Half a century ago, India was partitioned. With the Muslim League violently pressing its demand, the Congress saw the inevitability, and agreed. One proposed, the other accepted. Partition, then, became responsible for the tragedies that unfolded in Punjab and Bengal, two of the most vigorous and resourceful provinces of undivided India, as also Sindh.
But when it came to Kashmir, where he had his roots, Jawaharlal Nehru was determined not to allow the application of the two-nation principle. Jinnah, on the other hand, was determined to take Kashmir. Sardar Patel, hero of the present Home Minister of India, L. K. Advani, had this to say when Pakistan came into being: "The poison has gone out." He then went after the cherries (the princely states), and was committed to ensure that they all came to India. Scruples were shed. In Hyderabad and Junagadh, the Sardar used the ´people´s principle´. The Nizam of Hyderabad and the Nawab of Junagadh were put on the mat for their desire to join Pakistan, and the two states were annexed to India by police action—on the basis of 'people´s desire'.
In Kashmir, however, this desire did not count. The ´ruler´s desire´ to stay with India, under pressure from a Pakistani-sponsored invasion, was all that mattered. The Indian army went in, trying to recover lost ground. They were partially successful. Nehru agreed to a UN plebiscite, only to later rescind. The Kashmir problem was born…
Fifty years later, India says it is determined to recover all of Kashmir. Pakistan says Kashmir as a Muslim-majority state should merge with it. So, this fight is all about two national egos, with Kashmir merely a manifestation. What can Pakistan offer its Muslim brethren in Kashmir when it could not keep the Bengalis from feeling cheated on all scores? How can India justify its huge military spending on Kashmir, when it let Punjab and Bengal go for a song?