By Bal Krishan Karkra: Those fed on the salt of this country are talking the way even our enemies would not. This reminds me of the couplet:-
“Dost ho jis ke tum, dushman us ka aasmaan kiyon ho?”
True, truth and humanity are above narrow nationalism. But how does the learned Prof. Nivedita have the illusion that what she is trying to project is the truth and what she claims to uphold is a truly human cause?
At the time of the Partition, the Muslim League was very much a party to the agreement that the fate of some six hundred princely states outside the British India would be decided by their rulers and not the religious majorities. However, this was to be done with due regard to the geographical realities of the subcontinent. The ruler of J &K, Maharaja Hari Singh, duly acceded his dominions to India. This may have been done under pressure, but this pressure came from the roguishness of Pakistan in the form of the tribal invasion of the territory. Rather, on its part, it was India that insisted that accession was provisional and fate of Kashmir would be decided by its people once the situation stabilised. Pakistan did not let it happen at the time because it feared that in the wake of the atrocities committed by its tribal under its instigation, the people of Kashmir would not vote for it. Later the U.N. resolution on the issue also envisaged that Pakistan would have to vacate P.O.K. before the plebiscite was held to ascertain the wish of the people here. Pakistan, however, refused to withdraw as it then feared that the Kashmiri`s would not opt for it and it would lose even what it held. The state of J & K rightfully and legally belongs to India. It is though true that the valley would have been allocated to Pakistan had it been part of British India. But a big ‘IF’ is involved here. Likewise, whole of Europe would have gone Islamic, if the Muslim forces had not lost the Battle of Tour to Charles Mortal. And the British in India would have been seen off from the subcontinent unceremoniously, had their Governor General and Commander-in-chief would not have escaped being captured by the skin of their teeth during the Sikh Wars of the mid nineteenth century. Such ‘IF`s’ of history are, therefore, inconsequential.
As far as the states of our North-east go, it is no secret that the tribal populations in the south here were converted to Christianity mainly through force and fraud, though the selfless efforts of their missionaries in the area also cannot be ignored. Christianity certainly did not spread here the way Buddhism did in China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia and elsewhere— here the British armies moved behind the missionaries. As regards Arunachal Pradesh, we are the successors to the British government in our part of the subcontinent. Whatever belonged to them belongs to us now. In fact, China had agreed to withdraw its claims in Arunachal, provided India ceded Aksai chin to it.