Citizenship and Identity in Pakistan

Re: # 405

Dear Masanamuthu,

Abusing my ``comprehension skills`` on account of your little knowledge is idiotic to say the least.

I have shown you that the status of the princes was not any different under IOIA 1947 than the CMP...

As for your tall claims about India ``gobbling`` up the princes... About 35% of the land constitutes Pakistan today was part of Princely States... so much for the great achievement of Nehru and Patel blah blah ... and unlike India, Pakistan did not give any ``purses`` as you fondly describe them.

In other words you just did not have an argument worth the paper they would be written on because you didn`t bother to read history and have tried to defend something that is quite indefensible...

Dear Mantolives:

You seriously lack ``comprehension skills``. I made a ``big deal`` about ``princes getting the weightage`` under CMP along with the ``Muslim seats of Jinnah`s crazy mathematics`` and Congress leaders were brilliant enough to figure this out and used the classic technique of dividing the enemies, Jinnah`s Muslims and Princes. That`s the reason I asked you to fill in the number of seats of each party under CMP and IOIA and anyone can see the obvious difference.

We can see the result today, while India slowly gobbled up all the ``princely states`` in addition to the French and Portuguese colonies while Jinnah`s Pakistan could not even get ``Kashmir`` along with the inglorious exit of its eastern wing. :-)

Dear Masanamuthu,

No need to attack my comprehension skills when it is a profound lack of argumentation that is

Your only argument (the one about princes) blew up when I showed you that the position of the princes under the CMP was exactly the same as IOIA 1947 + GOIA 1935 including the 93 seats you made a big deal about.

Cabinet Mission Plan would have saved lives ... and if partition was to be (and you think partition was better of India and I think partition was better for Pakistan) it could have come peacefully later. This is what you don`t understand... despite quoting the Time Magazine which says so clearly.

Dear Mantolives:

I think you lack or pretend to lack comprehension skills. I don`t like to repeat it again and again. But the truth of the matter is Congress rightly rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan and it (along with partition) is the best thing to have happened to India. As can be clearly seen now from an Indian perspective, It would have been a disaster and resulted in a civil war (resulting in a massive loss of lives minisculing partition violence) and a moth eaten Hindustan with princes on one side and Muslims on the other side slicing bits and pieces of India.

Dear Masanamuthu,

Lets get this straight.... after having repetitively lied and lied again about the Cabinet Mission Plan and Princes and Non-Muslims, your latest excuse now is that Jinnah did not want it either... which roughly translates into... yeah I admit it was worth it but Jinnah didn`t want it...

The evidence you`ve quoted says (and the Time magazine was notorious for being pro-Congress and yet it is saying it) and it looked at last as if India might achieve independence without civil war. ... Assuming that we take this statement about Pakistan and 10 years on face value, was it not worth it to save the lives 200 000 to 700 000 who died at partition... I know 80% of them were Muslims and so it didn`t bother the Hindus ... and thats why it is not a big deal to you. Surely if partition was a good thing (as you`ve repeatedly admitted and I have agreed) then a peaceable partition without the violence was even better had it happened over 10 years - if we indeed accept your point of view...
Still I don`t agree with your interpretation... of what ``Jinnah said`` ... common sense suggests no one who is bargaining will tell the other party ``Wink Wink I will settle for less`` ... perhaps you would clarify as to how you bargain for anything.

Now read this:

The Transfer of Power 1942-7 Vol VII The Cabinet Mission. Eds, Nicholas Mansergh and Penderel Moon.

373, page 684 (full text)
Note by Major Wyatt
25 May 1946

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


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.

....

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.


In view of the aforementioned your assumption that the ``Pakistan`` Jinnah promised in ``10 years`` would be completely divorced from the rest of the India is just an assumption but even so (that is if we accept your point of view)... it presented the best hope and opportunity for a peaceable partition ...

So if we accept your point of view... it just means that Congress preferred a violent partition over a peaceful one.

How did you deduce this?

Thus your own evidence shows that rejecting the cabinet mission plan was the greatest mistake that the Congress Party made...

:-)

Mantolives:

:-) Did you forget to read what Jinnah said?.. Let me again quote.


JINNAH: We have got the first installment of Pakistan without shedding a drop of blood. I know the Mussulmans are all ready to shed blood, but is it necessary when methods of negotiation are still open?

MOSLEMS: No!

JINNAH (raising his bony fist): I promise you, I promise you Pakistan in ten years.

Majumdar,

There was no reason for industrialisation to come to Punja under a United India. Please see industrialisation patterns pre-1947.... and see that what constitutes Pakistan was completely without industrial infrastructure.

If it had been one economy, this region would produce the raw materials needed for industrialisation in India of today... hence things would have continued without much difference... and the Hindu and Sikh capital would have still gone to industrial ventures in India...

This is precisely why I say that we were lucky to have escaped a United India but that should not stop people from accepting the truth... and I am surprised how far Masanamuthu will go to lie to simply defend the indefensible (reference his clear cut lie about the princes exposed below).

Masanamuthu,

Please tell us what this exchange means to you.

A lot has been written about Time Magazine`s coverage of Muslim League ... so I am not going to get into this... but here even the Time Magazine is admitting what was being done

Last week, as tan dust swirled through New Delhi on the year`s hottest day (112°), it was up to Jinnah to cool off his Moslem League.

and this:

it looked at last as if India might achieve independence without civil war.


I think your excerpt shows clearly how far Muslim League leadership was willing to go to compromise...

Thus your own evidence shows that rejecting the cabinet mission plan was the greatest mistake that the Congress Party made... Now please feel free to accept that your lie about the princes was caught.

majumdar:

You should read this.. again from TIME archives..

..
In that session his seldom consulted followers were reluctant to go along, although they were as unprepared for civil war as they were for peace. Next day the hammiest actor in world politics (now that Il Duce has made his exit) had to put on another show to make the League see reason.

JINNAH: Did I not ask you to reject the Cripps plan in 1942 and Wavell plan in 1945?

MOSLEMS: Yes!

JINNAH: Why do I ask you to accept this plan now? Have I changed?

MOSLEMS: No!

JINNAH: We have got the first installment of Pakistan without shedding a drop of blood. I know the Mussulmans are all ready to shed blood, but is it necessary when methods of negotiation are still open?

MOSLEMS: No!

JINNAH (raising his bony fist): I promise you, I promise you Pakistan in ten years.

When the voting was over, only thirteen (all Communists or fellow-travelers) out of the bemused 300 were against acceptance. The wilted but grinning Jinnah declared ``We have cast the die.``

His followers shouted a new slogan: `Hamara atom bomb Qaid-i-Azam``—The Great Leader is our atom bomb. But the fuse was a little slow; the bomb had not gone off, and it looked at last as if India might achieve independence without civil war.

Manto mian,

(Had we still been a part of United India there would be no impetus for industrlialisation... there would be no bourgeoisie and we would still be the ``defenders`` the subcontinent or kissans... instead of bankers, lawyers, businessmen, industrialists etc. )

Industrialisation wud have come to what is today Pak area but maybe it wud have been led by the Sindhi and Punjabi entrepreneurs who enrich India today. But yes you are quite right that maybe without Pakistan, the indigenous Muslim pop of this region would have been slower to urbanise, educate etc although that can be debated.

(Unlike India which would actually have had much more to gain in terms of raw materials etc)

Evidence suggest that raw materials do not do any good at all. I hope your definition of raw materials does not include Maulana Urstruly (pbuh), the Jamia Hafsa girls and assorted suicide bombers.

Thanks but not no thanks.

Regards

Dear Masanamuthu,

Ofcourse it should be an end of discussion for you. Had you been an honest person you would have ended this discussion instead of denying simple points. When we talk of clutching on straws... is this why you keep going back to Indira Gandhi, privy purse etc and ignoring the real issue?

1. You`ve seen that the Princes had the same 93 seats regardless of the CMP... the Princes had the same 93 seats in Indian Constituent Assembly. You`ve provided nothing to contradict this.

2. You`ve not produced a single piece of evidence showing us that the princes were even an issue at the CMP or that Congress raised it as such. Your claim that Nehru and Patel actually had this in their mind when they rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan is absolutely false and not backed with any historical evidence.

3. Now you`ve come up with an imaginative argument that it would`ve been difficult because Hyderabad in cahoots with the Muslims would have evaded capture. I cannot comment on such ifs and buts except saying that your self righteous speeches on princes then don`t mean anything... it was just about one prince and that too stretching an argument. All in all irrelevant to the issue of Cabinet Mission Plan.


Rest assure... no one in Pakistan wants to have CMP (or anything to do with utterly dishonest people). Unlike India which would actually have had much more to gain in terms of raw materials etc, a great number of Pakistanis actually are the real beneficiaries of the rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Had we still been a part of United India there would be no impetus for industrlialisation... there would be no bourgeoisie and we would still be the ``defenders`` the subcontinent or kissans... instead of bankers, lawyers, businessmen, industrialists etc.

Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal are happy in the US... their interest is not agenda driven but academic... this is something you obviously can`t understand.

Dear Mantolives:

Why are you clutching at straws?. What do you mean I have not produced anything to back up my claim, CMP is good for ONLY Muslims and Princes, that is the fact and that is the reason why Congress and Nehru rejected the plan.

1. 93 seats in the constittuent assembly for the princes existed regardless of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Infact rejecting the CMP increased the Princes weightage. The Princes had much more weightage in the Indian constituent assembly post 1947 than before it.
/i>

why din`t you fill the blanks and see for yourself. Muslims + Princes would have dominated under CMP. Is there any possibility of moving the Indian army against hyderabad Nizam, you saw that how even after 47, Qazim Rizvi was boasting about killing hindus in Hyderabad.

Anyways, ask Ayesha jalal and Sugata Bose (It is an interesting fact to know they are husband and wife) to campaign for united India under CMP and see how many Indians they can muster support from. :-)

It is a pain to comment on an article that has moved out of the front page. and my target audience is not really ``you`. So EOD for me. Thanks.