Well, I think popular answer to this question is resounding YES! That's what most of the kids (or should we say most of the Hindu kinds!) hear from their relatives, how Nehru blundered in Kashmir and how Sardar was someone who could have done better. And hence what PM Modi said in Parliament today (7-2-2018) about Sardar Patel and Kashmir might not even worth noticing, because that's what most of us have implicitly agreed upon.
But that's half truth, as correctly remarked by Tharoor. Yes, Nehru committed the blunder by taking the question to UN. But Kashmir wouldn't have moved to India if it wouldn't have been for Kashmir. For detailed analysis, please read M.J. Akbar's 'Kashmir"Behind the Vale'. Yea, M.J. Akbar, who is in BJP and Minister of State for External Affairs, you read it correctly. Akbar builds up considerable evidence to show that Patel most likely had written off Kashmir. And Patel was simply being consistent. He most likely had thought if Hindu majority Junagadh and Hyderabad choose India then Kashmir would definitely choose Pakistan. Patel and Menon acted very late when it came to Kashmir and that too only on Nehru's insistence as argued by Akbar, based on records of the time. Nehru's hold over Abdullah and Abdullah's commitment to secular notion of Kashmiriyat were the key factors why popular demand of joining Pakistan never took root in Kashmir during the time of independence. Patel was swung into the action only when Pakistan sponsored terrorists (calling them tribal raiders is a misnomer!) descended on Kashmir. Nehru's back-channel work was key in securing a key land link to Kashmir when all other land-links went to Pakistan during partition. If you think this is fantasy then please ask M.J. Akbar to apologize or stand by his words!
This is not to absolve Nehru of the UN blunder. He himself repented it if again Mr. Akbar is to be believed. But yes, it is a blunder.
So how Patel would have secured Kashmir is just a dream detached from facts. Most likely if it would have been handled by Patel, India would have either never had accession of Kashmir with India racing to independent Kashmir's defence when Pakistan would have eventually attacked it or things would have happened in the same way as they had happened.
I am not saying Patel had some weak notion of India and he never wanted Kashmir. The whole point if 'idea of India' in 1947 was much different than what is our 'idea of India' in 2018. Patel and everyone was operating in very rudimentary notion of 'ídea of India' at the dawn of independence. Only set of people who have kept consistent 'idea of India' is RSS. Their idea of India as promised land of Hindu dharma is in operation in unchanged from right from its inception. In there idea of India, there is no one who in a non-Hindu Indian as being an Indian is automatically being a Hindu. And, this 'idea of India' is not their objective, but their founding assumption. India is हिंदुराष्ट्र for RSS, it need not be made as one. India is just a synonym for land of Hindus, Indian is a subset of Hindu, for there might be non-Indian Hindu, like those who are living in US. But there is only one sacred land for Hindus, that is India.
Nehru had his own 'idea of India' and luckily he was able to shape the institutions, albeit partially, with his idea. His 'idea of India' defines India without conditional attachment to any religion, though much of the cultural ethos of his idea is Hindu. In his 'idea of India', Indian individual is a starting point, akin to modern European notion of relationship between state and individual.
Nehru's notion and RSS notion are non-compatible as former sees Individual as starting point while later's sees constraint of Dharma over individual as starting point. That's the reason RSS and it's political wing BJP would like to erase the legacy of Nehru. And, they most likely will succeed.
But if we still bother to check the fact then we will see that contrary to popular notion about Nehru as someone who had no hegemonistic sense about India and who could simply given all land of India if somebody would have asked for it, Nehru was 'tour de force' in India being assertive on its borders, be it Kashmir or be it China. He was an Indian, and ambitious in hegemonial sense, but with an 'idea of India' that was too modern for the times. Most likely, he hated ideas counter to his point of view, quintessential style of charismatic leaders, with no exception even now.
But that's half truth, as correctly remarked by Tharoor. Yes, Nehru committed the blunder by taking the question to UN. But Kashmir wouldn't have moved to India if it wouldn't have been for Kashmir. For detailed analysis, please read M.J. Akbar's 'Kashmir"Behind the Vale'. Yea, M.J. Akbar, who is in BJP and Minister of State for External Affairs, you read it correctly. Akbar builds up considerable evidence to show that Patel most likely had written off Kashmir. And Patel was simply being consistent. He most likely had thought if Hindu majority Junagadh and Hyderabad choose India then Kashmir would definitely choose Pakistan. Patel and Menon acted very late when it came to Kashmir and that too only on Nehru's insistence as argued by Akbar, based on records of the time. Nehru's hold over Abdullah and Abdullah's commitment to secular notion of Kashmiriyat were the key factors why popular demand of joining Pakistan never took root in Kashmir during the time of independence. Patel was swung into the action only when Pakistan sponsored terrorists (calling them tribal raiders is a misnomer!) descended on Kashmir. Nehru's back-channel work was key in securing a key land link to Kashmir when all other land-links went to Pakistan during partition. If you think this is fantasy then please ask M.J. Akbar to apologize or stand by his words!
This is not to absolve Nehru of the UN blunder. He himself repented it if again Mr. Akbar is to be believed. But yes, it is a blunder.
So how Patel would have secured Kashmir is just a dream detached from facts. Most likely if it would have been handled by Patel, India would have either never had accession of Kashmir with India racing to independent Kashmir's defence when Pakistan would have eventually attacked it or things would have happened in the same way as they had happened.
I am not saying Patel had some weak notion of India and he never wanted Kashmir. The whole point if 'idea of India' in 1947 was much different than what is our 'idea of India' in 2018. Patel and everyone was operating in very rudimentary notion of 'ídea of India' at the dawn of independence. Only set of people who have kept consistent 'idea of India' is RSS. Their idea of India as promised land of Hindu dharma is in operation in unchanged from right from its inception. In there idea of India, there is no one who in a non-Hindu Indian as being an Indian is automatically being a Hindu. And, this 'idea of India' is not their objective, but their founding assumption. India is हिंदुराष्ट्र for RSS, it need not be made as one. India is just a synonym for land of Hindus, Indian is a subset of Hindu, for there might be non-Indian Hindu, like those who are living in US. But there is only one sacred land for Hindus, that is India.
Nehru had his own 'idea of India' and luckily he was able to shape the institutions, albeit partially, with his idea. His 'idea of India' defines India without conditional attachment to any religion, though much of the cultural ethos of his idea is Hindu. In his 'idea of India', Indian individual is a starting point, akin to modern European notion of relationship between state and individual.
Nehru's notion and RSS notion are non-compatible as former sees Individual as starting point while later's sees constraint of Dharma over individual as starting point. That's the reason RSS and it's political wing BJP would like to erase the legacy of Nehru. And, they most likely will succeed.
But if we still bother to check the fact then we will see that contrary to popular notion about Nehru as someone who had no hegemonistic sense about India and who could simply given all land of India if somebody would have asked for it, Nehru was 'tour de force' in India being assertive on its borders, be it Kashmir or be it China. He was an Indian, and ambitious in hegemonial sense, but with an 'idea of India' that was too modern for the times. Most likely, he hated ideas counter to his point of view, quintessential style of charismatic leaders, with no exception even now.