sweeping statements. Things do evolve over a period of time. There is more to the J&K issue than a simple accession to the indian state. There are religious and political overtones to this issue and dont forget the British hand in the whole episode. It is easy to sit back and comment today on what happened eons ago especially if you were not even born at that time. Even Vallabhai Patel was a human being, his mind could also have arrived at a different decision. One can never say ! So lets not speculate on something which could have happened long back.
By
Jaygopal Raghavan, Marketing Manager, Landmark Group
| 11 02 2011 17:39:05 +0000
Sarika an important subject. If you go back to history you will find Jodhpur, Junagarh has joined Indian Union, pressed by Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel. similarly, I have no doubt if Kashmir would have been handed over to Mr Patel there should not have been any problems faced by us today on Kashmir.
By
Rathin Deb, Freelance Retail Consultant
| 11 02 2011 12:39:19 +0000
u r right sarika, v cn't cmment anythng as such but might b he wn't hve let it go as the way it is.
By
puneet , Manager Admin
| 11 02 2011 07:23:19 +0000
Since the issue is about discussing a scenario that happened long long ago.., I support this side. One thing is for sure that Nehru had his own reservations being a Kashmiri, failed to utilise the scenario then and allowed the things to take their own shape and partially responsible for the present situation. However, how Sardar would have been acted on the issue then, is only an imaginary question now. I believe in reality rather than swinging in imaginations.
By
Srinivas suravajhala, Asst. Manager.
| 11 02 2011 05:35:27 +0000
|
