Nehru's Philosophy for LoC in Kashmir Gilgit-Baltistan

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by roma, Jul 5, 2014.

  1. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    There will be many theories and would be glad to hear them all. My take is that there wasn't much (any?) strategic thinking (by him) in those days and he decided to give the Gilgit-Baltistan extremely mountainous areas to Pakistan on the basis that such areas would be difficult to live in, difficult to develop and also his native Hindu pundit community didn't care much for it, it wasn't their area of abode.

    Your ideas and information please as to why Mr Nehru "gave" or decided to share the region according to that particular boundary as shown by the LoC.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2014
    pmaitra likes this.
  2.  
  3. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    If one observes the various actions of Nehru, there is no doubt that the conclusion reached will be that he had no strategic insight or vision.

    Patel had, but Nehru's overreaching aura muffled the strategic insight of Patel.

    However, to be sure, it was not Nehru who gave away Gilgit Baltistan to Pakistan.

    Once Independence Act would be passed by the British Parliament, the sovereignty would pass onto the Princely states and the lease to the British Govt end.

    The Maharaja of Kashmir sent Brig Ghansara Singh to go overland to Gilgit Baltistan as the Governor.

    He was accosted and harassed by Maj Brown, the Comdt of the Gilgit Scout and Ghansara Singh was arrested. Maj Brown declared that Gilgit Baltistan has joined Pakistan.

    The attack by the Pakistan Army organised and assisted with officering 'tribal' hordes along the Uri Baramulla axis, shifted the focus as the hordes had reached Badgam on the outskirts of Srinagar.

    The rest is history that is known.

    The Ceasefire sealed the fate of Gilgit Baltistan.
     
    jackprince and Simple_Guy like this.
  4. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    the major mistake was late pm agreeing to ceasefire before Gilgit Baltistan was within indian army position.And then taking kashmir to UN
     
  5. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    I Agree with what anoop Sir has written .

    Further as Ray Sir, has himself written in his post above, it was the ceasefire line that sealed the fate ( until now temporarily, unless GOI gives up totally ) of GB as part of POK. Many (unofficial) sources state that the India army informed Mr N that they were was within four days of taking the whole territory of GB but he was so naive as to go to the UN for adjudication.

    My interpretation of their decision is that they of course being what they were and still are - were not in the know, and couldn't care less so the best solution was "leave it be" as long as there was no continuation of fighting .

    But did he have to accept that "verdict " ? no ! he could have disregarded and marched on , he didn't . So although major brown had chosen Pakistan Mr N had 2 chances ( at least once before going to the UN and even after their non -action decision ) to take it back from them - he didn't !

    That's why i interpret it today as Mr N's gift to packland.

    But all that really detracts from the real intent of the thread - which is to ask our members :- why the LoC runs as it does. Why did Mr N choose to go to the UN at that stage -. It seems as if he was saying "that part of Kashmir where the pundits live no way will i negotiate but the other parts which i dont care too much for, those parts let's see what the international community says" ?
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2014
    sesha_maruthi27 likes this.
  6. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    @roma

    why the LoC runs as it does. Why did Mr N choose to go to the UN at that stage -.........................
    1)He has accession paper from Kashmir Maharaj,he thought UN decision in his favor
    2) Our politicians r mostly follow British way (divide&rule) like Pasthun areas divided between Afg&Pak
    Same Baloch divided btw Iran&Pak (see whole Balochistan map 20% in Iran)
    .
    like that Kahmir divided btw Inda&pak, why simple easy to manage ppl,their freedom become confused if one country leave another invades what is our position

    what the international community says" ............... 1972 un officially pak accepted LOC as an international border (if u read rules K issue is bilateral no 3rd party(UN),No country interfere in other issues...)

    Nehru thought pak will behave like any other state it got some share in K so they will be happy.But it is not a normal state it is Greedy/failed/terrorist por*****

    Now why GB is become an issue......... GB majority population are Shia,Pakistans persecuted sect & kashmir leaders know that GB awam welcome Indian role.Just politics nothing will move
    Strategically it is very keen area we may build pipe line/trade to Central asia through GB directly
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  7. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    Many thanks to all of you above who have posted .
    I'd like to add a side issue to the topic without starting a separate thread :- If PAK leases G-Baltistan to CCP-China as is rumoured . My suggestion is to temporarily lease it to Shias form Pakistan and Tibetans from Tibet .

    That is to say,take the line of Control, follow its contour and take a depth of 20 kilometers parallel to it . You have a territory 20 km wide and with the same contour. Just as the rumours have it that PAK might lease for 50 years - well we can make a say 25 year lease to Shias from Pakistan who feel victimised - especially those in GB who feel targetted for state sanctioned murder .

    From their new base in Indian Kashmir they might want to cross the Loc and take back their land - well isn't it a good counter to Pak harboring terrorist camps in GB ? Secondly relocate the Tibetan government in exile from Dharamsala ( after the passing of Dalai Lama ) to that area too ( or give the a second area in addition to Dharamsala) . Im sure Tibetans who are adequately armed would know what to do when facing CCP-China troops !

    Your Comments are most welcome.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2014
  8. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    .

    It is correct that Nehru had no strategic or other vision. Maybe the innumerable issues that were thrown up during the Partition sort of overwhelmed him, possible because he had become a control freak who did not take anyone's advice as it appears thanks to his his aura, built up by Gandhi. Maybe he thought he was the sole inheritor of India's Destiny.

    Yet, to be fair to him given the military hardware and deployment of troops to include protecting the movement of refugees, one wonders if it was within the Indian Army's capability and one has to keep in mind the arduous terrain and most underdevelopment communication infrastructure to Gilgit Baltistan prevalent then..

    Even today, compared to Kashmir, it remains underdeveloped.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2014
  9. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    yes i agree with your second para - that the region would have been difficult to protect although it was possible to take and protect the low ground - but then again given the poor state of development of the armed forces and doctrine in those days, i suppose Mr N did what he could.

    Nevertheless without necessarily blaming him we are now faced with the real possibility that Pak might lease the land to China in which case i have written a response in my post above - your and others' comments are most appreciated
     
  10. ITBP

    ITBP Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    131
    Location:
    .
    Nehru was an idiot, he at first screwed up Netaji, He started with Kashmir problem and finished with disastrous 1962 war. He should have been shot in 1948 instead of Gandhiji, then at least we would not have Kashmir and 1962's debacle.

    He gave India nothing apart from a system to continue colonial legacy and problems.

    About nehru's philosophy on Gilgit he had no philosophy at all. :laugh: :tsk:
     
    archie likes this.
  11. jackprince

    jackprince Turning into a frog Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    2,674
    Location:
    Seema Andhra
    Very bad idea. India is in no position to be the aggressor in Indo-China relationship. We have more to lose than gain a hostile Gilgit-baltisthan.
     
  12. Simple_Guy

    Simple_Guy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    533
    Location:
    Delhi
    Shia dominated Gilgit is in fact hostile to Sunni Pakistan, not to India.
     

Share This Page