When India Banned Thought

Re: # 176

"capitalist fanatics like your good self to be loons" Better to be a loon than the follower (in your case doubly) of murderers and peadophiles muhammed and mao.

Sanatani

#175 majumdar sorry about the presumptuousness on the postings but I do consider right wing capitalist fanatics like your good self to be loons, nothing personal

Masadi sb,

....Our own majumdar, a right wing loon, who has stopped posting on my behalf because we differ in our opinion

That was uncalled for, sir. It is just that I have been somewhat busy of late, spend less time on chowk and you manage to get banned on weekends when I am not on Net.

I will be very happy to post on your behalf whenever u r banned otherwise.

Regards

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Delhi-concerned-Trained-Pak-men-guiding- pirates-off-Somalia-coast/509760/


Pakis are joining Somalians in the buccaneering ventures.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124054446854951883.html
Anybody knows, how to reduce evil effect of Muhammed?

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Delhi-concerned-Trained-Pak-men-guiding- pirates-off-Somalia-coast/509760/


Pakis are joining Somalians in the buccaneering ventures.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124054446854951883.html
Anybody knows, how to reduce evil effect of Muhammed?

Re: # 137

Pew,

That is quite interesting to know...the Khudai Khitmadgars did yeomen's job during partition...as for the Frontier Crimes Regulation or FCR, well it was a tool of law enforced by the British Raj in the Pashtun-inhabited tribal areas in the North west Frontier in 1848, 1873 and 1878...it was specifically devised to counter the fierce opposition of the Pashtuns to British rule, and their main objective was to protect the interests of the British Empire...according to the FCR despite the presence of popularly elected tribal representatives, parliament can play no role in the affairs of the area...unfortunately these unfair laws still pertain...FCR advocates collective punishment, and many human rights activists argue it is against the most basic Human rights abuse...the new government seems to have expressed desire for the repeal of the regulation...

The right wingers hate proponents of socialism, those that might give a base to the used and abused colonial country so that it can get a chance to stand up on its own and they love the lackeys of the colonials like Jinnah who cause massive bloodshed. Our own majumdar, a right wing loon, who has stopped posting on my behalf because we differ in our opinion supports Jinnah and adds pbuh for the same reasons

i) That he made the Muslims weak in the subcontinent through division
ii) He made Hindus overlords of Muslims in the subcontinent by the partition
iii) He ensured that Pakistan would be colonial and military dependent for its life before it broke up again
iv) He was for global capitalism and thereby keeping the vast majority of the people of the subcontinent feudal and giving a little stake to the petty bourgeoisie while taking the whole chunk for their own multinationls
v) For ensuring that people of the sub continent are treated as sh** by the world due to such relationships.

These people are not only loons they are criminals and traitors of humanity....

dm writes "I would recommend you to read eminent Social Scientist, Gunnar Myrdal's three-volume magnum opus, 'Asian Drama', in which he also came to the conclusion that, without partition, things would have been stalmated at every step."

Gunnar Myrdal was an employee of the colonials he was not an eminent social scientist, his work an American dilemma that sought to push the race problem underground by surface acknowledgement and no real changes while celebrating the American ethos was funded by the Carnegie Corporation.

What you suggest is similarly him pandering to the colonials by saying that in a united India there would be a stalemate on every occassion. This assertion carries the assumption that the divisions between the Hindus and Muslims were so great that they couldn't work together a rephrased TNT that the colonials were pushing via Jinnah. A united India without colonial interference and without a BIG enemy threatening a smaller one and without the bloodshed that ensued and without the backlash factor would have fixed its own mess and been prosperous as it had been before the British destroyed it. Reading this or that BS doesn't prove anything, look at the motivations of the authors before you quote those morons like Gunnar Myrdal as authority.

Have a nice day,

Re: # 167 Dost

So, then what 'mistake' did Nehru allude to if Jinnah would not have stopped short of complete Partition? Note, Nehru's is specific about Partition in his letter. I don't think that he is referring to events prior to 1946, because the Partition Plan was agreed to only in June, 1947.

bulleya:

corrections to my post#166:

It was Rene Levesque who had spoken of the Beau Risque. And Party in Parti Quebecois is of course spelled with an 'i' and not 'y'.

Pew#165:

My post in #158 was partly in response to your post. Nowhere does this statement by Nehru suggest that Jinnah would have accepted anything less than Pakistan in 1947. I have already said that Gandhi and Nehru made many mistakes, starting with their support of the Khilafat movement which disgusted Jinnah and their insistence that their Muslim "Pithoos" who got less than 15% Muslim votes (most of them perhaps in NWFP) must share the limelight of representing Muslims along with Jinnah.

bulleya#163:

I agree with a lot of what you say but disagree on some crucial points. Yes, our views are shaped by our experiences and so are mine, but I do try as much as possible to let the facts be the basis of my analysis and not emotions.

As for as emotions are concerned, I have lot more respect for Jinnah than for Gandhi and Nehru. In my several years of writing on this website, you can find several words of praise for Jinnah but hardly any for Nehru, whom I regard as responsible for most of the ills in India today and partly responsible for the partition.

Until 3-4 years ago, I was convinced that Jinnah wanted a federal state in India, a kind of sovereignty-association, if you will, a la Party Quebecois. However, after a lot of first hand documentary evidence - mostly thanks to diligent research by our own sadna (and not merely reading people who are out to prove one theory or another and ignore all evidence to the contrary), I have seen multiple lines of evidence which show that, just like Party Quebecois, Jinnah and ML too were looking at CMP as a transitionary stage (a kind of sovereignty-association) to move to complete independence (PQ calls it 'etapist' approach and are quite open about it as was ML as I'll show you in excerpt at the end of this post).

Frankly, I can put myself in Jinnah's shoes and see where he was coming from. At an individual level, he had seen that the Hindu leadership was more comfortable with the Mullahs than with progressive Muslims like himself. He had good reasons to worry about the Fabian socialists in the Congress. Finally, he had promised a separate homeland to his constituents and felt that he could not betray them by asking them to give up any long term aspirations of achieving the same. In his momentary acceptance of CMP, he did not go even as far as Lucien Bouchard in Quebec and asked his followers to give CMP a chance as a 'beau risque'; instead, he asked them very clearly to see it as a step towards their final goal.

Incidentally, you were totally off-base about your reading of the right-wing worries about Jinnah's resurrection in India. They do not believe that IMs are loyal citizens of India; if you recall, Modi won election in Gujarat by calling Muslims "Mian Musharraf" by suggesting that they were really Pakistanis living in India.

Now, here are the notes of the British officer after his meeting with Jinnah after he had accepted the CMP in Shimla. This is from a thread opened by sadna on UP; the highlights are by me. You would notice that the ML took a position very similar to what Major Wyatt suggested in the end:



"Note by Major Wyatt
25 May 1946

NOTE OF CONVERSATION WITH MR. JINNAH, FRIDAY, MAY 24th 1946

1. He is very nervous and I do not think he is much looking forward to his meeting with the Muslim League Working Committee and All India Council.

2. He was very anxious to know if all the comings and goings between the Congress leaders and the Cabinet Mission were having the effect of modifying the Statement in any way. I told him that it was most unlikely that the Statement would be modified.

3. He considered that the Statement was not a practicable proposition. The machinery envisaged would not work and could not work mainly because there was no spirit of co-operation on the Congress side. The Mission had obviously not even fully appreciated the situation in India. What was required was a surgical operation. This Statement would settle nothing. He did not think the British were badly intentioned but they would have to learn by experience. There are only two ways of learning things, either by experience or by taking the advice of someone who knows something about it. If he thought that the Mission would not breach his confidence, he would make them some suggestions as to how they should proceed and put the Statement on one side. But he was not sure that he could have complete confidence in the Mission.

I told him that the Mission would not breach his confidence, but that they were most unlikely to alter their Statement in any way. He at once said, "Well, then it is no use my making any suggestions". These undeclared suggestions were connected with the difficulty which he conceived the British felt over the defence of India. From a previous conversation with him I believe that what he wanted to suggest was his idea that the British should remain as the binding force in the Indian Centre for some 15 years and deal with defence and foreign affairs for Pakistan and Hindustan consulting the Prime Ministers of each State.

4. He was perplexed about the interpretation of paragraph 15(v)[of the Cabinet Mission Plan - CMP(3)]. He thought that it should have been so worded as to read that "Provinces grouped in sections should be free to form groups..". I told him that in my view that was the effect of paragraph 15(v). The provinces would be compulsorily grouped together in their sections at the Constituent Assembly and they would then be free to form groups or no.

He fully appreciated that if the representatives of Assam and North West Frontier Province did not take part in the work of their sections they could not be forced to do so and the sections would have to proceed without them, although this did not alter the fact that Assam and the North West Frontier Province would not be able to opt out of their group until the new constitution had been made.

5. He said that the preamble to the Mission's Statement had bitterly hurt the feelings of the Muslims. Not only that, it was inconsistent with the rest of the Statement. This onslaught was quite unnecessary and had been done in order to placate Congress. Indeed, the word Pakistan was an anathema throughout the Statement. This preamble made matters even more difficult for him than before.

6. His general criticism of the Statement was that it had not settled any of the fundamentals. For example:-

(a) The Muslim group of Provinces had not got parity with the others at the centre.

(b) There was no real protection for the Muslims in the Constituent Assembly, because from the very start the chairman would be a Hindu, unless the Muslims were to say that the election of the chairman was a communal issue, in which case the Constituent Assembly would break down straight away.

(c) The position of the States was left far too vague.

(d) Provinces had not been given the right to secede after 10 years although the Congress had always been willing to give the right to secede and had raised no real objection this time at Simla.

(e) The Union had been given the power to raise money. This was not a communal issue and would inevitably lead to taxation from the Centre with other subjects being added on the short list of the Union Government.

7. He explained to the Viceroy why there should be entirely separate Constituent Assemblies which only met together for the purpose of deciding the structure of the Union Government.

He thought the Viceroy had understood. This was a psychological matter and the Mission had created a single Constituent Assembly working in three sections only to please the Congress, ignoring Muslim feeling.

8. The only real safeguard for the Muslims was parity between Federations. The method of voting on communal issues would not work as there would always be dispute as to what was a communal issue and what was not.

9. He could not understand why the Muslim provinces had been split into two groups. He agreed that it was something to have the groups at all and without them he could not even have looked at the Scheme.

10. He disliked the Advisory Committee on which the Muslims would be in a minority, and as far as he could see would be unable to prevent the Union Constituent Assembly incorporating its recommendations as a part of the constitution of the Union Government, thus added another subject to those dealt with by the Union Government. ??

11. He dilated at considerable length on the attitude of Congress who had not conceded anything during the Simla Conference and would never approach the Constituent Assembly in a spirit of co-operation. They would aim the whole time to use their majority to steam-roller the Muslim League and sidetrack the provision as to safeguarding the Muslims on communal issues. It was inconceivable that such a Constituent Assembly could work at all.

12. He will not come down to Delhi until June 1st or 2nd. He can say nothing further until he has consulted the Muslim League Working Committee and Council. He is being bombarded with telegrams from his supporters protesting against the Statement and the Muslim reaction is very strong against it. My own impression is that he definitely wants to see where he is with the Muslim League before giving a decision on the Statement and he wants them to have time in which to absorb the two shocks which they have been given.
(a) His own letter agreeing to a Union Government
(b) The preamble to the Mission's Statement.

He is particularly hurt that the Mission have seized on this concession(which was an enormous one from his stand point) and have not taken his offer as a whole. None of the provisios that went with it have been accepted. I pointed out to him that everything that Congress had asked for had not been accepted either but he did not seem particularly convinced.

13. I asked him, in view of the foregoing, whether he thought that the Muslim League Working Committee might possibly pass a resolution on the following lines:-
The British had exceeded their brief in pronouncing on the merits of Pakistan. They had no business to turn down what millions of people wanted. Their analysis of Pakistan was outrageous. But the Muslims had never expected the British to give them Pakistan. They had never expected anyone to give them Pakistan. They knew they had to get it by their own strong right arm.

The scheme outlined in the Cabinet Mission's Statement was impracticable and could not work. But nevertheless in order to show that they would give it a trial, although they knew that the machinery could not function, they would accept the Statement and would not go out of their way to sabotage the procedure-but they would accept the Statement as the first step on the road to Pakistan.

At this proposition he was delighted and said "That's it, you've got it", and I am completely convinced that that is what the Muslim League will do.
14. He will demand parity in the Interim Government if he decides to come into it.

Re: # 158 Dost

Please read my post #147. Thanks.

Re: # 163

Bulleya says ".....gandhi's and nehru are not nearly as hated in pakistan and jinnah is in india"

This one is funny or strange. All of my relatives other that those who remained loyal congressmen (a small minority) whether Hindus or Sikhs hated Gandhi and Nehru with a passion worse than they hated a cow killer or the muslims. They had no hatred for Jinnah in fact they admired him and used to say jab apne sikke khote hon to doosro ko kya kahein.

The sellout over Kashmir was the last straw. They never considered the Sardar in that category. He was a revered leader.

Men like BJ2 are johnnies come late. They have been fed the congressi line. Anyway what else could the congress do and blame Jinnah for their shortcomings and failures.

The failures was especially of Gandhi who said partition over my dead body.

More later.

Sanatani

dost-mittar #:....it is good to see a somewhat objective discussion of this subject, on this site....rather than the emotional name-calling such discussions, usually, turn into...

....i think jaswant singh may have done more good to south asia, with this one book, than he is realizing....

....i think one's views can be impacted, hugely, by one's own experiences.....your views on partition, pakistan, islam, kashmir etc. will be impacted by your own personal experiences.......i have found your views on these subjects, somewhat different from your views on most other similar subjects, which had no personal affects on you.....you are one of the few (if not the only) person on this site, who was turned into a perpetual immigrant because of the partition......

.....from a cultural, social, dna point of view, you are a west punjabi, yet you may have lost that forever.....and that too, through an involuntarily uprooting......this is bound to have an impact on your psyche.....there are quite a few people like that in pakistan, in karachi......

.......eventually, truth conquers all......one cannot hide it.....jinnah's role in the partition is so demonized in india that it is not even funny.....gandhi's and nehru are not nearly as hated in pakistan and jinnah is in india.....this is fine, if the hatred is based on fact......however, it isn't.......

even if we take your interpretation of the events, which (in my opinion) are still rightist to the actual facts, they are still in contradiction to the picture painted in india of jinnah, and, subsequently of pakistan......

.....it may well be that jinnah wanted to live in a federated india.....and that the muslims had no issue with it as well.....if they were given some room to control their own destiny.......they could have lived like quebecans in canada......i.e. many people hate that setup (i believe you do, as well), but it is the best working one that is available, other than outright independence.......

and, it may well be that jinnah's hand, actually, was forced by nehru and congress.....an argument, many (including me) have been making on this site.....

if you get a chance to read, "A Journey to Disallusionment," by Sherbaz Mazari......he describes how much kicking around Jinnah had to do, to get the politicians of present-day Pakistan, on his side......Bacha khan's voters may have turned in favor of Pakistan, however, they did so very late......as did the punjabis etc.....

.......had a federated solution been agreed to early on, their actions and views may have been different......from the early part of his political career till nearly his dying day - with the cabinet mission plan - it is obvious that jinnah was trying for some sort of a federated solution........

i think he was way ahead of his time.....far more capable than the politicians around him......india would have been created without nehru and gandhi.....it was something that was bound to happen.......but jinnah was on his own......

he was the only politician who had total understanding of the british, hindu and muslim mind......and i think he realized that, in the long term, muslims weren't advanced enough to survive on a 1-1 basis with hindus, and would get dominated.......at the same time, he realized that south asia should remain a federation.........

i think this is what everyone is realizing now......muslims in india are having a very difficult time keeping up with a changing india........they are falling further and further behind......at the same time, more and more people in south asia, want an economic federation with free trade (i believe even bjp wants free trade)......

......i think jinnah felt, even after an independent pakistan, things would return to a federation.......which is why he kept his property in india (i think he may have bought some more in simla).......

...what he didn't predict was the kashmir issue.......he couldn't have predicted it.......(again there, i blame nehru, but that is a separate debate)......had their been no kashmnir issue, i think south asia may have been an economic federation by now, like the eu..........you would have had a village home, back in pind dadan khan (or wherever you were), and i may have had a place in bangalore......there would be free flow of people, and muslims would not be as intimidated of being dominated by hindus, as they are now (both in india and in pakistan and bangladesh).......

Re: # 161
majumder...
Shyama Prasad Mukherjee should get some (may be majority ) of the credit for this noble act...
If Congress can support Khilafat Jihad, I am seeing no problem for them to ceede entire Bengal and Assam to Musla league proposed Pakistan....Nehru, Patel etc.. being the cow belt leaders, had no concern for Bengalees or Punjus....

Congress should get credit for supporting leaders like S P Mukherjee...