Friday, November 08, 2013
What India got or lost by invading Kashmir and holding on to it
Now that there is open discussion about how the crucial decision to send troops into Kashmir (Patel alternative, instead of treating the hold-out state with international code of behavior and bringing in democratic play into any voluntary association with India, a trial balance could be charted as to what India gained or lose, by opting for Patel Option. That small contingent that landed on Srinagar that historical night, was not the end of story, but beginning of a saga, that entailed wars, terror attacks, insurgency and torture regime of insurgents, beside cold-blooded murders, heavy defense outlays, and constant vigil against the neighbor’s ongoing agenda of the thousand cuts. The list is incomplete. The Nehru option though aborted and derided as impractical and infantile, do have its supporters. Just as Modi recalls and asserts that Patel as Prime Minister would have been better than Nehru, a similar comparison could be made to find how Nehru option on no-war could have benefitted the normalization of relations between the new neighbors. Could wars have been avoided? Would the arms race be minimized? Whether both the neighbors may not have been compelled to develop nuclear options?
Would the minimization of defense outlays, helped both neighbors divert the resources for the welfare of their people, uplifting them out of poverty and destitution?
The analysis will chalk the derivatives from the future course of events that may have to be chosen in view of clear cut alternatives between Nehru and Patel options.
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
----- ----- ----- ----- -----