Evening star., 1951-01-19
Mr.. Nehru and Koshmir

The highly explosive Kashmir dispute still
seems as far from peaceful settlement as at
any time since India and Pakistan became inde-
pendent nations in the postwar partitionng of
the great Asian subcontinent once known as the
crown jewel" of the British Empire
Though full Of many complexities, the
trouble over Kashnir stems primarily from this
fact: That in 1947, after the two new nations
had come into being, Kashmir's government
headed by Hindu Maharajah, decided to make
the state an integral part of predominantly
Hindu India. But the people involved being
Moslems in the overwhelming majority, bitterly
resented the decision, their feeling being that if
there were to be any merger, 1t should be with
Moslem Pakistan
So rioting and violence ensued, with both
India and Pakistan dispatching troops to the
area for what threatened to explode into full
scale war between the two. The United Nations
then stepped into the picture and succeeded in
working out cease-fire agreement. Since then,
however, there has been at best only an uneasy
truce. In spite of repeated efforts-both within
and outside the U. N.-nothing but failure has
marked series OF moves to bring about the
withdrawal of armed forces to pave the way for
plebiscite in which the people of Kashmir
would be free to decide for themselves by popu-
lar vote, on the country they wished to join
The latest of these efforts has just been
made in London at the conference of the Prime
Ministers of the British Commonwealth, to
which both India and Pakistan belong According
to Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's Prime Minister
no fewer than three new proposals have been
offered to expedite the holding of plebiscte
but though he himself has been willing to accept
them, they have been rejected by Jawaharlal
Nehru, India's Prime Minister AS a result the
n In a hrnfr fS firio oot1
in the opinion Of Mr. Laquat' Ali, to call for
prompt and urgent action by the U. N. Security
Council to work out an effective settlement be-
fore the situation passes beyond the reach of
mediation and peaceful agreement.
What is it that has obstructed settlement
up to now? Although the issue is too complex
for simple, unqualified answer, the record
strongly suggests that Prime Minister Nehru's
policy has been the biggest obstacle Unlike Mr..
Liaquat Ali, Mr. Nehru has shown a DISPOSE
tion to torpedo every past effort to work out
equitable arrangements for a fair plebiscite.
Certainly, he has not been markedly co-opera-
tive in that respect. Instead, he has hemmed
and hawed and objected to such an extent that
he can hardly blame anybody for suspecting
him OF wanting to deny to Kashmir the right
to choose freely, on the basis of a genuinely
democratic vote, between his own country and
Pakistan.
All this is not without irony. Mr. Nehru has
been playing particularly active role in pressing
for cease-f1re in Korea and for some kind of
deal with Communist China. In that capacity
though undoubtedly motvated by good inten-
tions, he has tended to lecture the United States
and the West in general on how precious peace
Is and how nations must be conciliatory and
yield ground to achieve it. Yet, when 1t comes
to Kashmr, he seems to be another personality
with quite different views
But the irony here is only incidental to what
is really important. The important thing is that
the Kashmir dispute, If allowed to drift from
bad to worse, conceivably could lead to war be-
tween India and Pakistan at time when both
OF them, as free nations, should be strongly
allied against the mounting threat of Red aggres-
sion in Asia. Mr. Nehru should act accordingly.