In a fiery address to the Lok Sabha, Union Home Minister Amit Shah unequivocally defended the government's actions, notably the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A, in the context of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2023.

Shah's assertion that "PoK wasn't a mistake, it was a blunder" sent shockwaves through the chamber, emphasizing the gravity of what he deemed as historical missteps. The statement not only underscores the government's strong stance but also sets the tone for a candid evaluation of past decisions related to Kashmir.

In addressing the Congress's skepticism regarding the claimed decline in terror incidents post the abrogation, Shah skillfully defended the move. His response serves as a robust counterargument, challenging the opposition's persistent doubts and reinforcing the government's narrative on the positive impact of these constitutional changes.

The Home Minister's deliberate choice of words, especially labeling the events as 'Nehruvian blunders,' injects a historical context into the debate. This phrase not only points fingers at specific decisions made during the era of India's first Prime Minister but also lays the groundwork for a comprehensive critique of the historical policies that have shaped the Kashmir issue.

As the Lok Sabha resonates with Shah's resolute defense, the unfolding narrative sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, providing the readers with a comprehensive understanding of the ongoing debate.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah, in a detailed exposition, outlined the multifaceted approach taken by the Central government to combat terrorism, quell separatism, and usher in a sense of normalcy to the region of Jammu and Kashmir. His comprehensive list of measures serves to underscore the government's commitment to addressing the complex challenges that have plagued the region.

In the latter part of his address, Shah addressed the contentious usage of the term "Nehruvian blunder," a phrase that drew objections from the Opposition benches. Shah, undeterred, staunchly defended the choice of words, stating, "I want to support the usage of the word Nehruvian blunder. Kashmir had to suffer due to the blunder that had happened during Nehru’s rule." This direct acknowledgment of historical mistakes during Jawaharlal Nehru's leadership adds a layer of accountability to the discourse, emphasizing the need to rectify past errors for the region's betterment.

The Home Minister's willingness to engage in a dedicated debate on Kashmir and Nehru's role, as proposed by the Leader of Opposition Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, signals a democratic openness to discuss and dissect the historical context. Shah's assurance of readiness sets the stage for a substantive and constructive dialogue, providing an opportunity to delve into the complexities of Kashmir's historical trajectory.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah, in a bold revelation, highlighted two critical mistakes attributed to former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, asserting that these errors became enduring burdens for Kashmir. Shah's unflinching scrutiny of historical decisions adds a layer of accountability, shaping the discourse on the region's trajectory.

Shah pinpointed the first major misstep, stating, "Two mistakes that happened due to the decision of (former PM) Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru due to which Kashmir had to suffer for many years. The first is to declare a ceasefire – when our army was winning, the ceasefire was imposed. If there had been a ceasefire after three days, PoK would have been a part of India today…" This candid assessment sheds light on the consequences of a premature ceasefire, emphasizing the missed opportunity to integrate Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) into India. Shah's assertion challenges historical narratives and prompts readers to rethink the outcomes of decisions made during critical junctures.

The second pivotal mistake, as outlined by Shah, was Nehru's decision to internationalize India's internal matter by taking it to the United Nations. This move, according to Shah, exacerbated the challenges faced by Kashmir. The Home Minister's forthright analysis positions these decisions as root causes of the prolonged suffering in the region.

To strengthen his argument, Shah quoted former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru directly from a letter to Sheikh Abdullah, sourced from the Nehru Memorial and Library, Jawaharlal Nehru collection, JNSC 143. By relying on Nehru's own words, Shah brings authenticity to his assertions, compelling readers to confront the historical documentation and its implications on Kashmir's troubled past.

In a dramatic turn of events, Union Home Minister Amit Shah unearthed a poignant excerpt from former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, shedding light on the aftermath of the United Nations' involvement in the Kashmir issue. Shah, quoting Nehru directly, revealed, "After the experience with the United Nations (UN), I have concluded that a satisfactory result cannot be expected from there. I considered this a good decision (ceasefire) but this matter was not dealt with properly. We could have deliberated some more on the ceasefire and come out with a better solution. And I think this was a mistake we made in the past." This rare glimpse into Nehru's introspection highlights the regret over the handling of the ceasefire, hinting at missed opportunities for a more favorable resolution.

Amit Shah, turning to the Opposition benches, posed a direct question, asking if they objected to Nehru's own admission. The Congress responded affirmatively, prompting a swift counter from Shah, "Why are you telling me Nehru Nehru Nehru, Nehru has himself said this," he asserted. This fierce exchange underscored the significance of Nehru's self-critique, leaving the opposition momentarily disarmed.

The Congress's outrage and subsequent walkout further intensified the atmosphere, highlighting the sensitivity of revisiting historical decisions. Shah's strategic use of Nehru's own words not only strengthens his argument but also challenges the opposition's narrative, forcing them to confront the candid acknowledgment of past mistakes by their party's iconic leader.

Union Minister Jitendra Singh, earlier today, added his voice to the ongoing discourse, taking a sharp jab at the Congress. Singh, in a scathing remark, asserted, "Those who did not implement the Constitution of India in J&K are today teaching those who sacrificed 3 generations to implement the Constitution in the valley." This pointed commentary draws attention to the paradoxical position of the Congress, highlighting a perceived inconsistency between their historical actions and present-day rhetoric.

Singh delves into the consequences of what historians have labeled the "Nehruvian Blunder," emphasizing its role in the delayed integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India in 1947. The accusation that Nehru's belief in his superior understanding of the region hindered collaboration with his own Home Minister, Sardar Patel, is a powerful indictment. This revelation invites readers to reflect on the intricate dynamics within the leadership during a critical period in India's history, shedding light on the complexities that influenced decisions related to Jammu and Kashmir.

The use of the term "Nehruvian Blunder" resonates with the overarching theme of the article, connecting the narratives presented by Amit Shah and Jitendra Singh. This term becomes a pivotal link, symbolizing historical missteps that have had enduring consequences on the region. Singh's critique contributes to the unfolding narrative, urging readers to critically examine the intricacies of political decisions and their lasting impacts on the socio-political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir.

Union Minister Jitendra Singh, in a revelatory account, exposes a critical chapter in Indian political history, shedding light on the dismissal of concerns about Article 370 by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Singh discloses, "He added that Nehru dismissed Mukherjee’s concerns about Article 370 which were reiterated by former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri during a debate in the House in 1963." This revelation underscores the early awareness and articulation of apprehensions surrounding Article 370, suggesting that these concerns were not only raised but were also reiterated by subsequent leaders, including Lal Bahadur Shastri.

Singh elaborates further, stating, "In 1963, Pandit Nehru himself acknowledged the need to address Article 370. However, neither Nehru nor subsequent governments took concrete steps to repeal Article 370, allowing it to become an entrenched political issue," highlighting a critical turning point in the history of Article 370. Nehru's acknowledgment of the need for attention to this constitutional provision adds complexity to the narrative, revealing an awareness that did not translate into concrete actions.

The term "entrenched political issue" encapsulates the enduring nature of the problem, suggesting that the failure to address Article 370 has led to its persistence as a focal point in the political discourse. Singh's account invites readers to reflect on the historical decisions that contributed to the complexities surrounding Article 370, prompting a nuanced examination of the factors that allowed it to evolve into a contentious and unresolved issue.

As the article concludes, the revelations presented by Jitendra Singh contribute to the overarching narrative, offering a deeper understanding of the historical oversights and political dynamics that have shaped the discourse on Jammu and Kashmir. The concluding section serves as a reflection on the missed opportunities and the enduring consequences of decisions made during critical junctures in India's political history.