Why was Art370 incorporated into Indian constitution?

Apr 2012
1,683
India
Or should I say , "What were Nehru and co thinking when they agreed to provide special status to J&K"?

This is very important question as Kasmiris ,or Kashmiri muslim to be exact, were not in position to force India to concede their demand of a state within a state. While Kashmir may be a muslim majority area, it is never a heavily populated area. Even today, there are less than 5 and a half million Kashmiri Muslims, which is less than half of total population of Delhi alone.

Had they resisted their state being incorporated in union, they could have been easily expelled (on the lines of what happened in Punjab) and/or turned into minority be settling landless farmers from UP and Bihar, or Hindus and Sikhs migrating from Pakistani Punjab (rather than settling them in Delhi), in Kashmir by giving state owned land to those farmers.There are more than one way to skin a cat.Even if we did not wanted to do an outright genocide (though I don't think that anyone would have mind.International community was resigned to/understood that since division of India has occured on religious lines,there would be religion based expulsions),lives of Kashmiri muslims could have been made so miserable that they would be forced to migrate likes Hindus of Pakistan were forced to migrate after 1948 (there were still substantial percentage of Hindus left in Pakistan ,mostly in Sindh and Pashntun areas, after initial slash and gash frenzy died down). Even today, if Indian government put its mind to it, demography of Kashmir could be changed in less than a decade.


We could have solved this problem in 1948 itself rather than leaving it as a festering sore.I firmly believe that officials explanations are bumkum. As Mao rightly pointed said: "Power flows from the barrel of gun", and India had big guns in Kashmir.Either Indian politicians were too short sighted to realize the harm that having a muslim majority state would cause to India in long run, or they were frankly cowards who could not take strong but unplatable decisions for common good.
 
Last edited:

SSDD

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
3,900
India
To appease Sheikh Abdullah, who switch his stance rather constantly.
 
Apr 2012
1,683
India
To appease Sheikh Abdullah, who switch his stance rather constantly.
To what end? Even if he was staunchly pro-India, ground occupation counts more than any goodwill.


I think there were also personal factors in play here.

Nehru was a Islam lover and a Kashmiri. Probably he wanted Kashmir to remain muslim, thus agreed to art 370 which would make demographic engineering impossible, even if a more pragmatic government comes to power later on.

Any strategist with even half a brain knows that occupying ground is 90% of occupation. There were nearly 5 million migrants from Pakistan to India. Diverting a fourth of them to Kashmir would have changed demography of Kashmir, and with Indian Army behind their back, these pissed off migrants would have turned Kashmir into another Punjab.We could have ended this circus over Kashmir in 1940's itself.Dogra army was doing a pretty god job at changing demography before Pakistan invaded, and those pleas that muslims sent to Pakistan were genuine.And why even bother with this dog and pony show. While Indian army was fighting with Pakistan Army, Dogra army would have been instructed/gently suggested to go from village to village expelling muslims. thus providing plausiable denaibility to India.

Pakistan would have cried a river, but then only thing that count in international relation is how much money, men, or guns you could bring to table. If world did not blinked an eyelash for ethnic cleansing of Punjab and Bengal, did not bat an eyelash when Sri Lanks expelled Indian Tamils from Lanka, they would have remain shut for Kashmir too. Off course, this hypothetical envision that Nehru ,with all his stupidity, did not took this issue to UNSC.


I think this tendency of not taking decisive action , for sake of a pat on back and sweet words , words which are not weight their worth in crap, is a character flaw of our nation. Our Left-Liberal elties cared so much about looking good in eyes of west that they violated basis cannons of stable rule. This is not only evident in Kashmir but in Hyderabad too. I would start a thread on Hyderabad when this one has run its course.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2012
1,780
chandigarh
To what end? Even if he was staunchly pro-India, ground occupation counts more than any goodwill.


I think there were also personal factors in play here.

Nehru was a Islam lover and a Kashmiri. Probably he wanted Kashmir to remain muslim, thus agreed to art 370 which would make demographic engineering impossible, even after a more pragmatic government comes to power later on.

Any strategist with even half a brain knows that occupying ground is 90% of occupation. There were nearly 5 million migrants from Pakistan to India. Diverting a fourth of them to Kashmir would have changed demography of Kashmir, and with Indian Army behind their back, these pissed off migrants would have turned Kashmir into another Punjab.We could have ended this circus over Kashmir in 1940's itself.Dogra army was doing a pretty god job at changing demography before Pakistan invaded, and those pleas that muslims sent to Pakistan were genuine.And why even bother with this dog and pony show. While Indian army was fighting with Pakistan Army, Dogra army would have been instructed/gently suggested to go from village to village expelling muslims. thus providing plausiable denaibility to India.

Pakistan would have cried a river, but then only thing that count in international relation is how much money, men, or guns you could bring to table. If world did not blinked an eyelash for ethnic cleansing of Punjab and Bengal, did not bat an eyelash when Sri Lanks expelled Indian Tamils from Lanka, they would have remain shut for Kashmir too. Off course, this hypothetical envision that Nehru ,with all his stupidity, did not took this issue to UNSC.


I think this tendency of not taking decisive action , for sake of a pat on back and sweet words , words which are not weight their worth in crap, is a character flaw of our nation. Our Left-Liberal elties cared so much about looking good in eyes of west that they violated basis cannons of stable rule. This is not only evident in Kashmir but in Hyderabad too. I would start a thread on Hyderabad when this one has run its course.
I do'nt think kashmiri liked punjabis - including hindu ones, they looked at punjabis as imperial hegemons as most of the recent kashmiri history punjabis had ruled kashmir - kashmiris generally did not like dogras or punjabi across the board - this would have fueled kashmiri nationalism even further and even Hindu elements would have supported them. kashmiris normally have very strong kashmiri identity - it even has a name kashmiriyat
 
Apr 2012
1,683
India
I do'nt think kashmiri liked punjabis - including hindu ones, they looked at punjabis as imperial hegemons as most of the recent kashmiri history punjabis had ruled kashmir - kashmiris generally did not like dogras or punjabi across the board - this would have fueled kashmiri nationalism even further and even Hindu elements would have supported them.
Then don't settle Punjabis. As I stated earlier, why bother with whole dog and pony show. Once muslims were expelled or their number reduced, immigrants from anywhere in India could have been settled, Dogras themselves could have settled Kashmir by diverting their not-so-well-off population into Kashmir like Europe did in America.

And Hindus here do not count. They never formed enough numbers to influence outcome.

kashmiris normally have very strong kashmiri identity - it even has a name kashmiriyat
Yup.

Kashmiriyat served Pandits pretty well in the end.:think:
 
Jun 2015
246
India
Then don't settle Punjabis. As I stated earlier, why bother with whole dog and pony show. Once muslims were expelled or their number reduced, immigrants from anywhere in India could have been settled, Dogras themselves could have settled Kashmir by diverting their not-so-well-off population into Kashmir like Europe did in America.

And Hindus here do not count. They never formed enough numbers to influence outcome.
First Kashmiri ethnicity is more than 90 percent Muslim so yes Hindus did not matter at all, however, Brahmins owed their good position only to Dogras.

The best solution was expelling Kashmiris from valley and then settling Dogras there.
 
Jun 2015
246
India
Bengal in 1872 was a Hindu majority province(including East Bengal). By 1941, Hindus dwindled down to 44 percent. In these 7 decades Muslims were carefully planning demographic coup, Hindu Bengali elites at that time were busy in flogging dead horses like caste or wrote novels 'showing plight of widows'.

Abhishek asked if this was shortsightedness or cowardice. It was both, cowardice arose from former as with no preparation, you will certainly develop cold feet in front of ghazis.

If Muslims could become 56 percent from 49 in 7 decades, Hindus too could have become 60 percent from 51. In 1881, Muslims were 20 percent of Indian subcontinent, today they are 33 percent. They could have been 14 percent today too if Hindus showed even an iota of common sense and simply had concentrated on survival of their community.

Yet today, no one has learnt any history. I see people debating how Muslims became 33 percent and how caste was bad and such jokes.
 

greatstreetwarrior

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
3,873
Yes the Dogra angle could have worked but hell something even before that could have. I heard a story from an army major (please note source not corraborated) that during reign of Gulab Singh some of the Muslims (who had converted a few generations ago) came to his court and pleaded to be taken back to Hinduism and that they would bring thousands of others back into the fold. Apparently they had not fully Islamized and were living as crypto Muslims.

Maharaja called the Kashmiri pandits of his court and asked tulhem how to go about conversion. The Pandits called them Mlecchas and refused to take them back into the fold and then these people became rabidly angry on Pandits. This army major told me (he was a Hindu himself) that what a mistake it was at that time.

Anyways I think Dogra military should have been made to do this and I think India should have gone on to take POK and resettled Pakistani Hindu refugees, Sikhs (they killed Muslims in droves during partition) and Jat-Gujjar combine. These groups have a pretty violent track record in defending themselves, most of them agrarians and could have minced meat with Kashmiri Muslim majority. I dont think after integration this option was ever possible.

I sometimes wonder if India ever benefited by taking Kashmir if it was to give 370 in return.
 

greatstreetwarrior

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
3,873
Bengal in 1872 was a Hindu majority province(including East Bengal). By 1941, Hindus dwindled down to 44 percent. In these 7 decades Muslims were carefully planning demographic coup, Hindu Bengali elites at that time were busy in flogging dead horses like caste or wrote novels 'showing plight of widows'.

Abhishek asked if this was shortsightedness or cowardice. It was both, cowardice arose from former as with no preparation, you will certainly develop cold feet in front of ghazis.

If Muslims could become 56 percent from 49 in 7 decades, Hindus too could have become 60 percent from 51. In 1881, Muslims were 20 percent of Indian subcontinent, today they are 33 percent. They could have been 14 percent today too if Hindus showed even an iota of common sense and simply had concentrated on survival of their community.

Yet today, no one has learnt any history. I see people debating how Muslims became 33 percent and how caste was bad and such jokes.
We need to look at the new census figures of 2011. Kerala, Bengal and Assam are all turning Muslim within our life time, maybe parts of western UP as well.

Manipur and Arunachal are turning Christian majorities. Meghalay will see further Hindu dwindling.

Christianity is spreading rapidly in Southern TN, Coastal Andhra, Orissa and Jharkhand.
 
Apr 2012
1,683
India
First Kashmiri ethnicity is more than 90 percent Muslim so yes Hindus did not matter at all, however, Brahmins owed their good position only to Dogras.

The best solution was expelling Kashmiris from valley and then settling Dogras there.
I too had similar solution in mind. Any strategist ,who is not ideologically biased, would have pointed out that a muslim state on the borders of Pakistan was an disaster waiting to happen. Pakistan was a muslim state. Kashmiris were muslims. India was Hindu. Sooner or later, Kashmiris would have wanted to join their brethren in Pakistan.

Any level headed prime minister of India would have recognized that Kashmir ,with its muslim population would have been very difficult to near impossible to keep with India. Thus the logical action in Kashmir would have been expulsion of Muslims followed by settling of Hindu Indians ,preferably Dogras from Jammu and if they did not have population big enough to be sustainable in both Jammu and Kashmir, Hindus from rest of India.

This is not limited to Kashmir. We should award "Bharat Ratna" to rioters who ethnically cleansed Punjab, Haryana, and Himanchal.Had muslims been a strong minority of around 40% in these states,these states ,and by extension whole of India, would have turned into Iraq of today. National stability is built on bedrock of favourable demography.A person need to be blinded by ideology to overlook this fact.

Anyway, I have came across some material regarding Nehru. This is what Sita Ram Goyal wrote about Communists, Abdullah and Nehru.

The question of Kashmir is a little more complicated. For, it is a question with a very complicated history. Perhaps Mr. Panjabi does not know that Pandit Nehru had befriended Shaikh Abdullah simply because the latter was also, and for a long time, a Soviet-addict like him. I have in my possession several pamphlets published by the People's Publishing House in praise of the Sher-e-Kashmir. Pandit Nehru dropped Shaikh Abdullah primarily because the Shaikh picked up a quarrel with Sadiq & Co., the communist clique in Kashmir. Shaikh Abdullah proved to be a traitor to India. But we could not catch him as such. We had to invent an American conspiracy and brand the Shaikh as an American agent before we could arrest and arraign him. That is the measure of perversion suffered by our nationalism under the leadership of a communist camp follower like Pandit Nehru.

Also, Mr. Panjabi does not seem to know why Pandit Nehru promised a plebiscite in Kashmir without consulting any of his cabinet colleagues or even Mahatma Gandhi. I refer him to the Memorandum which the CPI had submitted to the British Cabinet Mission and in which Kashmir was described as a separate nationality which should be given the right of self-determination to the point of becoming a sovereign State. The CPI had denounced Kashmir's accession to India as an imperialist annexation in early 1948. The Indian army in Kashmir had been described as an army of occupation in all official Soviet publications at that time. So Pandit Nehru's communist conscience suffered persistent pricks. He not only promised a plebiscite but also ordered the Indian Army to stop its triumphant march into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. He changed his stand on a plebiscite in Kashmir only when the Soviet Union and the CPI had changed their stand and come out in support of the Indian case in Kashmir after Pakistan entered into an alliance with America. And he let loose a lying campaign against the West which was only reminding him half-heartedly of the plebiscite promise he had himself made earlier
I think I should start a new thread about crimes Nehru committed against India for sake of communism.

Firstly. The mess on both of our borders is gift of Nehru exclusively. Kashmir should have been solved by force rather than appeasement. Everyone in whole world was okay with religion based expulsions/population exchange in countries divided on basis or religion, whether India or Palestine madate.

Second. Today Hyderabadi muslims are biggest salafis present anywhere in India, and Hyderabad old city is practically an enclave of Pakistan. These people ,after what the did in Hyderabad and after picking up guns against Indian Army, should not have been tolerated and expelled en-mass into Pakistan.

Third. When China attacked Tibet, India should have asked USA for help and stopped PLA at the borders of Tibets itself. There were many people in India ,including Ambedkar (more I read about this person, more I realised that he is one of most underrated politician in Indian history. He was someone with clear insights about economy, politics, and strategy which Nehru being blinded by ideology never had, and was surprisingly right wing on economy, defence,and Foreign policy. Sadly he has been reduced to a low caste mascot used as a tool by people who have clinical grade inferiority complex), who advocated India sending Army to help Tibetans. This never happened because Nehru could not overcome his ideological love for commie China, and stop hating capitalist US for long enough to forge a common front to stop enemy at gates.

Fourth. Economic disaster ushered by Nehru and Indira has been discussed to death, before too.

Commie love of Nehru has harmed India more than anything else.
 
Last edited: