Muslim ruler's accession to Pakistan belonged to India because of
itsHindumajority, howcouldKashmir,with itsMuslimmajority, 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 Junagarh 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
andPakistan.
Chaudhry Muhammad Ali,
Emergence of Pakistan
, pp. 299-300
Z
¤
/
0
*
Î
ã
7
g
»
t
Ò
y
Š
g
„
ì
Â
t
Zk
!
*
]
»
*‡
.
Þ
F
,
Š
h
+
o
]
ì
ò
»
X
X
H
ƒ
Z
p
Š
0
*
Î
ã
7
gzV
»
a
Z
H
ƒ
Z
ì
Ô
:
y
*
ã
7
gzV
»
a
Z
Zk
Ÿ
~
Š
z
u
~
V
wz{
ì
£0
*
Î
y
Æ
Z
q
-
c
zs
7
g
u
Š
Zg
Ø
•
§
]
{
V
,
] 460
Å
Â
[
~
Q
ì
XZy
Å
t
Â
[
Ñ
ƒ
g
Ð
Zg
Š
z
~
÷÷
Ë
X
!
¸
x
óó
Æ
*
x
Ð
6
,
’
ì
XZk
Â
[
»
Z
ô
m
,
~
*
x
t
ì
:
TheNation that Lost its Soul.
Œ
VZk
Â
[
»
Z
q
-
Z
½
k
Ü
H
Y@
*
ì
:
÷÷
ˆ
~
ò
6
,
ú
Æ
Š
zgZy
Z
#
â
ƒ
.
$
R
Ñ
ƒ
gW
c
*
XZ
q
-
e
3
,
T
~
1
‰
Ü
Ô
Í
g
3
,
170
