Citizenship and Identity in Pakistan

Dear Mantolives:

Under CMP:

---

total number of seats = princes (93) + Muslim seats (?)+ General (?)

Under IOIA: (for India)

---

total number of seats = princes (93) + General (?)

Fill in the Q marks.. you`d see the obvious and why Nehru and Congress rejected the CMP..

Support for ``privy purse`` was added to the constitution adopted in 1950 to appease the `princes` and get their support in the ``initial flaky years`` of Independence (Patel - the good cop, Nehru - the bad cop). That`s the reason why the Supreme Court of India rejected the Indira Gandhi`s plan of abolishing the ``privy purse`` in 1970(??).. Later a massive victory for Gandhi and the constitutional amendment in 1971 put to rest the saga of ``princes``..

Dear Masanamuthu,

``Any idea why they did not continue after 1950?.. :-)``

The same reason why Bahawalpur state ceased to exist in Pakistan after 1956... India got its constitution in 1950 and Pakistan got its constitution in 1956.

Whether Nehru/Patel played good cop or bad cop is irrelevant to the discussion here which is that 93 members existed regardless of the Cabinet Mission Plan ... and were part of the Independence of India Act 1947 as well.

So your point is wrong all through out.

PS: Considering ofcourse that my comparison with Swiss and Dutch models was only as a rebuttal to your comparison to Lebanese and Nigerian models... otherwise... none of these countries OR their models could be applied to British India in toto.

As for Masanamuthu`s other claim... that independence of India Act 1947 did not give the 93 representatives to Princely state... that is absolutely FALSE. The 93 members who represented the princely states in the Indian Constituent Assembly which was first constituted December 9, 1946 continued to be part of the Indian Constitutent Assembly till 1950.


Any idea why they did not continue after 1950?.. :-).

I`ve already mentioned how Nehru/Patel played the good cop / bad cop to perfection. Infact princes and their families were treated with kid gloves till 1971 when Indira Gandhi kicked them out of any government ``privy purse``..

Re: # 384

The problem is that you can`t imagine history in your head or rely on anonymous interactors like Sadna to teach it to you.

You`d have to see what CMP was stating... instead of picking differences between character of the Swiss and the Indians etc.. or comparing Lebanese model to CMP which has nothing in similar... infact the issue of religious fragmentaton that you see common between the two is completely inapplicable when you consider that the CMP was essentially a regional solution being applied to hundreds of millions of people with diverse languages, religions and ethnicities and not just a few million Arabs divided along sectarian lines.

From the June 3rd Plan which Congress and Mountbatten produced:

``His Majesty`s Government wish to make it clear that the decisions announced above (about partition) relate only to British India and that their policy towards Indian States contained in the Cabinet Mission Memorandum of 12-5-1946, (Cmd. 6835) remains unchanged.``

That means that the entire story that Masanamuthu is spinning is wholely untrue...

As for Masanamuthu`s other claim... that independence of India Act 1947 did not give the 93 representatives to Princely state... that is absolutely FALSE. The 93 members who represented the princely states in the Indian Constituent Assembly which was first constituted December 9, 1946 continued to be part of the Indian Constitutent Assembly till 1950.

Hence... not only did the status not change but the representation remained the same (because only 4 princely states chose to go to pakistan and at most had one representative in the PCA if any).

So why is Masanamuthu fooling himself... god only knows.

Your repetitive references to Lebanon and Nigeria are sad and ironic. CMP perhaps has much more in common with the Swiss form of Government or Netherlands than with Lebanon (which is a centralised state) and/or Nigeria. But then you would actually have to apply your mind instead of making such outrageous claims.

ROFL.. that`s right.. Indians and Pakistanis need to be compared with Swiss and Dutch in their respect for the ``constitutional document`` (who BTW have formed their governments not at the behest of a colonial imperialist power and not with inter religious divisions and are generally known for their history of tolerance) and unlike Lebanese and Nigerians who were ``colonised`` and were in a exactly similar situation (with multi-religious interests to take care) after the imperialists decide to leave.

Well, we did see what happened to Jogindranath Mandal when he believed in a ``similar assurance`` from Jinnah. din`t we??.. :-)

Dear Majumdar,

Poor Masanamuthu is bringing up the issue of princely states because he doesn`t really have any real argument. The Congress did not reject the CMP because of princes... it rejected the CMP- as Sadna Gupta has declared - because a United India would have meant between 55-60% (sadna`s figure - in my view more like 35-40%) Muslims in the Indian Army... because otherwise... Congress would have as much control over more or less what constitutes India... as it did after independence and to frame the constitution of what is now India... under the Cabinet Mission Plan.

I am not interested in a discussion on the princely states because beyond the issue that was created in Kashmir/Hyderabad/Junagadh, the issue of princely states was irrelevant.
My only attempt was to show utter hypocrisy that is prevalent in the double standards that are taken by people... because on the one hand British are evil for their colonial rule and on the other... they are evil for respecting their agreements with princely states - the kind which were there before.

I am against Kingship and feudal elites and primogeniture etc, but that should not stop me from stating a fact.

Dear Masanamuthu,

Lets not deliberately obfuscate. So far you haven`t able to produce a single piece of evidence which shows that Congress rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan because of the princes... furthermore... the fact that the princely states met the same fate in Pakistan as in India ... shows that this wasn`t even an issue.

As for CMP ... if you wish to believe Sadna it is your prerogative... after all you would want to believe her won`t you? Tell you what... why don`t you produce her arguments for us here and I`ll show you how illogical and factually inaccurate her arguments were - designed to fool people. For the longest time she had people believing that Cabinet Mission Plan promised parity to Muslims and Non-muslims.. a lie which when exposed brought down the entire edifice of deceit upon which her cae against CMP was built.

As for historians... again you are welcomed not to subscribe to the list that I have furnished, even if all of them are renowned academics in the west and in India. After all Harvard, Columbia, Cambridge, Tufts etc must be really stupid to give tenures to Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal, Ainslee T Embree... similarly all those Indian lawyers who hold H M Seervai as the father of constitutional law must be idiots too (and somehow are not included in the number that you suddenly claim to singlehandedly speak for)... Why bother when you can learn history from Sadna Gupta (who to date has not been able to come up with a single argument that holds water once exposed to facts).

Your repetitive references to Lebanon and Nigeria are sad and ironic. CMP perhaps has much more in common with the Swiss form of Government or Netherlands than with Lebanon (which is a centralised state) and/or Nigeria. But then you would actually have to apply your mind instead of making such outrageous claims.

Manto mian,

Re: Princely states

The point is what was to be done in 1947. It is ridiculous to suggest that the princely states return to their original sovereignty and I am glad that neither Pak nor India bought the argument and used the danda to impose their rule over the states in their respective area of influence.

As far as Rani of Jhansi and the other ``freedom fighters`` are concerned, I have a rather poor opinion of them (except that I admire the Rani`s courage and self-belief which was missing in most of the so-called freedom fighters) and we can discuss them over e-mail rather in an open forum.

Regards

Also, I`m not getting involved in the crazy mathematics of `reserved seats and provinces for Muslims` in the CMP as it has already been discussed, debated to death by Sadna et.al.

On the whole CMP is a screwed up plan that would have ended in a ``civil war`` of a greater scale than partition violence. You have Lebanon and Nigeria as glorious examples of what would have happened.. Congress and Nehru rightly did what they were supposed to do and every ``thinking and sane`` Indian should be thankful to them.

Mantolives buddy:

On the one hand people like Masanamuthu make Rani of Jhansi and other princely rulers who stood up in 1857 into heroes...

You are creating a strawman and then taking him down.. I have never claimed Rani of Jhansi or other such feudal kings/queens/Sultans as heroes.. Same way as earlier you said people like me claimed Macalauys statement that you found to be a hoax. Why are you clutching at straws. We should also believe ``your assertion`` that Nehru rejected the CMP not for these clauses. Nehru was consistenly against the ``princely states`` existence..And everything played a role in acting in the way he acted.

Yeah right, your list of ``historians`` that we all should believe. Since we agreed earlier that we should let the `Indians`` laugh, I`d take a pass at this statement.

Again, this is for Indians who are interested..

Lord Canning, Governor-General of India in 1860 after the mutiny (after some ousted princes/feudal kings/queens/sultans/begums revolted) and some others acted as sidekicks..
``It was long ago said by Sir John Malcolm that if we made all India into Zillahs (British Districts) it was not in the nature of things that our Empire should last fifty years; but that if we could keep up a number of Native States without political power, but as royal instruments, we should exist in India as long as our naval supremacy was maintained. Of the substantial truth of this opinion I have no doubt; and the recent events have made it more deserving of our attention than ever``.

And this from an important Government spokesman on behalf of the princes in 1930 (around the Round table conference time) Professor Rushbrook Williams..
``The rulers of the Native States are very loyal to the British connection. many of them owe their very existence to British justice and arms.. Their affection and loyalty are important assets for Britain in the present troubles and the readjustments that must come. The situation of these feudatory states, checkerboarding all India as they do, is a great safeguard. It is like establishing a vast network of friendly fortresses in debatable territory. It would be difficult for a general rebellion against the British to sweep India because of this network of powerful loyal Native States``.

Dear Masanamuthu,

Look in order to prove your point you`d have to show that the reason why Congress rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan was because of the princes. It wasn`t the reason for Congress did it and hence you don`t have an argument.

This other assertion that it was bad for the Non-Muslims is clearly not shared by historians or academics... as it would have given India everything that it has today minus the bloodshed that occured (but since 70% of all casualties were of Muslims I suppose that would be an okay prospect for you). At the very least it would have led to an amicable partition later.

My humble submission to you is that as an anonymous interactor you cannot claim to speak for 1 billion Indians out of which atleast 20% may be sane. Countless credible Indians have spoken about the Cabinet Mission Plan ... in fact this supposed ``spin`` that I am supposedly putting on the whole thing comes from their works. Such sweeping statements as the kind you make without much logic or fact is indicative of a lack of argument and nothing else.


Majumdar,

While I am not in favor of Kingships and princes etc... this kind of picking and choosing is dangerous. These princely states came before the British... and had been in existence for a long time. Some of them were very well ruled and were constitutional monarchies. I have only repeated what Masanamuthu has called them... i.e. Sovereign Agreements.

On the one hand people like Masanamuthu make Rani of Jhansi and other princely rulers who stood up in 1857 into heroes... on the other side you abuse the British for not taking over all princely states. The principle should apply across the board... either the princely states were sovereign or they were not... and if they were sovereign then their agreements were sovereign agreements between them and the crown... and if they were not sovereign, then Rani of Jhansi was equally wrong in laying a challenge to the British Empire....

I personally think this entire issue of princes is irrelevant... personally I am glad that Kalat is today under Balochistan govt. and Bawahalpur under Punjab... but does that have any bearing on how partition occured. None whatsoever.

Manto mian,

(The British, as evil as they were, respected sovereign agreements with princely states. Both Pakistanis and Indians didn`t. )

With due respect you to, the princely states were not worthy of any respect. Glad neither the Indian nor the Paki govts. respected ``sovereign agreements`` as you describe them with the states.

Regards

3. The British, as evil as they were, respected sovereign agreements with princely states. Both Pakistanis and Indians didn`t.


Yeah, why won`t they.. as long as they get their share of the dues. While Nizam of hyderabad was the richest in the world in the 1920s, his subject peasants were trying to find rats to eat. It is good that Pakistanis and Indian`s didn`t honor those agreements.

For fun, if anyone wants to read about hyderabad, read this time magazine report on Monday, Aug. 30, 1948..

.. Since India and Pakistan became independent just one year ago, 561 of 562 princely states have joined either one dominion or the other: The holdout is Hyderabad, about the size of Minnesota, whose ruler, the Nizam, is said to be the richest man in the world.

Mantolives:

You are the one who is ``spinning`` CMP as the ``great plan`` for a united India which is not the case. (maybe great for Muslims and the princes) BUT defintiely not for non-Muslims and the Congress rightly rejected that. You are the one who is clutching.. As I said, you would not find a sane Indian today who would support CMP after coming to know the details.

2. Princely states were even more sovereign under the IOIA 1947 than CMP. That Congress (and the Muslim League in Pakistan) could twist their arm even then shows that your argument is without basis.

Princes had nothing in the IOIA that states they can send representatives selected on the whims and fancies of the princes to dictate policy like in the case of CMP. They are given an ultimatum on either to join India/Pakistan/ stay independent and more importantly the ``agreements with the Brits`` are worth the ``toilet paper``. :-)