India and Pakistan were divided back in 1947 and the reasons that led to happen is debatable and whether Gandhi was the main reason or the end of world war 2 was the reason is a debate beyond me (at least for now, I do have some thoughts on the same). My contention here is about Kashmir.
Agreed the Maharaja of Kashmir wanted to do what ever he wanted and Pakistan also wanted a part of it or the whole of it and all the “controversy” surrounding it and how our then esteemed prime minister placed friendship over national interest at the time and how he changed his mind within a few years later and there is enough and more literature around this also.
My concern stems from the fact that the lashkars attack on J and K happened organically. 2 countries were formed on August 14/15 1947 and both countries military was still under the control of British. But by October that year, our neighbor managed to arm the “Lashkars” and send them across the border to attack Kashmir and in turn India. It all happened organically is the lie that I feel has been peddled for us.
Here is my contention, how can a newly formed country with thousands of problems to deal with organize and launch a war? The military was still under the British on both sides of the border and if that were the case, what was the governor general Mr. Batten doing? He had no intelligence and did the Pakistan side of British government went rogue? My theory they had been preparing for a few months before the whole thing and ready to pull the plug when needed, indeed going beyond the simple “the irregulars attacked”.
Nehru went to UN to resolve Kashmir, I would have taken the British to task and maybe take them to the international court for their military which was supposed to be “neutral” did take sides and was active in supporting one side over the other. Unless it was known that British wanted to do it on purpose.
All the history being taught why these simple questions are not raised by the “teachers and scholars”.
A friend of mine says history should not be changed and questioned for it would mean we are questioning our teachers and parents and some one else says History is dead. I question that statement whole heartedly and say that what history lacked when taught to us in schools is the scientific temperament and question things and not accept everything to the face value.