Sir: At heart, Nehru never cared a fig for the disputed state’s constituent assembly, Indian parliament or the UN. Avtar Singh Bhasin in his 2018 book, India, Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds discusses Nehru’s perfidy on Kashmir in Chapter 5 titled Kashmir, India’s Constitution and Nehru’s Vacillation (pages 51-64). The book is based on selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru and author’s own compendium of documents on India-Pak relations. Let us bare a few facts. Nehru banked on so-called Instrument of Accession and its authentication by Constituent Assembly’. Later, at a press conference on June 11, 1951 he changed his view. He clarified, “We have made it perfectly clear that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was not meant to decide finally any such question, and it is not in the way of any decision which may ultimate flow from the Security Council proceedings”. He wrote to the disputed State’s prime minister that after consideration of the problem, we are inclined to think that it (plebiscite) should be held under United Nations’ auspices (p.28ibid.). He reiterated in New Delhi on November3, 1951 that we have made it perfectly clear before the Security Council that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly does not (insofar) as we are concerned come in the way of a decision by the Security Council, or the United Nations’. He never labeled Pakistan an aggressor. But he told parliament on March 1, 1954 that “aggression” took place in Kashmir six and a half years ago with dire consequences. Nevertheless the United States have thus far not condemned it and we are asked not to press this point in the interest of peace (Bhasan pp. 55-56). Bhasin points out that there was a perceptible shift in his (Nehru’s) stand on July 24 1952 about the future of the State – if the decision of the Security Council was at variance with that of the Constituent Assembly’. Nehru said, unless the Security Council functioned under some other Sections of the Charter, it cannot take a decision which is binding upon us unless we agree to it. They are functioning as mediators and a mediator means getting people to agree (SWJ, Volume 19, page 241). Isn’t it eerie that now the whole architecture of India’s stand on Kashmir is erected on the mythical instrument of accession’ and its endorsement by the disputed state’s assembly. Let India know that a state that flouts international treaties is a rogue state: pacta sunt servanda, treaties are to be observed and are binding on parties. MOHAMMAD ASAD MALIK Rawalpindi