Kashmir Was Nehru’s Mistake, Says PM Modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly stated that Kashmir’s decades-long turmoil is rooted in a “historic blunder” — a direct reference to India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Modi claims that had Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Iron Man of Indian unification, handled Kashmir like he did with the rest of India’s princely states, the conflict wouldn’t have lasted this long.

But is this just political rhetoric? Or is there substance behind the charge?

To understand this, we need to rewind to 1947 — the moment when India was being born, and Kashmir was hanging by a thread. When British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan, 562 princely states were given the option to accede to either dominion or remain independent. Most chose pragmatically — based on geography and majority religion.

But Jammu and Kashmir was different:

• It had a Muslim-majority population (~77%)
• But was ruled by a Hindu Dogra king, Maharaja Hari Singh.
• It was geographically contiguous to both India and Pakistan.
• And it sat strategically along the headwaters of the Indus River system and the border with China.

Initially, the Maharaja wanted to stay independent — to neither join India nor Pakistan. But that fragile neutrality didn’t last long. On October 22, 1947, Pakistan launched “Operation Gulmarg,” backing a tribal invasion of Kashmir through the North-West Frontier Province. Thousands of tribal raiders (Pashtun lashkars) entered the state, looting, killing, and advancing rapidly towards Srinagar.

Faced with total collapse, Hari Singh appealed to India for help. But India demanded the Maharaja sign the Instrument of Accession first.

He did — on October 26, 1947. On October 27, Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar. The first Kashmir War had begun. Here’s where the real story — and the blame — begins.

• Patel reportedly told Mountbatten in early August 1947:

“If Kashmir wants to join Pakistan, we shall not stand in the way.”

• But this changed when Pakistan accepted the accession of Junagadh, a Hindu-majority state with a Muslim Nawab.
• Patel saw this as a dangerous precedent and decided Kashmir must not fall into Pakistani hands.

• Nehru had a personal and political attachment to Kashmir. He was a Kashmiri Pandit, and he trusted Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of the National Conference.
• Nehru reportedly insisted that Abdullah be installed in power before Indian military action — delaying critical decisions.
• General Sam Manekshaw recalled in an interview:

“When Nehru raised legal concerns, Patel told him: ‘Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir or do you want to give it away?’”
Eventually, Patel ordered preparations, and the army moved in just in time to save Srinagar airport — a turning point. By December 1947, Indian forces had begun pushing the invaders back. Many military commanders believed that a full victory was within grasp — including the recapture of Muzaffarabad and Gilgit-Baltistan.
Yet on January 1, 1948, Nehru referred the Kashmir issue to the United Nations.

• He believed that international mediation would strengthen India’s moral high ground.
• He was under pressure from Lord Mountbatten, who feared an India-Pakistan war.
• He hoped Pakistan would be branded the aggressor and forced to withdraw.

• The UN passed Resolution 47, asking Pakistan to withdraw first — and then for India to reduce its military footprint.
• It proposed a plebiscite — giving Kashmiris a vote on their future — after withdrawal, which never happened.
• Pakistan retained control of one-third of the state (now “Azad Jammu and Kashmir” and Gilgit-Baltistan).
• The issue became internationalised, leading to decades of stalemate.

• Patel was not even consulted before India went to the UN.
• He reportedly told his aides:

“Jawaharlal has handed over the case to an international lawyer when it could have been settled by an Indian soldier.” Nehru also pushed for Article 370 in the Indian Constitution, giving special status to Jammu and Kashmir:

• Exclusive rights to property and jobs.
• A separate constitution.
• No central laws without state approval.

Patel opposed this, but he was sidelined. Sheikh Abdullah, backed by Nehru, became the dominant political force in Kashmir — until he was jailed in 1953 for allegedly conspiring against the Indian state.

Many historians argue that:

• Nehru’s trust in Abdullah backfired.
• His insistence on special status alienated the rest of India.
• And his delay in asserting control allowed Pakistan to consolidate its hold on the areas it occupied.

• Walter Crocker, an Australian diplomat and Nehru’s admirer, wrote:

“He was a man of high ideals, but in Kashmir, those ideals led him into serious strategic misjudgments.”

• V.P. Menon, the bureaucrat who helped integrate princely states, lamented how Kashmir was handled differently from every other state — due to Nehru’s personal involvement.
• Rajmohan Gandhi, Nehru’s defender, acknowledges:

“The Kashmir file was too close to Nehru’s heart. That emotional closeness clouded the cold logic needed at the time.” In speech after speech, PM Modi has contrasted Patel’s pragmatism with Nehru’s idealism:
“If Sardar Patel had handled Kashmir, the issue would not exist today.”
– PM Narendra Modi, 2014, 2019, and 2023

In 2019, his government abrogated Article 370, stripping Kashmir of its special status and bifurcating the state. This was described by many in the BJP as “correcting Nehru’s mistake.”

The decision was supported by many Indians but criticised internationally — again showing how Nehru’s legacy continues to influence present-day policy. Looking back, it’s clear that Kashmir was not just a border dispute. It was — and remains — a reflection of how two visions for India clashed at a critical moment.

• Nehru’s vision: Legalistic, idealistic, focused on moral legitimacy.
• Patel’s vision: Strategic, decisive, focused on territorial integration.

India gained Kashmir’s accession in 1947 — but perhaps lost the simplicity of the issue forever by going to the UN, offering a plebiscite, and granting special status.

Whether history vindicates Nehru or Patel, Modi’s accusation forces the nation to confront a hard truth:
Kashmir could have been settled in 1948. Instead, it became a 75-year conflict.

And that, critics argue, is a burden India still carries — because of Nehru.