Shanmukh Profile picture
21 Nov, 13 tweets, 3 min read
I saw a few usual suspects attacking @vikramaditya_JK tweet crediting saving of Jammu and Kashmir to His Royal Highness, Maharaja Hari Singh. Shame on them. If it were not for Maharaja Hari Singh and the bravery of JK army, Jammu and Kashmir would have been part of Pakistan.
Maharaja Hari Singh started offering accession to India since late August 1947. He knew that his time was limited then, as he was under serious pressure from Pakistan, and India was not willing to even TALK to the Maharaja till he released Sheikh Abdullah from prison.
And Nehru and Patel had their way. Maharaja Hari Singh was forced to release Sheikh Abdullah, though everyone in JK knew that giving the kingdom to Sheikh Abdullah was the stupidest thing possible. However, Nehru was adamant about Sheikh Abdullah being `people's representative'.
Even when Sheikh Abdullah was released, India only signed a `standstill agreement'. Nehru was adamant about not accepting the accession till the kingdom was given away to Sheikh Abdullah. Sardar Patel and Baldev Singh were required to send supplies, according to agreement terms.
What did the great Patel and Baldev Singh do? They evaded supplying petrol and ammo to Jammu and Kashmir, even though the jihadis were invading the state, and the state troops were fighting for their lives in Jammu. They wanted to ratchet up the pressure on Maharaja Hari Singh.
Many Muslims of JK army deserted or mutinied and killed their own colleagues/officers, and Hindus and Sikhs were being slaughtered wantonly in western Jammu. Nehru and Patel watched indifferently. Desperate to save dharmics of JK, Maharaja Hari Singh gave his kingdom to Abdullah.
What happened when Maharaja Hari Singh gave his kingdom to Abdullah and acceded to India? Indian forces were diverted to Kashmir valley, while the Dogra troops fighting to the last man and last bullet were completely ignored and left to die. Nehru and Abdullah didn't want Jammu.
For Abdullah, Jammu was a source of competition. He didn't want Jammu [which was bigger than Kashmir] in the state. Or rather, he wanted as small a Jammu as possible. If that meant that the Hindus and Sikhs of Jammu would be slaughtered, so be it.
For Nehru, it was all a matter of indifference. He was too busy pretending to be a `statesman'. When the Hindus and Sikhs of Mirpur [a town in western Jammu holding out against the Pakistani invaders] came to him to ask for help, he bawled them out. They were irrelevant.
Patel did one better. When the Hindus and Sikhs were fighting for their lives in Jammu, he sent a message to Pakistan asking to swap Jammu and Kashmir for Hyderabad. He didn't care about the state, even though it had acceded. Accession and Indian sovereignty meant zilch to him.
Western Jammu, thus, got no help. Dharmics there were slaughtered or expelled. What was saved was saved only after Maharaja Hari Singh threatened to cancel the accession to India and go and accede to Pakistan to stop the slaughter of Hindus and Sikhs in Jammu.
It was then that Nehru was jolted. He realised that Maharaja Hari Singh meant what he said, and grudgingly sent soldiers to save Jammu. This, then, is the story of the Indian betrayal of dharmics of Jammu and Kashmir. No Indian leader cared about dharmics of Jammu and Kashmir.
And now, a few shameless charlatans are telling us that the one man, His Royal Highness, Maharaja Hari Singh, who did everything to save Jammu and Kashmir from the invaders is the one to blame `for dithering'.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Shanmukh

Shanmukh Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @maidros78

8 Oct
Reading history of Tibetan Buddhism, almost all their teachers and concepts were from India. In fact, Bihar has been the biggest contributor to Tibetan Buddhism - the monasteries of Nalanda and Vikramashila gave most Buddhist teachers of central Tibet. Rest from Kashmir/NWFP.
BTW, it is another piece of nonsense that Indians did not travel abroad. They travelled a lot, especially the Buddhist and Hindu teachers. Already [reading history ~1200], I have come across more than a dozen Buddhist teachers from India going to Tibet and teaching there.
In fact, even Nepalese Buddhists routinely got teachers from India-from the same Vikramashila and Nalanda monasteries. In 1100, both were flourishing and producing Buddhist scholars by the ton. So much for `Buddhism died due to Hinduism in India' theories. cc @SVOjha @SAnsumali
Read 4 tweets
6 Oct
Many people are coming up with the `let us write everything in Devanagari' trick. This is the first step to destruction of non-Hindi languages, as the native script is the link to the heritage. Poor KPs are facing the heat today as they cannot reinstitute their script at all.
Let us turn it round. Let us write Sanskrit also [those of us who wish to read and write Sanskrit, that is] in our local script. The reason why this should be done is the tendency of Hindi supremacists to destroy every other language, claiming that they are all Hindi dialects.
The reason why we should write Sanskrit in our own scripts, apart from comfort for ourselves, is normative inversion, which is a powerful trick against misappropriation. Every state has contributed to Sanskrit, and it is important to safeguard these contributions.
Read 5 tweets
26 Sep
1) A few tweets on the Champaran issue, where people are claiming Gandhi achieved `great success'. In the following tweets, I will investigate the Champaran issue and people can judge just how much `great success' Gandhi had in this issue.
Champaran, being far up north of the Ganges, at foot of the Himalayas on Nepal border, was cut off from the rest of India. The Congress was practically unknown here. Even those who had heard the name of the Congress shrank from joining it or even mentioning it.
3) The issue there was a) increased rents. b) excesses committed by European indigo planters. c) agricultural price collapse in WW1.

Gandhi, even early in 1917, knew nothing about Champaran, not even its name or geographical position, let alone the economics of indigo planting.
Read 18 tweets
10 Sep
Since I haven't read the primary source for the Rashtrakuta bit, I won't comment on it, but @kshetragnya may want to take a look at it. However, let us correct the bit about Lalitaditya. Lalitaditya swore an oath on Parihasakeshava that the king of Gauda would be safe if he+
+came to negotiations. However, he broke his word and had the king of Gauda killed. This act is, BTW, criticised by Kalhana, who is also a Kashmiri. After this, the adherents of the king of Gauda considered the murti of Parihasakeshava violated, since Lalitaditya had sworn+
+a false oath on it. So, they sought to destroy what they considered a defiled murti. However, they destroyed another murti by mistake. This is not about the deity being the favourite of Lalitaditya, but being targeted because a false oath was sworn on it. But to come to+
Read 8 tweets
1 Sep
Tibet is India's core issue. However, our politicos, even our RW, seem to use it on and off, as a card to play and throw. It is not. There can be no security for India without Tibet. Dharmic Tibet is `us'. We need to always stand up for a sister dharmic civilisation.
Tibetan language is very close to our own, having been influenced by Sanskrit to a significant extent. Further, Tibetan writing is abugida, just like our alphabet. Finally, Tibetan has been the source of preserving much of our literature, both original and as translations.
The way our RW looks at everyone and everything commercially, even fellow dharmics, as some kind of trade goods sickens me. This core lack of commitment to fellow dharmics is what has destroyed India. Too much focus on economics and money is NOT good.
Read 7 tweets
28 Aug
Both Hindi and Urdu are victims of policies not connected to them. Urdu became the language of Islamist supremacism/separatism, and Hindu writers deserted it [many Hindus wrote in Urdu in the pre-1900 days]. This essentially sealed the fate of Urdu in India, and it lost traction.
Hindi became the language of linguistic supremacism and economic discrimination. The false idea was planted that Hindi was needed for Hindu unity and the government tried to destroy languages in south/east India. This turned away south and east Indians from the Hindi language.
In fact, if the government had not been so desperate to introduce Hindi, many south and east Indians would have learnt Hindi as they do other languages, in which they have to communicate. In the pre-1940 days, Hindi was learnt quite avidly in [the then] Madras Presidency.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!