This is the report of the remarkable interview which Sheikh Abdullah gave to a British journalist in 1949 in which he spoke of the option of an independent Kashmir. According to H.L Saxena (in The Tragedy of Kashmir, published in 1975), the Times of India spotted the story and wrote it up, which in turn prompted an angry Sardar Patel to upbraid Sheikh Abdullah. But it's also an indication that Sheikh Abdullah's interest in independence had been germinating for some years prior to his dismissal as Jammu and Kashmir's prime minister and arrest in August 1953.
The interview was conducted by Michael Davidson, who worked mainly for the Observer - though this article appeared in the Scotsman of 14 April 1949. It is a hugely interesting interview - for Sheikh Abdullah's comments about independence, neutrality and communist influence.
The page lay-out means that a few lines have, in the image above, been missed off both columns. For the record, the first column concludes with these additional words:
'autocracy: our sympathies went to the Indian Congress, because Congress supported the struggle of the peoples of the States against Princely autocracy. Jinnah's Moslem League didn't - its leaders backed the rulers of Hyderabad and Bhopal against the people's democratic movement, because these Princes were communally-minded and, therefore, Pakistan's greatest supporters.'
The second column concludes:
'they do not say so publicly) are resigned to the principle of partition - so is India. A neutral Vale of Kashmir would remove the [illegible] of those leaders, like Nehru, with vision and genuine concern for the welfare of the common people, are likely to examine the plan objectively and without rancour.'
The interview was conducted by Michael Davidson, who worked mainly for the Observer - though this article appeared in the Scotsman of 14 April 1949. It is a hugely interesting interview - for Sheikh Abdullah's comments about independence, neutrality and communist influence.
The page lay-out means that a few lines have, in the image above, been missed off both columns. For the record, the first column concludes with these additional words:
'autocracy: our sympathies went to the Indian Congress, because Congress supported the struggle of the peoples of the States against Princely autocracy. Jinnah's Moslem League didn't - its leaders backed the rulers of Hyderabad and Bhopal against the people's democratic movement, because these Princes were communally-minded and, therefore, Pakistan's greatest supporters.'
The second column concludes:
'they do not say so publicly) are resigned to the principle of partition - so is India. A neutral Vale of Kashmir would remove the [illegible] of those leaders, like Nehru, with vision and genuine concern for the welfare of the common people, are likely to examine the plan objectively and without rancour.'
RSS Feed