The Conspiracy Theory

The world is indeed interconnected, however not controlled by a single intelligence, but rather a number of motives, which are profit and unjust enrichment and the furtherance of White and Zionist hegemony to the end of creating and maintaining a set of beneficiaries. This is the basis of the conspiracy. This is the inception and end of all things on the face of this planet. This is the basis of individualism, post-modernism, democracy, free trade, pluralism and many others amongst that compendium of delights which are truths a priori, so much so that they can justify genocide.

A spade nevertheless remains a spade. A "mindset" which appreciates this reality for all the agitprop, fictions and falsehoods designed to obstruficate and indeed deny reality, to the ends of promoting the interests of the beneficiaries of humanity, is by all means far superior to the alternative wisdom of sell-outs, traitors, lackeys and stooges who in all probability are driven exclusively by a deep and reinforced conviction in their own inferiority. The "nostalgic water-tight state" may not be probable under the given circumstances, but this by no means makes it undesirable. The ubiquity of a plague does create a moral duty to infect your children.

Re: # 194 HP a stupid and self centred man like u should learn to keep his tramp shut.

giani ji, a. h. amin is the definition of exception among us.

Dear Pavo,

I have to admit that I came across one of your articles by accident and then googled you and read whatever you the published - all that I could find on the web.

You confirm the long held suspicion of mine that under the skin we are all the same. Religion is personal and is best left at home.

I am not going to go into the merits of whether MAJ or MG or JLN were good or bad; or INC or ML were good or bad. They were a product of their times and they did what they geninuely believed to be right. One point is clear that they were giants in their own right to be able to manipulate so many people.

But one thing is for sure that IMs still suffer the consequences of 1947 - a fact both unfair and unjust.

I really enjoyed reading your articles and wish that you keep writing them.

Giani

Anilji,

The Brits were so badly hammered by the white Aryan Mahatma and his bunch of satyagrahis that independence would have happened even if the Injuns had gone down on all fours begging for Brits to stay back. QIM was irrelevant.

Sadna ji,

Re #248

You are right. But it is just not QIM but the entire progression of the so-called freedom struggle. INC ever since its formation had poilticised the Injun (at least the Hanud)middle classes and MKG politicised the masses as well which in the long run stood India in good stead. But specifically QIM was uncalled for and unwise.

MAJ (pbuh) in my opinion made a big mistake by not going to the masses in a big way until it was too late. And Pakistan is still paying the price. AIML remained largely a party of feudal toadies in the areas which were ultimately to form Pakistan. Although in the minority provinces it developed support among the salariat class as well.

Regards

Jinnah cooperated with the British, the INC didn't. Jinnah got Pakistan, India got freedom from the British and the Western strategic interests' local collaborators. Today Pakistan has a Viceroy (or a few) who decide matters like its govt and its election schedule, India doesn't. Today the stresses between Western strategic interests, their local collaborators and Pakistani people's rights are more than ever. Yet some people want to convince Indians that the INC was mistaken in its conduct of the independence movement, including in 1942.

I think Gandhi had experienced British behaviour during
world war I and after.

"Meanwhile the war came to end, and Gandhi learnt that the Sedition Committee Report had been published and the Government of India proposed to introduce legislation to curb civil liberties. He had been almost alone among Indian leaders who had argued for unconditional support to Britain in her hour of need in the hope of a worthy gesture at the end of he war. He felt that he had received stone for bread. He had done his best to keep out of political agitation during the war. Now he felt an irresistible call to fight a wrong perpetrated in peace."

So I guess there was not really a reason for Gandhi and
INC to wait for World War II to get over and then
start agitating because GB was fighting a war.

I think Gandhi had experienced British behaviour during
world war I and after.

"Meanwhile the war came to end, and Gandhi learnt that the Sedition Committee Report had been published and the Government of India proposed to introduce legislation to curb civil liberties. He had been almost alone among Indian leaders who had argued for unconditional support to Britain in her hour of need in the hope of a worthy gesture at the end of he war. He felt that he had received stone for bread. He had done his best to keep out of political agitation during the war. Now he felt an irresistible call to fight a wrong perpetrated in peace."

So I guess there was not really a reason for Gandhi and
INC to wait for World War II to get over and then
start agitating because GB was fighting a war.

Re: # 238

Majumdar:

The Brits thru war powers act or provision or ordinance had already assumed draconian powers. Jinnah was an important second fiddle, and he played it very well. For INC alternatives were stark continue peaceful agitation, any other thing would have been disastrous for the cause of freedom. No Indian leader of the time had any doubts (this is again my assumption) that India cannot get independence until after the war. Any act during the war would be viewed as subversive, afterall many jailed were charged for subversion, treason and sedition. Japanese and German option was never mainstream and had no currency with Gandhi and Nehru. Gandhi and Nehru were a lot smarter and ideologically very different from Japanese and Germans.

Only Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose wanted and followed it on the principle that enemy's enemy is our friend.

My submission was that outcome of QIM was not unkown before it was started. No QIM alternative meant stopping independence movement. Jinnah as second fiddle could do afford to do it, INC could not. Another point that I was unable to verify, was that the British gave tacit approval to INC as long as it would not divert resources, and will be peaceful.

Are you giving credit to QIM for the partition?

I am not. I have maintained that it patition happened a long before QIM. Jinah's demands almost accounted for legalized fudging of the electorate, no genuine Indian leader would have accepted. I am certain Jinnah knew it too. I think even though Jinnah wanted to delay publically. Don't think he privately knew he would not live long enough to see that day? He had a very terminal disease and died of it, and was on the treatment. Delay, among others were mere public posturing. If Sri Lanka, and Burma could got the Brits to stay longer, so could he have asked and kept the Brits longer in Pakistan, as long as he got his Pakistan. Divorce , separation had happened, and let India gain independence sooner.

Why did he not consider delaying this as the option for Pakistan, if his demand for the delay was genuine. He was not the leader of remainder of India to ask and get the delay for all of India.

At least we agree on one that QIM achieved right objective. You define partition as the unintended objective. I consider Quit India as the intended objective, and that there was a tacit support, and that the Brits may have even wanted INC to have peaceful movement going during the war, so that situation would not be more explosive after the war.

#242 majumdar sahib: after 60 years, it is about time your countrymen saw the light. :-)

#232 Posted by pavocavalry on December 11, 2007 12:19:15 pm

First one was a good read. Please post the second one if you find it.

Tahmed sahib,

Re: #241

Don't worry, my countrymen would soon see the folly of INC in 1942 (that is from the INC's POV, not mine) and also appreciate that QIM had unintended good consequences for India.

Regards

majumdar #238 this is precisely what i have been arguing about on chowk, to the annoyance of your countrymen on chowk. seems like not too many people see beyond their nose on QIM on what should be a no-brainer even back in 1942!! perhaps jinnah got it because he was smarter, or he got it because he had the character to not kick a man when he is down (as the brits were in 1942).

Re: # 234----Thanks for all this solidarity Okhla Sahib.The reality is that any person who speaks the truth is an enemy of state in pakistn.The Bengalis gave seats from Bengal to many major West Pakistani major politicians from Bengal as they had no home constituency and these politicians paid back by being more anti Bengali.In order to terrorise Bengali Hindus from East Pakistan singled out as a group West Pakistani politicians both Punjabi and Hindustani enforced separate electorate.Note that East Pakistani Hindus were the most progressive element, a larger number being leftists.


In Pakistan the rule is that if you are a munafiq u succeed.May be that is the same in India also.I dont know that.

Coming back to kargil, hre is a previous post by me.
http://www.chowk.com/interacts/6348/1/0/176#139433
If anything, Kargil was a reminder that the international perception is heavily loaded against Pakistan. It also made a routine LOC violation look dangerous beyond all propotions and because of the Mujahadeen factor created a fient but an inextricable link between the Kashmir freedom struggle and terrorism. Most it saw two neighbours loaded with nuclear weapons fight a limited conventional conflict in which Pakistan flinched first.

Violations across the LOC have been routine. Over time India has been successful in nibbling at SiaChin, Jaswa, Kiran and many other areas.If viewed in the context of Simla, these violations already make Simla redundant. What Pakistan tried tactically was to severe the base leading to Siachin by cutting off Dras Kargil and dominating the Tortuk-Leh funnel. Incase the political rheoteric had been confined to SiaChin, Pakistan could have probably held on and forced India to negotiate. Unfortunately political ambition went far beyond leading to Mujahideenisation of the whole issue. This rattled the entire international community wherein Pakistan stood isolated. Alas! we never had a statesman with the resience to handle the crises and so be it.

Anilji,

What exactly did INC hope to achieve by QIM in 1942? Were they expecting to blackmail the Brits into giving them independence?

And if indeed they did get the independence how did they propose to defend themselves against the Japs or Germans if they came into India? It would have been fun of course if the Brits had actually left in 1942 and let the Japs occupy India. I can just smack at my lips at the thought of what the Japs would have done to MKG and JLN had they entered India!!!

And what if they failed? Did they expect that the Brits would be thrilled with them that the Injuns had rebelled against them when they were fighting a life and death war against the Axis Powers?

In any case it is our great good luck that INC did QIM in 1942 and made sure that the Brits would be more sympathetic to the demands of MAJ (pbuh) when the dust had settled!!!

Regards