| In
reality, his perspective provided for nothing nobler than
co-existence between Hindus and Muslims. His was basically a
programme which would help avoid riots, which understandably
revolted his as they did other sensitive Indians. Indeed, the policy
of secularism cannot realistically be interpreted otherwise, the
grandiose theories notwithstanding. It certainly did not provide,
even in theory, for a cultural synthesis. It sought to bypass the
civilizational-cultural issue altogether.
It is beyond question that no issue
occupied so much of Nehru's time and energy as Kashmir. This was
clearly an obsession with him so much so that it would be no
exaggeration to say that he allowed his whole foreign policy to be
heavily influenced by it. The reasons for this are complex and need
not detain us in the present exercise. Three points may, however, be
made in respect of his handling of the problem. First, having placed
himself in a vulnerable position by offering to hold a plebiscite,
he allowed himself to be blackmailed by Sheikh Abdullah. The
evidence is overwhelming. The near independent status he conceded to
Jammu and Kashmir violated his very concept of the kind of Indian
state which could protect India's unity. It would be relevant to
recall his opposition to Punjabi Suba in this connec- tion.
Similarly, the manner in which the Sheikh rigged the election to his
Constituent Assembly could not but have caused the deepest hurt to
Nehru. It negated his commitment to democracy.
|
