Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

Re: # 1207

Dear Harish mian,

I see that my mere presence upsets you so much as to resort to abuses... since Masanamuthu and Shishapa could not come up with valid arguments ... I think the only kick in the groin is the one that has rendered you useless.

Also I see that having soiled yourself on a number of occasions on the issue of direct action day... and running like the wind when shown your place, you are back to old ways. How about rejoining the discussion on various boards where you are missing in action.

Another bit I just discovered which I think makes interesting reading...

Not every Hindu leader had lost their mind like the arrogant Congress leaders...

Writing to Jinnah, Tej Bahadur Sapru wrote on 6th February, 1941:

``for if the country is dear to him (Gandhi), I believe, it is no less dear to you (Jinnah). You may at present be identified with the Muslim League. I have no kind of prejudice against the League or anyone connected to it , and so far as you are concerned, I still prefer to look upon you as I used to in days gone by when other people also looked up to you, for guidance and advocacy of the cause of India, irrespective of caste, colour or creed.``

It is this man who made Pakistan.... why then must the people who champion India and the Congress Party ... should not ask themselves how and why this man - who was universally admired and appreciated by all major leaders of India for being unbiased and staunchly nationalist- made Pakistan.. and maybe just maybe it had something to do with the Congress Party itelf?

sattar2

Bhai, that`s faith in something unknown and unknowable whom we cannot see, let alone label or describe.

What is faith in religions, if not self-righteousness? Why memorize Arabic and recite Sanskrit?

See, faith is what I do not have. I would love to know how you got it so we may all benefit from it.

So how come Jinnah and ML never promised the iron-clad constitutional
guarantees from dominating numerical majorty Muslims to
numerical minority like Hindus and sikhs and christians in to be
Pakistan that he was asking from Hindus in India?

Re: # 1203

Did you read the bits I pointed to ?

As for your question... such iron clad guarantees should be mandatory for the Pakistani state... since they are referred to even in the Lahore Resolution.

In the debate over the Objectives Resolution... All the Congress MPs and Scheduled Caste members repeatedly said that had Jinnah been alive, such a resolution would never have been passed.

As long as Jinnah was alive... no anti-minority legislation etc emerged in Pakistan... Jinnah`s efforts for the minorities were quite extensive. You may want to visit http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00008098&channel=university%20ave&threshold=0&layout=0&order=0&start=730&end=739&page=1#460

By ensuring that a Hindu was in charge of the Law ministry ... Jinnah pretty much made sure as much as he could that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state ....

However... the story of ML is very different. Other than Jinnah.. none of the top ML leaders had a strong support base in West Pakistan.... and those who did were the turncoats either from Congress or the Unionist Party... Thus people like Liaqat Ali Khan and others thought it prudent to make some concessions to the religious parties... while maintaining the over all modern and democratic nature of Pakistan... this was the constitutional mistake that has come to haunt the idea of Pakistan.

-YLH

kaal (#1071),

The answer, my friend, is in the blowing of easterly winds, in rustling of pale autumn leaves, in scream of a newborn, in a mother’s lullaby, in a lover’s moan, in the sounds of waves crashing on the shore, in the giggle of an innocent little girl, in beating of a human heart …

… take a listen if you ever stop clowning around :-)

And lets not forget that 1974 was very ironic for many other reasons... this was also the year that South Asia was plunged into the Nuclear Arms Race... another twist on Independence of 1947.

Masanamuthu,

I am willing to accept your first paragraph as your point of view which is not substantiated by any historical fact or reason but simply is an opinion you desperately want to hold and which I respectfully disagree with.. and I have given my reasons in detail. Also your statement that it is ``obvious`` is just hot air. It is NOT obvious to many historians from India itself... all of whom are Non-muslims ... and who hold a view identical to mine.

Now coming to your other issue... you know that I have raised that issue on several occasions. However... please note that till about Zia`s time... Pakistan`s religious minorities were more or less managed to go along... we had a Christian Chief Justice for the longest and Non-muslims - even after Mandal`s departure... continued to hold several prominent positions etc. Ofcourse 1949.. 1950... 1953 etc are all deep wounds... but 1974 was when all norms of constitutional decency were breached ... and the very principle was negated.

After reading this article... a ex-Christian Brigadier in the Pakistan Army who held a very key position called me up and complained that I had not mentioned the remarkable contributions of his community to the Pakistan Movement... all of these need addressing...
but the point remains that it was in 1974 alone when state took on the responsibility of deciding the fate of a minority against its wishes... Furthermore.. I find the 1974 twist on 1947 very Orwellian in that sense.


-YLH

Re: # 1199

``an ex-``

Again, It is like going in circles. What I said is perfectly logical as I have shown earlier. No need to repeat it again and again. Congress/Nehru is right in rejecting CMP which is completely against non-Muslim interests and only serves the interests of the Princes and Muslims which is obvious to anyone who spends time to read the CMP.


I have already expressed myself on Jogindranath Mandal issue and if you were honest you would accept that I have always considered treatment meted out to him one of the greatest tragedies.I think... the first attack on the principle was when the Objectives Resolution was passed with Muslims voting on one side and non-muslims on the other. Objectives Resolution thus negated the very principle of Majority not trampling the minority on which Jinnah based his struggle. However Objectives Resolution was more of a preamble and it did not become a proper constitutional issue till 1985 when it was made the substantive part of the constitution through Article 2 A under Zia. 1974 predates that.


Your respect for Mandal aside, Do you think Jinnah`s dream continued till 1974 as indicated by the title of your article (even after the injustice meted out to Mandal and Namasudras and other religious minorities)?. If so can we assume that you care only about your family/community`s interests and think the sacrifice of Mandal in joining with Jinnah even if against his own community is worthless. I think if you are sincere in your ``sense of grievance`` over Mandal, you`d have titled the article ``Rest in Peace (1947 - 50 )``.

I see, and claiming that all Hindus are tyrants hence Muslims
need protection is not bigotry?

Re: # 1196

That is just your ignorance of what was being said. Nobody said all Hindus were bad... but that Hindu majority would dominate the Muslim minority ... and that is exactly what the Congress governments from 1937-1939 did.... I hope you will revisit that bit. Try reading the Pirpur Report etc on the issue.

But why go that far... here is the Congress President Azad admitting/regretting in his own book- remember this is what he admitted... the real grievances ran much deeper than that:

The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where ``the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus.`` [p. 16]

``Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. ... He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman`s appeal. ... Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal`s attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee.`` [p. 16-17]

``Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel`s communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end.`` [p. 17]

``A similar development took place in Bihar. Dr. Syed Mahmud was the top leader of the province when the elections were held. He was also a General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee and as such he had a position both inside and outside the province. When the Congress secured an absolute majority, it was taken for granted that Dr. Syed Mahmud would be elected the leader and become the first Chief Minister of Bihar under Provincial Autonomy. Instead, Sri Krishna Sinha and Anugraha Narayan Sinha who were members of the Central Assembly, were called back to Bihar and groomed for the Chief Ministership. Dr. Rajendra Prasad played the same role in Bihar as Sardar Patel did in Bombay.`` [p. 17]

``These two instances left a bad taste at the time. Looking back, I cannot help feeling that the Congress did not live up to its professed ideals. One has to admit with regret that the nationalism of the Congress had not then reached a stage where it could ignore communal considerations and select leaders on the basis of merit without regard to majority or minority.`` [p. 18]



How about this ``As a rule Musalman is a bully`` ... or ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian``.

Truth be told.. Pakistan Movement was led and fought by people who had spent a lifetime in India`s service... who wrote ``Hindustan Hamara`` ? Who was hailed as India`s staunchest nationalist? It was people like these who after a lifetime of negotiating came to the right conclusion.


If you want to look for bigots amongst Muslims... you may want to read something about your favorite Maulana Azad and other Gandhians:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00008098&channel=university%20ave&threshold=0&layout=0&order=0&start=370&end=379&page=1#825


Have the courage to read the complete thing.

Masanamuthu,

First to your latest post:

I have already expressed myself on Jogindranath Mandal issue and if you were honest you would accept that I have always considered treatment meted out to him one of the greatest tragedies.I think... the first attack on the principle was when the Objectives Resolution was passed with Muslims voting on one side and non-muslims on the other. Objectives Resolution thus negated the very principle of Majority not trampling the minority on which Jinnah based his struggle. However Objectives Resolution was more of a preamble and it did not become a proper constitutional issue till 1985 when it was made the substantive part of the constitution through Article 2 A under Zia. 1974 predates that.


Now coming to the real issue: Who are you fooling my friend. You came up with that post as if you had an epiphany... the final argument : Princes had 93 seats under the CMP.


Let me repost your post once again:


359 by masanamuthu on May 26, 2007 7:47am PT
I learned this about Cabinet Mission Plan.


- A constituent Assembly consisting of 389 members - 292 from provinces, 4 from the territories governed by chief Commissioners and 93 from Indian Princely States - would draft the Constitution of India.

So from where do you think the 93 representatives from princely states are going to come from. Not through elections (even by the flawed communal electorate system.) but by the personal whims of the princes. So you`d probably have have Hyderabad Nizam appoint a dozen reps, and the prince of patiala appoint a couple. And the 90 million people living in the princely states would have to just live with their princes` whims, because the `British crown`` supposedly respects the ``solemn agreements`` made with the princes.

It`s amazing to think that Congress even accepted the plan first. That`s when our hero Jinnah came to the rescue.


Now given that Congress accepted the same 93 (most of whom voted against the Muslim League at every point) in the Indian Constituent Assembly subsequently... and the 93 number was unchanged and had nothing to do with the Cabinet Mission Plan... it is quite clear what you are saying above.

Just admit you made a mistake and we will end the discussion here. Please note that had Muslim League agreed to Indian Unity on Congress` terms... the positions would have remained the same... so essentially your argument is neither here nor there and is just plain and simple lie...

Do you want to go down like Mahatma Ghazi ?

Btw... Mahatma Ghazi Amar Ho Gaye

Also you made many claims that I`m a liar, dishonest etc.. etc..

Why don`t you come out with answers to my questions on Jogindranath mandal if you are really honest?. Why did you choose 1974 as the end of Jinnah`s dream instead of the date when they passed Objectives resolution / when they chased out Mandal?. So in your opinion, Jinnah`s dream survived even after the minorities were made second class citizens and Mandal was chased out in 1940s/50s and you seem to think 1974 was the end because ONLY then your family members were made to suffer.

In my opinion it was 1974 which was to Jinnah`s 1947 what 1984 was to Orwell`s 1948 for 1974 marked the same end of idealism and beginning of perversion in its name that was depicted so brilliantly by Orwell both in 1984 and the Animal Farm. For all the oaths taken in order to preserve the ideology of Pakistan, it was this tragic events of this year, coming so soon after Pakistan`s first unanimous constitution, that dealt a deathblow to the true ideology of Pakistan. Make no mistake about it- The real Pakistan no longer exists. It died at the very young age of 27.


Is that because you think Mandal/Scheduled caste namasudras are worthless and they can be discarded but only your family members/relatives/community are valuable. Who is the casteist bigot (the name you gave to Gandhi) here??.

Re: # 1182

``Ahmadis worked for Pakistan because it was a just cause.``

Ahmadis worked for Pakistan because they were bigots and opportunistics
and now tables have turned on them. That is all, they are reaping what
they sowed.

Re: # 1191

Shishapa,

Calling an entire community ``bigoted`` because they fought for their rights ... is just admitting that the only bigot here is you...

So much for your claims about being tolerant etc etc.