Do Pakistanis deserve a democratic system?

Re: # 133

Dost-Mitter:

These are undisputably the smoking guns. Let me quote you the following out of what you have posted:

``The Muslim League`s initial grievance had been fully met. But the genie was now out of the bottle. Shaukat uncompromisingly declared that `The Khizr Ministry must be made to go whatever the cost to the Muslim League.` He boasted that the opposition would `put out 15 million Muslims to break the law.`.
..
[On 3 February 1947, to Wavell, Punjab Governor] Jenkins sombrely concluded that ` the agitation has convinced Hindus and Sikhs that the League wanted undiluted Muslim Raj`. `It is quite impossible to rule the Punjab with its present boundaries. Long term alternatives are therefore reversion to Unionist principles.. or partition which would create intolerable minority problems. Effect of agitation is to force second alternative on non-Muslims and to impair very serious long-term prospects of the Muslim League and Muslims generally. The Muslim League are in fact wantonly throwing away the certainty of Muslim leadership in a United Punjab for uncertain advantages of a partition which the Sikhs will gradually now demand....``

If Governor Jenkins could see this, then it is clear that the Brits played the hands for Muslim League, whatever may be his personal views.

It strengthen my point that wanted out and did not want violence on their watch, knowing that violence was inevitable. They had already chosen the parties to handover power. Otherwise, no moral authority would have permitted them to allow Muslim Guards and RSS to operate freely, and dismiss Khizr government. RSS even if armed, in minority situation could not have done much against Muslim Guards, just as Pakistani Army could not do much in 1971 against support of the majority.

Given this report of the Gov. of Punjab, and Governor`s action, I feel Jinnah had accepted the partition of Punjab by then. Otherwise he would have allowed the Brits to let Khizr government stay longer and would have tried to replace Congress from the coalition. He should have known that Muslim League alone could not have come to power in united Punjab from the Indus river to Delhi. This would be counter to two nation theory. If muslim league rule over united Punjab, on the basis of religion (which Jinnah was championing by then) was possible, then there was no need for the parition. Punjab would have allowed the creation of alternative democratic force. Sadly, a lost opportunity, and disintegration of the Punjab was stored in its future.

And as this older punjabi gentleman told me after Golden Temple operation, said ``No one is simple Punjabi anymore.``

Re: # 147

Communist Party of India`s analysis of Muslim League`s mass mobilisation is completely different ofcourse:

``The task of every patriot is to welcome and help this democratic growth which is at long last is now taking place aongst the Muslims of Punjab. The last strong hold of Imperialist bureacracy in India is being invaded by the League. Let us all help the people of Punjab capture it``

Sajjad Zaheer ``League Unionist Conflict P. 33``

Unionist Party, that Indians have suddenly discovered as a great patriotic party of India because it supported the Congress in the dying days of the raj was a creature of the British powers... The communist Party lent complete support to the Muslim League to defeat it starting April 1944... and through the massive civil disobedience movement the League carried out against it.

As for ML using Barelvis... Barelvis, sufis and pirs represent the heterodox popular Islam...
unlike the straitjacket Deobandi Islam which was lined up behind the Congress Party... the difference between a Barelvi and a Deobandi is between a sufi and a mullah... I confronted Ishtiaq Ahmed on this and discovered that he himself had some Majlis-e-Ahrar roots... the same fanatical and bigoted Majlis-e-Ahrar which hated Jinnah for being a ``modern Muslim`` with a passion and the same Majlis-e-Ahrar which secretly had aims of establishing Islamic rule over all of India... the same Majlis-e-Ahrar that was a staunce Congress ally.

Re: # 142

Now using the specious logic that BJKumar is the champion of....

No Gandhi

No encouragement of the Mullahs of Deoband in the Khilafat Movement

No Mufti Mahmood as a major NWFP force

No Fazlur rahman

No Taliban

No 9/11

By BJKumar`s logic... Racist Casteist Hindu Fascist bigot Gandhi the great grandfather of taliban and the original architect of 9/11 violence ... which is probably why Gandhi and taliban saw eye to eye on everything....

Re: # 119

VRV,

I am afraid you are wrong. Jinnah had retired from politics in June 1947 and was planning on living in Bombay. All his biographers mention this. However.... it was in late July that he suddenly dropped the bombshell on Mountbatten who wanted it all and Jinnah wasn`t willing to give it to him.

Secondly... Jinnah did not change the adaptation orders whatever you mean by that. The special powers given to the GG through schedule 9 of the IOIA 1947 were not Jinnah`s doing but were available to him till March 1948.

``I never said Jinnah was unconstitutional``

Thats precisely what you said when you said that GOIA 1935 didn`t give him the powers. Now that you`ve seen that he had his powers completely constitutionally, you are claiming that you never said that. You also agreed with my definition of democracy. Now Jinnah fit that definition and he was not unconstitutional... so what is your point then? I am not skipping over the issues... I am trying to argue with you reasonably and rationally... if only you would not go the Fat Nazi route... look at the stink that BJKumar is spreading on this board. He even called you- his mini-me- dense.

When all is said and done ... we have blood clots like BJkumar and Mohar11 throwing accusations without being able to back them up... When I show Gandhi and Nehru out to be the corrupt Hindu fascist bigots that they were, I do so with their own works... unlike people like BJKumar and Mohar11 etc who feel that they can prove anything by repeating a lie. The fact is that deep down they know that Jinnah was the only person who was making sense in those closing stages...

Partition of Punjab was Congress’ countermove as the sore losers put in place by the resolution of March 8, 1947, against ironically even Gandhi’s strong opposition. The reason…. Divided Punjab and Bengal would destroy Pakistan. Ironically, the date Lord Mountbatten and Nehru triumphantly decided to inflict such a horrible price on Pakistan was the 1st of April to make it repent.

The more I read the drama at the very end of the partition saga, the more I realize that Gandhi had seen the error of his ways at the very end… I suppose this following is the reason why Jinnah had described Gandhi as a friend of the Muslims after the latter’s death, despite the latter’s obvious role against the Muslims.

Mohandas Gandhi wrote this following letter to Mountbatten on May 8, 1947:

“I feel sure that the partition of Punjab and Bengal is wrong in every case and a needless irritant for the League… Whilst the British power is functioning in India, it must be held principally responsible for the preservation of peace.” (TOPP Volume X 667-668)

On May 17 Mahomed Ali Jinnah made this following appeal to reason – which Mountbatten and Nehru had none:

“The Muslim League cannot agree to the partition of Bengal and the Punjab… it cannot be justified historically, economically, geographically, politically or morally. These provinces have built up their respective lives for nearly a century… the principle underlying the demand for the establishment of Pakistan and Hindustan is totally different… In the name of justice and fairplay, do not submit to this clamour. For it will be sowing the seeds of future serious trouble and the results will be disastrous for the life of these two provinces.” (Jinnah’s letter to Mountbatten TOP X, p 852)

Sir Eric Meiville met with Jinnah on May 20th and reported the following to Mountbatten:

“At the end of our talk he (Jinnah) took my arm and said ‘I am not speaking as a partisan, but I beg to tell Lord Mountbatten once again that he will be making a grave mistake if he agrees to the partition of Punjab and Bengal.” (TOPP X 916)

What had Jinnah offered the Sikhs: Essentially a signed blank cheque… inter alia autonomy, defence ministry, permanent position as the Forces Chief…I remember Dullah Bhatti once asked Sadna this and Sadna refused to verify it. This is confirmed by Terrence Shone’s discussion with Jinnah . According to Terrence Shone, Jinnah said that he had offered 3.5 million Sikhs and Master Tara Singh everything he wanted, but “Sikhs in many ways admirable people lacked the leadership of the highest order”. (TOP Volume X P. 280)

On Bengal, Suhrawardy came up with the plan of a United Bangladesh endorsed and completely supported by Sarat Chandrabose and Kiran Shankar Roy… the major reason as John Tyson, Burrow’s special representative at the Governors Conference, reported was that

“Eastern Bengal alone was not going concern and never would be. It could not feed itself … it would become, in Sir Frederick Burrows words, a rural slum… Muslims knew all this as well as the Hindus- so they felt that the object of the cry to partition Bengal was to ‘torpedo Pakistan’”.

Mountbatten replied: “ Anything that resulted in torpedoing Pakistan was of advantage.”

(Minutes of the Governors Conference, 15th April. Page 255 TOP X)

To quote Stanley Wolpert:

“Two weeks later, Mountbatten asked Jinnah what he thought of Suhrawardy’s proposal to create a separate sovereign Bengal, expecting him to be shocked at his Muslim League lieutenant’s treachery. Much to Mountbatten’s surprise, Jinnah calmly replied: ‘I should be delighted. What is the use of Bengal without Calcutta; they had better remain united and independent. I am sure they would be on friendly terms with us.” And when Mountbatten added that Suhrawardy would like Bengal to remain in the Commonwealth, Jinnah retorted, ‘Ofcourse, just as I indicated to you that Pakistan would wish to remain within the commonwealth.’ Had Mountbatten followed the advice of Gandhi, Jinnah or Suhrawardy, instead of listening to only to Nehru, Punjab and Bengal might have been spared the deadly horrors, and a richly United Bangladesh, with its capital in Calcutta, would have emerged instead of the fragmented, impoverished Bangladesh born from its eastern half a quarter of a century later.” (Shameful Flight, Page 142)

I think we can make out very well that the partition of Punjab and Bengal was imposed on the subcontinent by Nehru and Mountbatten… with Patel absenting … Jinnah, Gandhi and to some extent Azad opposing …. Had this not been undertaken, perhaps the violence and the legacy of violence would not have existed… there would have been three more or less secular republics i.e. Pakistan, Hindustan and Bangladesh…. existing with mutual understanding in this great common subcontinent of ours… as opposed to the three polarized and hostile ones today.

#141 by ramchandar

Muslim Jihad ( read sex + violence)

Jihad = sex+violence ???

Are you drunk again ... ?

(head scratching)

#134 by bjkumar

Jugut bazi like bhands will not hide your blatant plagiarism ...

Sad ...

Jinnah to Pakistan:

Tu ne pi ``sharab``
Main ne kya piya?!!
Aadmee ka khoon!

Re: # 133 Dm / Sadna

1. I agree that League leaders never understood the gravity of the situation.

2. The blame goes squarely on the shoulders of Muslims in Punjab.

3. However the rioting in Pindi region was much less compared to the one in Bihar and UP. If Biharis and UPiets could kill 10,000`s in 1940s, Punjab in comparison was a peaceful place.

4. Again Punjabi leadership (Congress, Unionist, and Leagures) were all $tupid not to recognize the looming danger of their politics

5. League had won 86 seats in the previous elections. But Jenkins allowed Congress + unionist party to keep the League out of power. Once Unionist CM resigned, League was simply asking for their right.

Hindsight is 20/20. League in Punjab should have been wiser and more diplomatic in dealing with minorities. However Punjab Congress and Unionist party were even worse. So your quoations of Jenkins may work nicely on those who are unaware of history. However these short snippets are missing the big picture.

#146

And mian Hamidm2, I can clearly see that the memories from the last ass-whipping that I gave to you - and especially your inability to scrounge up any reply (the usual Pakistani cowardly syndrome) are still lingering there and making you unhappy!

Rest assured that Jinnah`s role in breaking up a whole people shall forever live in infamy!

And you and your children shall continue to pay the price for the dirty deeds of the vamp.

And they will continue to pay that price in...

What else - in blood!

Ishtiaq Ahmed has some good analysis on the politics of mass mobilization the Muslim league conducted in Punjab in the `40`s:

http://www.statsvet.su.se/publikationer/ahmed/andra_artiklar/the_fundamentalist_r.htm

bj,

......... i see that you are on a roll here, ranting and raving against jinnah and pakistan to cover up your peculiar anxieties and insecurities .......... i think it is time for you try one of those male enhancing therapies, and if that doesn`t work just stay squatting on the tracks when the train comes by ............. spare yourself (and us) the agony ........

dost-mittar #144: ``The point was that a man who could do everythig he wanted in his country should have been able to prevent ethnic cleansing; if he could not, to say that he could do anything he wanted is a meaningless claim.``

.......as i mentioned earlier the comment made on, ``could do everything,`` was in relation to constitutional and political decisions in pakistan..........please follow the thread of my comments to vrv.........and in this context, i still state that jinnah could do everything.......

........however, as mentioned earlier, outside this context, he could not have done things like solving everyone`s problem, or control ethnic and religious violence at a personal/individual level.........even if he tried to do so at a political level.........

bulleya:

Top policeman was merely a symbol; for all I know, that individual, whoever he was, might have been the kindest person and went to hajj several times to be forgiven for not being able to control the massacres. The point was that a man who could do everythig he wanted in his country should have been able to prevent ethnic cleansing; if he could not, to say that he could do anything he wanted is a meaningless claim.

In fact, if one can take into account the true cost in human suffering and misery that came from partition - and still approves of it - it is fair to say that such individuals (mostly Pakistanis here) are utterly callous to the loss of human lives!

#141 Ramchandar ji

I could not disagree more. Had British India stayed united as one country, the ``Muslims`` of West Pakistan:

(1) Would not have cleaned out their minorities. This would have necessitated a reliance on ``minority`` votes for continuation in power. Fundamentalism would never have grown and run amuck the way it did when it came loose by the likes of the vamp Jinnah.

(2) Would have more experience in living together with minorities - and the attendant diversity.

(3) Would not have forever suffered this constant need of having to defend the indefensible - of trying to do everything as opposite to India simply to justify their reason for existence.

(4) Would not have been held hostage to the whims of the Punjabi khakis and continuously killed off civilian leadership because the armed forces would have been much larger and too unwieldy to become dictators.

It is rather simple:

No Pakistan.

No khaki rule.

No dictatorship.

No Taleban.

No 9/11.

None of the gory stuff that followed 9/11 - including the Afghanistan invasion AND the Iraq invasion!

To this simple interactor it is crystal clear that the creation of ``Pakistan`` from West India was a blunder to last all blunders - whose prices are still being paid all over the world.