Reply to Ramachandran.

["Dr.SubrotoRoy" <sroy@vgsom.iitkgp.ernet.in>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Two Nations and Kashmir" was published in 1956 by Richard Clay & Company
>Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk.

-- this is the first time I am hearing of this publisher

I am not adequately informed regarding the background
>of the author, Lord Birdwood,

-- then what is your basis for thinking him credible?

but I believe that he had lived in India for a
>considerable period,

-- so have a lot of people

and had been an observer to the events that took place
>in >Kashmir before independence and till 1955.

-- but you do not know this.

>     I don't think that the book is widely available, but it is a wealth of
>information.

-- like what?

It is of special value since it's primary objective is to be a
>historical narrative of the issue,

-- of what credibility?

rather than an empirical attempt at
>reaching a solution. Since it is a historical narrative, it would be
>impossible to summarise the sequence of events, which is what is to be
taken
>away from it.

-- does anyone understand this?


>     I think it is imperative to be extremely cautious when examining the
>circumstances surrounding the accession of Kashmir to India.

-- but then why are you not using the same caution you are advising others?


While there is
>considerable speculation regarding the extent of Pakistan's role in the
>tribal
>invasion in 1948

-- what?  this is not speculation... this certainty... everyone from the
Pakistanis and the UN to all of India agrees that the Pakistanis sent in
tribesmen who raped and pillaged Kashmiris of all faiths.

, Birdwood is very clear

-- so who cares who this old Colonel Blimp was or what he said?

in indicating that it is unlikely
>that the Pakistan government had much to do with it.

-- what?

There definitely is no
>credibility to the allegation that the tribesmen were pakistani regulars

-- what?

, or
>under orders from the Pak government. In contrast, there is a wide array of
>literature in India which makes that very allegation.

-- what?  M. A. Jinnah did not know?

And all the Pakistani
>authors of Kashmir accounts that I have read go to great lengths to
indicate
>that there was never any involvement with the tribesmen. Pakistani authors
>have also tended to obscure the entry of the Pakistan army into the valley
>during the war, attempting to push the date of their involvement as far
>forward as possible.
>
>     To me, the purpose of this discussion on Kashmir is

-- you have started this nonsensical line of argument, and you have given
nothing for us to believe in.

Why don't you, if you can, identify a single crucial fact on which the
general impression is wrong according to your unknown British author?

Subroto Roy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------