Alastair Lamb

Lamb is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London and a Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society.[3][4] He is also a council member of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.[5]

Leo Rose called it a "special pleading" rather than a scholarly work, that presents the Chinese position extremely well. Lamb points out rightly than China had never ratified the Simla Convention that defined the McMahon Line but he dismisses the question of whether the British and Tibetan governments were competent to conclude an agreement. Rose also notes that Lamb seems annoyed at the fact that the Indian authorities do not follow the British imperial line, which he terms "out of place".[13] Parshotam Mehra, calling the two-volume work a "herculean effort", nevertheless labels it an "outright partisan attempt at demolishing the Indian case and thereby lending countenance to, and buttressing, the Chinese claims." The historian in Alastair Lamb is "fairly sound", he says, but frequently departs from being a historian to a "factionist".[9] Mehra's own later work, McMahon Line and After was judged by Leo Rose to be "more balanced and less advocative" than Lamb's.[14]

T.C recommends the book for those looking for an authoritative and detailed account of the Kashmir conflict.[15] Ross H. Munro observes that Lamb has written an authoritative history of Kashmir. He unites his flawless scholarship with an interesting story. Munro sees that Lamb refutes India's claim on Kashmir and seriously indicts Indian actions, leaders and also his own countryman, Mountbatten.[16] Victoria Schofield describes the book as an expansion of Lamb's earlier work with the use of newly available documents. Schofield states that Lamb has successfully identified the main issues and mistakes. Schofield finds that Lamb's work is so filled with facts that additional notes are provided with each chapter. Lamb also successfully shows the impact a few individuals have had on South Asia's history.[17]

V.G. Kiernan recommends the book. Kiernan notes that Lamb is the top authority on the region and describes the book, like Lamb's previous ones, as very thorough, uninvolved and objective, regardless of the rare instance where India is treated with "little sympathy." [18] Historian Hugh Tinker notices that Alastair Lamb explains Kashmiri political history in a "masterly style." Tinker points out that Lamb is known as the foremost authority on the region but also notes that his findings will not be accepted by Indian authors, who see Kashmir as a test of Indian secularism.[19]

Copland observes that Lamb's analysis of the Kashmir conflict is the most detailed and describes his work as a "considerable feat of scholarship." Copland states that the problems in the book are "few and far between" and notes that this high calibre book's bibliography ignores post-1980 writings.[10] Parshotam Mehra, on the other hand, points out that Lamb is unabashedly pro-Pakistan with several bones to pick against India, arguing for various ways in which Kashmir could have gone to Pakistan instead of India. He also points out how Lamb glosses over the culpability of Pakistan in the 1947 crisis as well as in later developments, facts which scholars such as Ayesha Jalal admit.[20] Mehra concludes:

That Islamabad has a case of sorts would be hard to deny, but that New Delhi has none may be difficult to accept. The path of reason, which this study sadly spurns, is to map out the common ground...[20]

Prem Shankar Jha, in his Kashmir 1947: Rival Versions of History, tried to provide a detailed critique of the contentious aspects of Lamb's treatment of the Kashmir dispute,[21] although David Taylor points out that while providing alternative readings on some points, Jha does not manage to entirely refute Lamb.[22] Srinath Raghavan credits Lamb for discovering that Kashmir's Instrument of Accession was most likely signed on 27 October 1947, after the Indian troops landed in Srinagar, rather than 26 October, as official Indian history maintains. However, he states that in his later work, Birth of a Tragedy, Lamb "overreached" by claiming that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir never signed the Instrument of Accession at all. He conveniently overlooked other letters where the Maharaja mentioned having signed accession.[23]