Advani in Karachi

Re: # 591

The communal riot was the result of Congress' inability to accept the verdict of the people. It was the Congress that insisted on partition of Punjab and Bengal. It is the Congress that planned the massacre of Muslims.

Hello! Hello!

``Declaring victory`` is tantalizingly close!

I am A-L-M-O-S-T there....(Pant!) (Pant!)

I can almost TAAAASTE it. I can almost FEEEEEEEL it.

OMIGOD OMIGOD

(Pant!) (Pant!)

It`s becoming unbearable!

(Gasp!)

Where`s the Jinnah-intellectual? Defender of the faith?

(Pant!) (Pant!)

I`m dangerously close to declaring victory!

:-)

Hello! Hello!

Where’s the defender of the great Jinnah-faith? The Don Quixote of the Jinnah Movement?

Hello? Hello?

Is he suddenly and conveniently very busy doing other very important things?

Re: misc by mantolives

You know, if you have the time to post on other forums, you surely have the time for a yes or a no.

Are you again playing the waiting game here?

Re: #658 by Mantolives

I`ll keep repeating my question till I get an answer:


Are you saying that the pre-independence offer to the Muslims was not as good as the “equipoise” he offered to the Hindus in Pakistan?


Can I get a ``yes`` or ``no``?

Please?


And could I also get an answer for my post #656?

Please?

Hello? Hello?

Re: #654 by Mantolives

[It was what the CONGRESS party did in its 1937-1939 government that made unity impossible...]


Aren’t you making contradictary and dishonest statements here?

1) On the one hand, you are saying that unity would have been possible if Jinnah’s demands would have been met.

2) On the other hand, you are saying that unity would have been impossible anyway because of past Congress actions.

Which one is it?

Is it 1) or is it 2)?

As you have noticed no doubt, I get confused and unfocused easily.

:-)

So could you kindly pick a number?

Thank you.

Re: #654 by Mantolives

[Again jumping the gun aren`t you... ]

Actually I’m not. I didn’t declare victory, did I?

It’s coming, but it’s not time yet.


[what happened AFTER 1947 is unimportant. Nobody could have guessed that Congress would be chastened in such a fundamental fashion. In fact most of Congress` actions after 1947 were to whitewash the acts that it had committed pre-1947.

It was what the CONGRESS party did in its 1937-1939 government that made unity impossible... The attrocities of the Congress Ministry and its bigoted Hindu Policies are well documented... Vidya Mandar, Bande Mataram to name a few... ]


We are getting to the truth, although almost in an asymptotic way. It will take time, but we will get there. We are narrowing down the possible arguments quite nicely.

Okay, so let me make sure there is no misunderstanding of the point you are making here.

Are you saying that the post-1947 “equipoise” offered to Muslims in India was just as good as the “equipoise” Jinnah offered to the Hindus in Pakistan, but the pre-independence offer to the Muslims was not as good as the “equipoise” he offered to the Hindus in Pakistan?


Can I get a simple “yes” or “no” to this? Please?

Thank you.



[So ... please try and focus... and no need to declare victory... clearly.]

When you ask me to focus, you are assuming that my mental faculties are at par with yours. But that is not easy for most human beings.

Clearly.

:-)

After all, you are an economist and a part-time lawyer. And an “aspiring writer”.

But I will try.

:-)

Re: # 655

1) Post-1947 situation in India is irrelevant to the Pakistan demand.

2) That said... Dr Ambedkar, an ally of Mr Jinnah throughout his life, managed to write a constitution which was closer to Jinnah`s 14 points than say the Nehru report.

Re: #651 by Mantolives


Are you again waiting for me to ``declare victory``?

:-D

Everybody is waiting with bated breath to see what you have to say next.

Don`t make us wait too long.

:-)

Re: #651 by Mantolives

So here’s the salient features of the much-trumpeted “Equipoise” being fed us by the constitutional scholar and wannabe lawyer Yasser all this while. Looks at the four points below. Looks kind of lean, eh? :-)

[1) First and foremost the Law minister was a Hindu very conciously. This was major.

2) The Hindus were well represented on the constitutional commission.

3) The Hindu Minority had cabinet positions despite Muslim League`s majority.

4) A Hindu was engaged to write the National Anthem...]


Let’s take the learned Yasser’s points one by one:

[1) First and foremost the Law minister was a Hindu very conciously. This was major. ]

The first Law Minister of Pakistan was a “Dalit” Hindu – Mr. J. N. Mandal.
The first Law Minister of India was a “Dalit” Hindu – Dr. Ambedkar.

But no Muslim representation, you say?

1) Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was the main person on the Steering Committee that wrote the INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

“This was major”. :-)

Here’s a link for your learned perusal:

http://164.100.24.208/ls/condeb/vol2p2.htm

2) Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was the president of the “Communal” Congress party of India right through the war years. He VOLUNTARILY and reluctantly relinquished the Congress presidency in 1946, hoping that this would open an avenue between the Congress and the League; the latter party had refused to acknowledge a Muslim presence within the former one. He kept out of the coalition government formed that year, but in 1947, at Gandhi’s urging, he became Minister of Education, a post he held for 10 years.

“This was also very very major”. :-)


Let’s move on to the second compelling point Yasser makes:

[2) The Hindus were well represented on the constitutional commission. ]

My answer: The Muslims were VERY well represented on the constitutional commission.

How’s that for an equalizing answer? :-)


Moving on….

[3) The Hindu Minority had cabinet positions despite Muslim League`s majority. ]

The Muslim minority had cabinet positions despite the SECULAR Congress Party’s majority.

How do you like that one? :-)


[4) A Hindu was engaged to write the National Anthem...]

Ooooooh! So this is part of the famous “Equipoise”!

A Muslim (Iqbal) wrote the Marching Song for the Indian Army.

A Brahmo (infidel, but not a Hindu infidel) wrote the National Anthem of India.

How’s this for a rebuttal? :-)




SO WHY IS YOUR “EQUIPOISE” BETTER THAN OUR “EQUIPOISE”?

EH?