غیر حکیمانہ طریقہ

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 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 Liaqut Ali Khan 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 effort 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. Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, Emergence of Pakistan, pp. 299-300 اگر پاکستانی لیڈر کا یہ بیان درست ہے تو یہ اس بات کا ناقابل تردید ثبوت ہے کہ کشمیر کا مسئلہ خود پاکستانی لیڈروں کا پیدا کیا ہوا ہے، نہ کہ ہندستانی لیڈروں کا پیدا کیا ہوا۔ اس سلسلہ میں دوسری مثال وہ ہے جو پاکستان کے ایک معروف لیڈر سردار شوکت حیات خاں کی کتاب میں ملتی ہے۔ ان کی یہ کتاب لاہور سے اردو میں ''گم گشتہ قوم‘‘ کے نام سے 460 صفحات پر چھپی ہے۔ اس کتاب کا انگریزی نام یہ ہے: The Nation that Lost its Soul.