 |
Hari Singh and accession Sir, Apropos of Shri Dewan Chand's letter (D.E. of 18.12.99). Ordinarily, I would not have taken cognizance of such a letter, which is self-contradictory, wrong in conception and in language erroneous. What does the critic mean when he says that ''he has put personalities like Maharaja Hari Singh, Sheikh Abdullah, Kak and Dr Karan Singh in the same pawn..?''. On second thought, I feared that my silence might be misconstrued by your respectable readers. Moreover, the letter would surely impart wrong ideas to the wrong persons. Hence this my rebuttal. The critic has conceived wrong idea of a historian. Marvellous histories and biographies have been written by men who were not academically or professionally entitled to do the job and were sowing wild oats in other fields. The list of such persons is long. I am unpleasantly surprised that the critic has not taken the trouble of looking into any dictionary. He would have known that a ''historian is one who studies history or writes about history''. Without meaning to be boastful, I have done both, even though I have been Professor of English. Besides, I have been witness to the turbulant era and had first hand account and direct evidence of the period. Historian is not one who, like Jerry Cruncher of Dickens, digs graves and takes out rotten bones and in ugly from passes on as history. One must know, as Compton-Rickett says: Facts are admittedly invaluable things; but they can be made extremely dull things; and such a historian is often desperately a dull dog.'' A historian must have command over the language so that he can invest actual facts and actual scenes with colour and movement. He must have an analytical mind and psychological insight. That is what is much in evidence in my article. In the first paragraph the critic says that late His Highness showed inclination to accede to Pakistan. In the third paragraph he says that he feared that the Government of India ''is eventually to agree to the decision of the Security Council which result (would result) in handing over us (us over) to Pakistan''. The obvious conclusion is that the late Maharaja did not want to go to Pakistan and felt justly frustrated at India's way of doing things. When Nehru was reluctant to send the Indian army to Srinagar even though the raiders were knocking at the doors of the city, so in utter desperation Mahajan threatened Nehru that he would fly to Lahore. He meant to coerce and pressurise him to send the armed forces at once to Srinagar and the threat worked. Mahajan could not actually mean to accede to Pakistan. How could he? He had first to get the consent of the late Maharaja Sahib. Kashmir was surrounded on all sides by Pakistan so in his predicament Maharaja Hari Singh sought the advice of the staunch Hindu leader, Mr Gulwalker Ji, as to what he should do in the unforeseen concourse of cirumstances. What was his advice- the critic does not say. He, on the other hand, jumps at the wrong inference. The trouble with the critic is that he quotes out of context and then does not understand the true purport of the conversation or situation. A true historian must have a right analytical mind and sometimes read between the lines. The critic thinks that I have shown idolatrous attitude towards the protoganists. Dr Karan Singh Ji's eminence is well established. Rest of the characters are no more alive; the dead do not hear. I have been quite objective and written without fear or favour. The boot is on the other leg. It is he who has unsuccessfully tried to play to the gallery. There is no evidence to show that the late Maharaja had any intention of acceding to Pakistan. A simple commonsense is required to know his real intention. Let Dr H L Saxena speak (''The tragedy of Kashmir'', pp 482, 483): ''Maharaja Hari Singh was determined not to accede to Pakistan under any circumstances whatsoever (underlined by me) ...The pressure exerted by Lord Mountbatten on Maharaja Hari Singh to accede to Pakistan was thus too much for him to bear with the result that Maharaja Hari Singh could take no final decision in the matter, and decided to remain independent, at least for the time being.'' Similarly, Prem Shankar Jha vehemently questions: ''Why did he (Nehru) reject the Maharaja's offer of accession in September? Why did he, for that matter, reject the Maharaja's offer again as late as 24 October? Why was he prepared to give up Srinagar rather than accept an offer that did not explicitly commit itself to the installation of a popular government under Sheikh Abdullah?'' I clinch the matter here as I have sufficiently swept away the critic's contentious. No more discussion is now needed. Yours etc... |
