Introduction
W JEN I came to think out the construction of a previous work. 1 had in mind to relate the story of the passing of power on the Indian sub-continent and some of the problems which im-mediately confronted the two new States. Vaguely I thought that about two chapters would cover the Kashmir issue. Time went by, and by 1953 my first intention had expanded to a complete section of eight chapters. In the meanwhile at least three works appeared on the problem, and, with long periods of apparent stalemate in Kashmir, at first sight there seemed little scope for further research. Nevertheless it was suggested to me that I should write another and more complete account than the first attempt. There was perhaps something to be said for the story being retold by one who had some experience of the days of British India and for whom the problem of Indo-Pakistani relationship was therefore of much more significance than an academic study in inter-national disagreement. So when the David Davies Memorial Institute of International Studies came forward with an attractive proposal offering me the facilities to return to the sub-continent, I gladly accepted the opportunity. I am profoundly conscious of the responsibility of a citizen of the British Commonwealth in telling this story story: for one reason, there is a tendency in India and Pakistan to interpret his approach as the official view in Whitehall. Let me therefore stress that the comment, views, and judgment throughout this work are mine and mine alone. If that be accepted, I would further ask that this record be regarded as impartial. The claim needs some elaboration, since I in no way imply that criticism is balanced evenly between the two countries concerned. As I see it, the scales of justice are symbolic not of equal weight on either arm, but of a revelation of a preponderance of weight on one arm over the other. The claim I make is of this nature. When, in August 1947, British India was partitioned, I would with willingness have gladly worked in either of the two new States. As for Kashmir, at the time I was un-aware of the complexity of the problem. On my visits to the State I had noted that the few Brahmans of the valley seemed unpopular in the countryside. Yet had I then realised the significance of Sheikh Abdullah I would probably have said that a plebiscite should be held with or without the co-operation of the Maharaja's Government and the people be allowed to express their wish. If, as I believe, Abdullah had then been confirmed as the people's leader, I would have risked the fate of the Kashmir Valley in his hands. In these circumstances all the indications were that Srinagar would at that time have turned to India, Poonch and the Frontier States breaking away to join Pakistan. I stress the point to indicate that impartiality implies the condition of mind in which one makes the first approach. An impartial conclusion is, therefore, one that arises out of impartiality. But the conclusion itself is not for that reason such as would necessarily judge the two parties concerned equally to share the blame. There is another and more profound reason for regarding this task of writing about Kashmir as a grave responsibility. I doubt if there has ever before been an occasion when an Englishman has attempted to record a quarrel of this magnitude between two Commonwealth member-States. If he is told to write about Costa Rica and Nicaragua in conflict it really does not matter profoundly if he makes a slip. But the impression of a careless phrase or an out-of-hand condemnation by an Englishman writing of Commonwealth States in disagreement could be far greater than the author's obscure status might justify. In stating the truth as I see it, I have credited leadership, wherever it is concerned with the ability to give and take criticism in that spirit of tolerance which is the essence of democracy and which we believe is firmly entrenched in the strange partnership of nations known as the Commonwealth. There was a time when I was a passionate advocate of the Common-wealth in general and the United Kingdom in particular taking a decisive share in the arguments which surround Kashmir. I have come to realise the difficulties. But there is a need always to differentiate between "interference" and "influence". The former might place all s unwelcome strains and stresses on the Commonwealth all sorts of ealth relationship, while the latter should be but the manifestation of a desire to help as and when required. At all costs the charge of indifference is to be met and defeated; which perhaps presents a not unimportant motive in writing this book. Many of those who knew Northern India in the nineteen-twenties and thirties will recognise a contribution from a great artist on the jacket of this book. Hal Bevan-Petman was once a teacher at the Slade School of Art. After catching the public eye with a series of astonishing pin-up girls in a fashionable London weekly, he settled down to paint seriously in Delhi, Kashmir and Lahore. He now lives in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, painting many portraits and reaping the benefit not only of his great talent, but also of his sunny and engaging personality. I am much indebted to Mr. Josef Korbel for permission to reproduce information and material from his book Danger in Kashmir, and have drawn on his work freely. In his position on the United Nations Commission which attempted a settlement, he was able to throw new.
This book is a comprehensive account about the Kashmir dispute between two nations i.e., India and Pakistan, since 1947 A.D. It also highlights the river water disputes between the two neighbouring countries, which fought three wars since independence.
Hindu (935)
Agriculture (118)
Ancient (1085)
Archaeology (754)
Architecture (563)
Art & Culture (910)
Biography (702)
Buddhist (544)
Cookery (167)
Emperor & Queen (565)
Islam (242)
Jainism (307)
Literary (896)
Mahatma Gandhi (372)
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist