Where are the Questioning Minds?

Dear Harish...

This is primary source evidence which I`ll leave to your discretion.

Gandhi and Jinnah signed the following formula during the CMP negotiations…

The Congress does not challenge but accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such and in accordance with democratic principles they alone have today an unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India. But the Congress does not agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon the Congress to choose such representatives as they think proper from amongst the members of the Congress.

Gandhi agreed to it and signed it. So did Jinnah. This meant that both parties moved fundamentally from their extreme positions… Gandhi accepted that Jinnah had the right to speak for Muslims alone and Jinnah accepted that Congress could nominate Muslim members from their own party to the government…

It was Gandhi who backed out … after Nehru rejected the plan. But for a brief moment there was a chance of compromise.

Congress President Azad wrote in the aftermath of the CMP failure:

It was not correct to say that Congress was free to modify the plan as it pleased. We had further agreed to Sections viz. A, B and C in which the provinces would be grouped. These matters could not be unilaterally changed by Congress without consent of other parties to the agreement.

About “Interpretation”:


On 6 December 1946, the Pro-Congress Labour Government gave its legal opinion on the Cabinet Mission Plan …

The Cabinet Mission Plan have through out maintained the view that decisions of the Sections should, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, be taken by a simple majority vote of the representatives in the Sections. This view has been accepted by the Muslim League but Congress have put forward a different view…

His Majesty’s Government have had legal advice which confirms what the Cabinet Mission always stated was their intention


And then…

On 5th January 1947 the Congress passed a resolution in which it advise action in accordance with the interpretation of the British Government in regard to the procedure to be followed in sections.

And then Congress backed out…

Sources for all above:

1-Sir Maurice Gwyer and A. Appadorai “Speeches and documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-1947

For Gandhi-Jinnah formula see Page 648

For HMG`s legal opinion see Page 660

2- For Azad`s statement read India wins freedom page 155.

Dear Harish,

Well your Gandhi described it perfectly democratic in a formula he inked his name to. So you as usual have no idea what you are talking about.

#407 by Mantolives

[Like I pointed out I am in no mood to indulge your inanities so I am going to ignore your personal insults and abuses.]

You started it dear Yasser, so you should be able to take it like a man.

[Azad wrote in his book very clearly that ``Congress`` had agreed to ``grouping`` and to back out of it was undemocratic and a breach of faith. This is there in his book and you may read it ... he was after all the Congress President.]

The point, if you missed it is that the whole business of the ML demanding autonomy/rule in Muslim-majority provinces is an undemocratic one. What the Congress and ML agreed upon is totally irrelevant. Besides, I never claimed the Congress was the paragon of correctness. It probably made only one mistake less than the ML, and that is enough for all of present-day India to be grateful to it for.

[This should really tell you who wanted what and who was ready to come to an agreement.]

You don`t really have to strain hard to understand that. To begin with a patently undemocratic demand and then accuse the Congress of intrasigence must sound ingenous to you, but it doesn`t deflect from the fact that the ML committed harakiri in demanding Pakistan and then crying murder when the Congress refused to bow down to its blackmailing tactics.

Dear Majumdar...

By participating in the elections and holding seats under the LFO (Recall 60 special women`s seats) PPP and PML-N not to mention the MMA have agreed to LFO being a part of the constitution. Furthermore we`ve had the 17th Amendment to the constitution.

There isn`t even the analogy... Provinces had been built up in every constitutional framework including those accepted by the Congress ...

Dear Harish Hyd,

Like I pointed out I am in no mood to indulge your inanities so I am going to ignore your personal insults and abuses.

Azad wrote in his book very clearly that ``Congress`` had agreed to ``grouping`` and to back out of it was undemocratic and a breach of faith. This is there in his book and you may read it ... he was after all the Congress President.

Secondly, in 1946 Gandhi and Jinnah agreed on a formula in which Gandhi signed the statement that ``Congress does not challenge but accepts that Muslim League commands the support of the majority of Muslims and by democratic norms can claim to speak authoritatively for Muslims.`` Jinnah agreed in turn that Muslim League could not object to Congress nominating Muslims if the Congress pleases ... since Congress calls itself an Indian Party. This formula was agreed upon by both Jinnah and Gandhi... it was Nehru who first wrote to Jinnah and said that he did not agree to the formula... and then Gandhi backed out of the formula after signing it.

This should really tell you who wanted what and who was ready to come to an agreement.

Dear Manto

(GOIA1935 if you recall was what the Congress and the Muslim League contested elections not once but twice. so there is no point in declaring that it was ``imposed`` )

Even if the PPP, PML, MQM et al contest elections under the LFO twice it would be still be an imposed document just as the said Act was.

The violence in the partition was tragic irrespective of what caused it.

Regards

#399 by Mantolives

[You may lose patience- that is your prerogative. I am not going to give into your inanities and circular illogical argumentation.]

But please let me know how to argue with someone who does not have basic English comprehension skills.

[It seems to me that you are hell bent on being dishonest. I quoted only Stanley Wolpert five years ago because that was the only book on Jinnah I had read in 2000]

Who is being dishonest is already clear Yasser, it is only to rub it in that I`m here.

[I have not dropped him as ``hot potato`` as you allege, but then for a dishonest person as you have proved yourself here any claim would do.]

You did Yasser, you used Wolpert`s name fairly regularly till I dug up some extracts that didn`t paint Jinnah as favorably as you claimed. That`s when dear friend you stopped.

[Therefore it was a perfectly democratic demand and justified. Muslim League`s manifesto had been Pakistan and therefore it was imperative on Congress to come to an agreement with the Muslim League on the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan- something which most reasonable Congressmen understood and something for which Azad lost his presidency of the Congress Party.]

If the ML had already made up its mind on Pakistan and the CMP was merely to avert that event, why should the Congress have given into such blackmail? This is typical suicide bomber mentality ``give me what I want, or I`ll blow this house up``, and the Congress did well not to give in. If the Congress leaders who made that fateful decision were alive today, they would be proud of the choice they made. Jinnah was already unhappy with the ``moth-eaten`` Pakistan (that didn`t stop him from accepting it, otherwise he would have lost that only chance of lording over his fief), he would have been heart broken today.

[Its seems to me that you have entangled yourself in your own web to an extent that you have lost all track of the argument which is indicative of an extremely troubled mind.]

On the contrary dear Yasser, the almost pathological infatuation with Gandhi that you (and your wife) suffer from leads me to conclude that you both suffer from a serious disorder that needs to be dealt with quickly if you are to lead a normal life. May I request our friend Shankar the shrink to please examine Yasser?

In any event, please don`t bother to answer the pertinent questions I raised. You`ll come back with the same old rehashed trash and in any event this board is dying. But don`t let this debate dent your confidence, you`ll get over it.

Azra..

Since the debate here has veered off and is now dying down... I just want to say more power to your causes... even if I have objections to your facts.

Let us join together and work for the repeal of Hudood Ordinance and other discriminatory legislation to make our homeland a progressive liberal welfare secular state.

May the force be with you.

Majumdar,

This is an endless debate... except the demand for Pakistan was based on the provinces as units... But the arguments you used are what Congress used... and you can justify them clearly... but it was ultimately their insistence on partitioning the two provinces that led to the violence.. and not the secession of Pakistan from India.

GOIA1935 if you recall was what the Congress and the Muslim League contested elections not once but twice. so there is no point in declaring that it was ``imposed``


Dear Inquirer,

Your stupidity is apparent from your posts so I can`t even comment on that. Please continue to buff up harish hyd.. he needs all the propping he can get.

As for Jinnah being an Ahmadi or a secret British agent ... either is as true as the other.

God help us. No wonder you feel you wife can`t be interested in Physics or Philosophy.

Re: # 400, Majumdar:
Very reasonable post. But train in debate with Mantolives has long since left for those left on platforms of reason and rationality.

Let me take this opportunity to state that Mantolives` infatuation with Jinnah is due to the fact that both are Ahmadis. He cannot let Jinnah go because there are many Pakistani Sunni/Shia, in their mania for sectarianism, don`t even consider Ahmadis as Muslims.

May be Yasser thinks that salvation of Pakistan lies in another Ahmadi becoming leader of Pakistan. Fat chance!!

Re: # 398, Harish:
Give up, Harish. Why waste your time on someone who is truly what you have found and declared to be? Did you notice the sensible Muslims either did not enter this debate or have long since quit with Mantolives. He is reasonable except for his fetish for Jinnah. Remember he is an Ahmadi, whom many Sunnis don`t even consider Islamic.

Jinnah was not a fanatic but he was a secret British Agent for weakening and dividing resurgent South Asia. He was fittingly eliminated by Punjabi Muslims.

Re: 392

Dear Manto

(It was based on secession of provinces ... to divide the provinces up which were recognised units under GOIA1935, the legal basis for British India at that time .. was illegal and devoid of common sense. )

If a country can be divided up on the basis of religion there is no reason why a province cannot be. The partition did not stop at state or even division levels anyway- for instance the Dinajpur district of Bengal and Sylhet division of Assam were divided and Silchar district (sub-division of Sylhet) too was divided into some tehsils which went to EPak and others to India. Obviously division at mohalla level was not found feasible. Any case there is no need to treat the GOIA1935 as a gospel as it was an illegal doucment having been imposed without the consent of the Indian people just as in future Pakistanis may reject the LFO as it was imposed without their willing consent.

(It was the Congress Working Committee that passed the resolution for the partition of Bengal and Punjab. )

CWC did what it could to protect the interests of its constituents, the residual India and its Hindu and Sikh voters. Thank God that they did else the large Hindu/Sikh population of these provinces (including my forebears) would have been converted killed or expelled. Before you protest you may consider that the population of Hindus-Sikhs in EPak was 28% in 1951 which came down to less than 10% by the last census and in WPunjab/Sindh/Karachi the same % came down from 15-20% to less than 5%. In any case they are officially unequal citizens of Islamic Bangladesh and Pakistan. Much of course can be faulted of India’s treatment of Muslim citizens and many others, but at least they are officially equal citizens of secular India.

(Jinnah said a Punjabi is a Punjabi before he is a Muslim or Hindu . )

The same principle can be applied to Indians in general, thus negating the rationale for Pakistan. In any case the gusto with which Punjabis killed each other in 1947 suggests that Jinnah sahib was either ignorant or being economical with the truth.

Regards

Dear Harish Hyd,

You may lose patience- that is your prerogative. I am not going to give into your inanities and circular illogical argumentation.

It seems to me that you are hell bent on being dishonest. I quoted only Stanley Wolpert five years ago because that was the only book on Jinnah I had read in 2000 - I still quote from the book as it is extremely well written though incomplete having not answered any questions.. I have not dropped him as ``hot potato`` as you allege, but then for a dishonest person as you have proved yourself here any claim would do. I have been quoting Seervai for many years now and his book is not ``new``. The reason it is a very credible book is because he sifted through primary source material ``Tranfer of Power Papers`` and used only that matter to pronounce a judicial judgement of sorts.

To repeat again : 1946 Elections gave Muslim League the mandate to speak for the Muslims as they had won 430+ out of 480 Muslim seats. Therefore it was a perfectly democratic demand and justified. Muslim League`s manifesto had been Pakistan and therefore it was imperative on Congress to come to an agreement with the Muslim League on the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan- something which most reasonable Congressmen understood and something for which Azad lost his presidency of the Congress Party. Please recall that you have failed to produce any evidence for your outrageous suggestion that Congress suddenly became sensitive to Jinnah`s displeasure with Azad.

Its seems to me that you have entangled yourself in your own web to an extent that you have lost all track of the argument which is indicative of an extremely troubled mind.

I wish you luck.

#381 by Mantolives on February 14, 2006 3:22am PT

[I am enjoying you trying to do sommersaults like calling my praise of Seervai selective. I praise him because he wrote an excellent book in which he used nothing but the transfer of power papers and came to the conclusion that the only honorable man in the whole partition debacle was Jinnah.]

Why am I not surprised? Just because Seervai writes highly of Jinnah, his book is the new gospel truth. It was Wolpert earlier, but once I produced that not so favorable extract from his book, you dropped him like a hot potato. It is your own logical somersaults, an example of which is provided below that forces me to come back to shove it into your face. I enjoy when you squirm uncomfortably trying to twist facts to ``prove`` Jinnah was blameless. But all you`ve proved until now is that there isn`t an honest way of doing that.

[Besides I can`t do anything if you fail to grasp simple facts and confuse definitions. That is your prerogative- Ignorance can be a choice and you have definitely made that.]

You can`t argue logically to save your life, let alone debating with me. You could not understand the difference between ``may not`` and ``could not``. Is there anything more left for me to say on your stellar logic, language, and comprehension skills?

[While you abuse me, your own reading comprehension is so poor that while I am quoting actual election results from 1946, you claim I am basing Pakistan on petty personal grouses.]

This is getting hilarious. As it is the demand for Pakistan itself is ridiculously undemocratic, but that is a different story altogether. On the one hand, you argue that Jinnah was made to feel an outsider which is why he demanded the creation of Pakistan. On the other hand, you say the election results of 1946 forced him to demand Pakistan. Please tell us which one is it? Or is it too much to expect an honest answer from you?

[While I quote from Azad`s own book to show that Congress was largely a Hindu Party which discriminated against Non-Hindus, you ignore that and abuse Jinnah and try to restart issues which have already been discussed and dispensed off.]

Dispensed off? How? How is Jinnah exonerated from the fact that he was a hypocrite and a communalist? ``The Congress forced him to`` is not a valid reason. It looks like a kid whining.

[And then you claim you ``provided evidence`` - which you know is a joke.]

Merely by claiming that ``you know`` is not washing Yasser. You have to find better ways of arguing. That statement is a damning indictment of Jinnah and came way before the election results of 1946. What do you have to say about it?

[... there is the principle of res judicata, which is precisely why you denigrate H M Seervai, who is considered a giant amongst practitioners of law and his written word on Constitutional Law is the final authority in the subcontinent.]

Dear Yasser, please look up the meaning of the word ``denigrate`` in a dictionary. As you`ve repeatedly proved, you have serious comprehension issues, and I`m losing patience with having to explain simple things to you over and over again.

``Ya Ilaahi kar tabbahi saare Pakistan ki
Bachaa bachaa maangta azaadi Hindustan ki.

I now find it amusing that Hindu and Sikh kids would be invoking Allah for the destruction of Pakistan.``(dost-mitter)

so it was you kids that Allah was listening to -- not the Muslim League -- now that explains the mess in Pakistan...

well for Allah also -- as they say in vernacular -- ``ghar kee murghee daal braabar.......:)

Re: # 391, urstruly:
All research is apriori to begin but it is the maturity of researcher devoted to truth that leads to objective research results.
As far as your question is concerned it has been answered in the context of Lahore by Ishtiaq Ahmed. For the context of undivided India, no body organized it (the genocide as you call it). It was an unintended effect of wrong policies (as has been again indicated by Ishtiaq Ahmed in the second paragraph from page 65 quoted by me), more of Muslim League but also of Congress Party.
I will be interested in your findings not opinions on the subject.