Unwise Method

the inconsistency of the Indian stand with regard to Junagadh and Kashmir. If Junagadh, despite its Muslim ruler’s accession to Pakistan, belonged to India because of its Hindu majority, how could Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, be a part of India simply by virtue of its Hindu ruler having signed a conditional instrument of accession to India? If the instrument of accession signed by the Muslim ruler of Junagadh was of no validity, the instrument of accession signed by the Hindu ruler of Kashmir was also invalid. If the will of the people was to prevail in Junagadh, it must prevail in Kashmir as well. India could not claim both Junagadh and Kashmir. ‘When Liaqat Ali made these incontrovertible points, Patel could not contain himself and burst out: “Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir, and we could reach an agreement.” Patel’s view at this time, and even later, was that India’s efforts to retain Muslim-majority areas against the will of the people was a source not of strength but of weakness to India. He felt that if India and Pakistan agreed to let Kashmir go to Pakistan and Hyderabad to India, the problems of Kashmir and of Hyderabad could be solved peacefully and to the mutual advantage of India and Pakistan.’ (Emergence of Pakistan, pp. 299-300) Another relevant example appears in another book titled, The Nation That Lost its Soul, written by a well-known Pakistani leader, Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan. This book, consisting of 460 pages, was originally written in English, its Urdu edition, titled Gum-gashta-e-Qaum was published from Lahore. We give below a quotation from this book. “Later, during the attack on Kashmir, Mountbatten Peace in Kashmir