Advani in Karachi

Re: misc. by Mantolives

Actually, although it seems that we are not making progress, we ARE making progress.

You have been forced to think of REASONS why Jinnah did what he did.

And you came up with the following absolute EXCUSES for an argument:


1) Jinnah didn`t want to ``think out of the box``. (Splitting India was ``thinking inside the box``)

2) Jinnah didn`t want ``new demarcations``. (But splitting India was ok for new demarkations)

3) Jinnah would have, but the partition of Bengal and Punjab were done SOOOO AWWWWFULLY by the BAAAAAD Congress that he couldn`t do it. (No doubt you are going to explain this one now. Let`s see what you come up with).




So we are making progress.

Everyone who`s watching can make out who`s trying to rationalize here.

Re: #630 by Mantolives


[a) You started off by asking me why Jinnah didn`t give the constitutional safeguards to them which he had asked for in United India. I showed you conclusively that an equipoise was given to them in spirit. ]

This is garbage logic.

Why?

Because of the following:

If the equipoise was good enough for Hindus in Pakistan, it should have been good enough for Jinnah and the Muslims in undidvided India, because this same “equipoise” had been promised to the muslims of undivided India.

So if this “equipoise” is same as the “Constitutional safeguards” that Jinnah wanted, why did he not accept it in undivided India?


[b) You then demanded to know why a federal Pakistan was not instituted. I showed you that Pakistan was a federal state and it has always been one. ]

Again more misleading and falsification.

In a federation, the constituent parts have autonomy.

THERE WAS NO POLITICAL AUTONOMY GIVEN TO THE HINDU MAJORITY AREAS.

SO KINDLY DON’T INSIST THAT THIS WAS A FEDERATION AS FAR AS HINDUS IN PAKISTAN WERE CONCERNED.



[c) You then asked why Hindus were not given a federal equipoise. I showed you that Hindus were given an equipoise in the constitution making. Federal equipoise was impossible because there were no Hindu Majority areas in Pakistan which could be given autonomy because of the unnatural Partition of Punjab and Bengal brought about by the Congress Party. ]

What complete nonsense.

Just your saying doesn’t make it so.

“HINDU MAJORITY AREAS COULD NOT BE GIVEN AUTONOMY BECAUSE OF THE UNNATURAL PARTITION OF PUNJAB AND BENGAL BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CONGRESS PARTY”



This is the most fascinating statement you have made so far.

Could you KINDLY tell me why?


[d) You persist in repeating the same question which makes no sense and has been answered effectively. ]

You would like everyone to think that my questions are stupid, won’t you?

But it’s possible that they are not.


[PS: Please don`t waste my time and yours.]

Admittedly, arguing with you IS a total waste of time.

Because a fanatic never changes.

But sometimes I derive some satisfaction putting people like you straight, and showing the Pakistani propaganda for the garbage it really is.

Dear Ajeya,

1) Partition of Punjab and Bengal was brought about by the Congress Party not the league. Federating Units asking to opt out of a federation (and mind you Punjab, Sindh and Bengal were independent sovereign states at the time of their acquisition) is NOT out of the box thinking. So when you say ``partition`` ... it is out of the box solution brought about by Nehru and Patel. The Pakistan demand as embodied by the Lahore Resolution was the federating constitutional units opting out of the federation. So ``secession`` is not necessarily ``out of the box``.

2) By partitioning Bengal and Punjab, the Hindu majority areas of Note were made part of the Indian Union. The few hindu majority areas inside Pakistan were scattered and not huge blobs. Nothing could guarantee.

3) You obviously haven`t a clue about how federating units and federations work. The definition you gave fully and completely fits the federal structure of Pakistan as it existed under the GOIA1935, which you had untill recently declared ``irrelevant``.

4) Calling my arguments assinine won`t make them so. India didn`t make new provinces untill much later. As things existed, there were so many other administrative problems faced by Pakistan. Jinnah died only 13 months. In those 13 months he did try his best to give the Hindus an equipoise in constitution making.


Now let me tell you what you are argument essentially is...

a) You started off by asking me why Jinnah didn`t give the constitutional safeguards to them which he had asked for in United India. I showed you conclusively that an equipoise was given to them in spirit.

b) You then demanded to know why a federal Pakistan was not instituted. I showed you that Pakistan was a federal state and it has always been one.

c) You then asked why Hindus were not given a federal equipoise. I showed you that Hindus were given an equipoise in the constitution making. Federal equipoise was impossible because there were no Hindu Majority areas in Pakistan which could be given autonomy because of the unnatural Partition of Punjab and Bengal brought about by the Congress Party.

d) You persist in repeating the same question which makes no sense and has been answered effectively.

-YLH

PS: Please don`t waste my time and yours.

Re: #628 by Mantolives


[Knowledge can`t be quantified.]

Did I say it can be? Oops! I’m sorry.


[Rather poor attempt on your part to prove that you actually did pass those standardised tests.]


Actually there is no pass-fail in exams like the IIT-JEE.



[Another thing... please understand that writing a few co ]

You did not finish this sentence.



[``1) MENTION SOMEWHERE ABOUT THIS FEDERAL SYSTEM?``

Yes. Muslim League`s Lahore Resolution speaks of a federal system very clearly and that document forms the basis of Pakistan. Furthermore the GOIA 1935 which was Pakistan`s interim constitution is a federal document. ]


This is how a Federation is defined:

“A form of government in which powers and functions are divided between a central government and a number of political subdivisions that have a significant degree of political autonomy.”

This FEDERAL system did not let Hindu pockets become small, politically autonomous provinces that are part of a Federal Pakistan, did it?

A simple YES or NO would do here. Thanks.



[``2) MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT ITS DETAILS (INCLUDING HAVING HINDU MAJORITY AREAS AS INDEPENDENT PARTS OF A FEDERATION IN PAKISTAN) ``

Like I pointed out to you... the case for Pakistan was always based on existing federating units and not ``new demarcations``. The communal demarcation of provinces was carried out on Congress` insistence to partition Punjab and Bengal to strip Pakistan of economic viability. In a federation there are no independent parts btw and that was not what Jinnah wanted. The constitutional safeguard he asked for was the equipoise and he gave the Hindus that equipoise practically by putting them on the constitution committee and making a law minister a Hindu. ]


You see, you are insisting that I am either dense, or pretending not to understand. But as you will see, neither of those is the case, and I will stay on the message, until you are forced to confront it.

Here’s what you are saying (if I am understanding you correctly):

1) Jinnah did not want any “new demarcations” by forming new small provinces of Hindu majority.

Here’s what I say to that:

This is a VERY weak excuse, because dividing India was a pretty big “new demarcation”, if you take India as a whole. And he also, according to you, wanted a separate province for a Sikh majority area.

Question 1: So how does this argument of yours hold water?

2) The “equipoise” that he gave the Hindus was just as good as having the Federal system.

Here’s what I say to that:

Question 2: Nonsense. Because Muslims were given the same “equipoise” in India AND MORE (ask me why MORE, and I’ll explain). But this was not considered as good by Jinnah as the Federal system that he wanted.Then why is his “equipoise” that he gave to Hindus as good as the Federal system? Please explain this to me.



[``3) TRY TO IMPLEMENT IT IN THE NEWBORN PAKISTAN. ``

The equipoise was implemented in newborn Pakistan and I have shown above how.

Your problem is that you don`t understand the real demand. Provincial autonomy (Along existing lines) in United India would have provided Muslims with an equipoise.]



I understand full well.

Your WHOLE argument rests on this very untenable proposition: That Jinnah did not want to create NEW PROVINCES, but wanted to maintain EXISTING PROVINCES.

Question 3: Could you give me the reasons as to WHY HE DID NOT WANT TO CREATE NEW PROVINCES?

Question 4: And isn’t he the same person that proposed a new province for the Sikhs? A province that never existed before?



[The equipoise in Pakistan would require out of the box thinking.]


Question 5: You mean, to create new provinces would require “out of the box” thinking.

But partitioning a subcontinent is “in the box thinking”?



[So far you have failed to comprehend a fairly simple concept. It is nuanced but it is not rocket science.]

But the good thing about me is that I try. I don’t give up. :-)



[To ask for fresh Hindu majority area demarcations in Pakistan, you would have to prove that Jinnah had any point asked for fresh demarcations in any provinces of United India. The only time that happened previously was in 1905 with the partition of Bengal and Jinnah had as a congressman from what I understand opposed the move as British divide and rule. The Sind example doesnt count because Sind historically was under the talpur rule. ]

You are again trying to prove that Jinnah was against drawing “NEW PROVINCES” because it would require “OUT OF THE BOX THINKING”.

Question 5: IS THIS THE ONLY REASON HE WAS OPPOSED TO CREATING NEW PROVINCES? OR ARE THERE OTHER REASONS?



[So you see you are now arguing just for the sake of arguing.]


No, I’m arguing because you are trying to pull the wool over everyones’ eyes by making asinine arguments.

YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT RESTS ON THE FOLLOWING PREMISE:

THERE ARE ONLY TWO REASONS (THAT YOU HAVE STATED SO FAR) WHY JINNAH DID NOT WANT TO CREATE NEW HINDU PROVINCES:

1) BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO THINK “OUT OF THE BOX”.

2) HE GAVE HINDUS ENOUGH “EQUIPOISE” IN PAKISTAN.


I have asked you Question 1) and Question 2) regarding these.

Kindly answer the questions

Re: # 627

Knowledge can`t be quantified. Rather poor attempt on your part to prove that you actually did pass those standardised tests.

Another thing... please understand that writing a few co

Now coming to your other comments:

``1) MENTION SOMEWHERE ABOUT THIS FEDERAL SYSTEM?``

Yes. Muslim League`s Lahore Resolution speaks of a federal system very clearly and that document forms the basis of Pakistan. Furthermore the GOIA 1935 which was Pakistan`s interim constitution is a federal document.


``2) MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT ITS DETAILS (INCLUDING HAVING HINDU MAJORITY AREAS AS INDEPENDENT PARTS OF A FEDERATION IN PAKISTAN) ``

Like I pointed out to you... the case for Pakistan was always based on existing federating units and not ``new demarcations``. The communal demarcation of provinces was carried out on Congress` insistence to partition Punjab and Bengal to strip Pakistan of economic viability. In a federation there are no independent parts btw and that was not what Jinnah wanted. The constitutional safeguard he asked for was the equipoise and he gave the Hindus that equipoise practically by putting them on the constitution committee and making a law minister a Hindu.


``3) TRY TO IMPLEMENT IT IN THE NEWBORN PAKISTAN. ``

The equipoise was implemented in newborn Pakistan and I have shown above how.

Your problem is that you don`t understand the real demand. Provincial autonomy (Along existing lines) in United India would have provided Muslims with an equipoise. The equipoise in Pakistan would require out of the box thinking. So far you have failed to comprehend a fairly simple concept. It is nuanced but it is not rocket science.

To ask for fresh Hindu majority area demarcations in Pakistan, you would have to prove that Jinnah had any point asked for fresh demarcations in any provinces of United India. The only time that happened previously was in 1905 with the partition of Bengal and Jinnah had as a congressman from what I understand opposed the move as British divide and rule. The Sind example doesnt count because Sind historically was under the talpur rule.

So you see you are now arguing just for the sake of arguing.

-YLH

PS: Please don`t assume that multiple posting will make your argument in any way more forceful.

And by the way,

``Little knowledge is dangerous`` is wrong.

It should be:

``A little knowledge is dangerous``.


Of course, I am not questioning your knowledge.

:-)

I meant to say:

I WOULD APPRECIATE RESPONSES TO 1), 2) AND 3) ABOVE.

Re: #624 by Mantolives

[Little knowledge is dangerous ]

Because my knowledge is limited, I am asking you these questions.

To avert any danger.


[You write: ``Don’t try to confuse the issue. There WAS no Pakistan in 1935. So don’t bring the Government Of India Act into the picture.``

Government of India Act 1935 was adapted for Pakistani territories and Indian territories was the interim constitution of both Dominions of Pakistan and India. It was this constitution that Jinnah had in place. ]

WHICH IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.



After a lot of struggle, we got an answer to my FIRST question.

My question was:

A) Did he propose this federal system or not?

Your Answer :

[Yes he did. He had a federal system in mind.]

Since you say that HE DID, we do not need the question B) as mentioned in my previous post.


SO HERE ARE MY NEW QUESTIONS TO YOUR ANSWER:

DID HE JUST HAVE IT IN MIND, OR DID HE:

1) MENTION SOMEWHERE ABOUT THIS FEDERAL SYSTEM?

2) MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT ITS DETAILS (INCLUDING HAVING HINDU MAJORITY AREAS AS INDEPENDENT PARTS OF A FEDERATION IN PAKISTAN)

3) TRY TO IMPLEMENT IT IN THE NEWBORN PAKISTAN.




I WOULD APPRECIATE RESPONSES TO A), B) AND C) ABOVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INDULGENCE.

Re: # 623

Ajeya..

Little knowledge is dangerous

You write: ``Don’t try to confuse the issue. There WAS no Pakistan in 1935. So don’t bring the Government Of India Act into the picture.``

Government of India Act 1935 was adapted for Pakistani territories and Indian territories was the interim constitution of both Dominions of Pakistan and India. It was this constitution that Jinnah had in place.


You write: ``you may be right. Maybe I just don’t get it. ``

Or you are not even trying


You write:`` BUT COULD YOU JUST ANSWER TO THE POINTS I RAISED ABOVE? ``

I have done so on several occasions.


You ask ``Did he propose this federal system or not?``

My Answer : Yes he did. He had a federal system in mind. He also proposed an equipoise for the Hindus till a common Pakistani nationality would come into existence.

Re: #621 by Mantolives

[You are not again applying the faculties of mind. ]

I have to make do with what excuse of a mind I have.



[Pakistan was a federation under the GOI Act 1935.]

Don’t try to confuse the issue. There WAS no Pakistan in 1935. So don’t bring the Government Of India Act into the picture.

We are talking about what Jinnah PROPOSED at the birth of Pakistan.



[A new constitution had not yet been prepared. Jinnah had very clear ideas about that new constitution and he expressed them.
None of them were followed sadly. ]


So, could you KINDLY elucidate these “clear ideas” that Jinnah had and show me how in this Federation of Pakistan the Hindu Majority areas (or pockets if you will) were treated as independent parts of a larger federation?

I am trying to get you to answer the following questions:

A) Did he propose this federal system or not?

B) If he did not, WHY NOT?

If your answer to B) is:

1) The pockets of Hindu majority had sub-pockets of Muslims in them.

and/or

2) “Jinnah never demanded new demarcations”

Then I will repeat my earlier post, which you have ignored AGAIN.


KINDLY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS WITHOUT BEATING AROUND THE BUSH AND ASKING ME TO EMPLOY MY MENTAL FACULTIES.



[It is quite simple... but you don`t seem to get it... ]


You may be right. Maybe I just don’t get it.

BUT COULD YOU JUST ANSWER TO THE POINTS I RAISED ABOVE?

Instead of a rambling essay-type answer that would confuse my limited faculties, could I persuade you to KINDLY answer in the following fashion?

A) Did he propose this federal system or not?

Your Answer :

B) If he did not, WHY NOT?

Your Answer :


I would be greatly obliged if you would indulge my no doubt unreasonable request.

Re: # 621

When I said ``Hindu Muslim Provinces`` I meant ``Hindu Muslim Problem``

Re: # 619

Dear Ajeya,

You are not again applying the faculties of mind.

Pakistan was a federation under the GOI Act 1935. A new constitution had not yet been prepared. Jinnah had very clear ideas about that new constitution and he expressed them.
None of them were followed sadly.

Jinnah`s solution to the Hindu Muslim provinces was the gerrymandering or regrouping of existing Provincial units within India to achieve the ``equipoise``. It was Mountbatten, Nehru and Patel who wrecked the plan by demanding division of Punjab and Bengal to which Jinnah was very staunchly opposed. His offer to the Sikhs of an autonomous state within Pakistan was to avert bloodshed in Punjab.

An Equipoise in very legal terms is to achieve a power-sharing by different communities. By appointing a Hindu Law Minister who represented a strong East Pakistan Party and by having leading Hindus from the newly named ``Pakistan wing of the Indian National Congress`` on the constitution committee, Jinnah aimed to achieve the same equipoise in Pakistan. This is precisely what the league had wanted in 1937 and then in 1946 for Muslims in India.

It is quite simple... but you don`t seem to get it...

-YLH

Re: 616 by Mantolives

[No there is no burden of proof on me. You have merely twisted the argument. I have given you an answer which I consider perfectly logical.]


Oh I completely forgot about this one.

By the way, this is NOT a gem.

Because, gems are rare.

But EVERYONE who considers himself/herself a true muslim has this attitude.

We are right because Allah made Mohammed his Prophet because Mohammed said so.

Gentlemen and ladies, compare this with:

There is no burden of proof on me because my argument is perfectly logical because I consider it so.

See?

Same mind-numbing logic.

Re: 616 by Mantolives

[You sir have lost your mind.]

Actually you may be right. Is that why I am unable to think straight these days? And I feel dizzy sometimes too…



[Please decide what you are discussing. ]


Umm…. So I should decide first, okay….ummm…let’s see…

Let’s make things difficult for you so you CANNOT BEAT AROUND THE BUSH ANYMORE.

HERE ARE THE POINTS FOR THIS POST:

According to you, Jinnah did not make a federation in Pakistan because of the following reasons (let me know if I am not following you logic because of my limited faculties):

1) The pockets of Hindu majority had sub-pockets of Muslims in them.

ANY majority area, big or small ALWAYS has sub-areas inside of them that have minority elements.

SO BLOODY WHAT? WHY SHOULD THAT PREVENT THAT POCKET FROM BEING AN INDEPENDENT PART OF A FEDERATION?


2) “Jinnah never demanded new demarcations”

Oh REALLY? Isn’t this the same guy that “had offered Sikhs an autonomous state within India”?

WHAT THE *&$! DO YOU MEAN BY THIS STATEMENT?


Oh, by the way….

I HAVE DECIDED. THE ABOVE TWO POINTS ARE WHAT I AM DISCUSSING.

Thanks for forcing me to think logically.

:-)

Actually Shishapa,

The day of deliverance included several non-muslim anti-Congress Parties as well including Dr Ambedkar, the guy you owe your secular democracy too...

This is precisely why a Secular Nationalist Pothan Joseph agreed to edit Dawn, Muslim League`s mouthpiece.


M C Rajah, the leader of the scheduled castes and made this comment in 1941:

``All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hind! u sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi `` (25th December 1940, 9 months After the Pakistan Resolution, Seen here are Scheduled castes of India)

Why did he want ``equipoise`` for Muslims in United India?
How come only Mr. Jinnah and Muslim League were asking
equillibrium between 25-30% and rest of the Indians?
Should Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Zoarastrians, Animists, Jains have
also been asking for ``equipoise``?
Whatever happened to `one-man one-vote` and `one-woman one-vote`.
And just asking for equillibrium for Muslims was secular demand?
It is so confusing.