Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

Re: # 1182

``Ahmadis worked for Pakistan because it was a just cause.``

Ahmadis worked for Pakistan because they were bigots and opportunistics
and now tables have turned on them. That is all, they are reaping what
they sowed.

Mantolives:

This is what you claimed in this board:. You have used strong words like ``fool`` / ``making a righ royal fool`` etc..etc..


You can go on saying what you want but you made a fool out of yourself when you claimed that CMP had a different numeric position for the princes than the interim government that Congress got instead. You may respond to my comments there... or here.. whichever pleases you more.

Can you please point where I said Princes had a different numeric position between CMP and any other plan?.

The best you came up with was my statement
So from where do you think the 93 representatives from princely states are going to come from. Not through elections (even by the flawed communal electorate system.) but by the personal whims of the princes

and I provided the comment I made in comparing CMP and IOIA
Princes had nothing in the IOIA that states they can send representatives selected on the whims and fancies of the princes to dictate policy like in the case of CMP . They are given an ultimatum on either to join India/Pakistan/ stay independent and more importantly the ``agreements with the Brits`` are worth the ``toilet paper``. :-)


Seriously the above statements seem logically consistent and if you see the logic of Congress in ``dividing the enemies, Princes and the Jinnah faction`` it would completely make sense for the Congress to reject CMP. That`s why I have seen no Indian argue for the CMP after letting him/her know the facts.

you can argue till eternity for the sour grapes that was CMP by inventing strawmen arguments but the truth of the matter is that anyone (Indian) who reads CMP would find it offensive and would thank Nehru/Congress et.al for rejecting it. :-)

Re: #1182

It is easy to be shayr here, on this website and other websites.
Nobody cares or bothers to look here and rantings and raving
on this and other websites has no effect in real life.
Let us see you (or anybody) hit the streets with these views and
how long you (or anybody) last!
May be go to Binori mosque and talk what you have been talking
here and see if you come alive!
Why do not you sit in an office or a corner in some prominent
city in a prominent place in Pakistan with your web petition and see how
long you and your office lasts!

It is easy to do bukbuk here, that is what we all do, reality is
so much different.
I will repeat, Ahmadis were Shayr against Hindus but are
Billis against Mullahs. Hindus would not have killed Ahmadis,
Mullahs will not hesitate, so you would not, you will only
rant and rave here.

Re: # 1183
``father of their notion``

Pakistan and not Jehadism was the ``notion`` I was referring to.............Evidently selective reading has set in.........

ROFL.. From where did you get that. Read my question again.

Again where did I say Princes got less or more in the IOIA than the CMP.

That`s why I said you lack comprehension skills and stopped the circular discussion in that board.

All this does not take away my concern for the welfare of Ahmedia in Pakistan (even though your dad drives Maybach), I`d like to atleast see every Ahmedi wishing others in the proper Islamic way without the fear of getting jailed.

How about responding to Jogindranath Mandal??.

Read your post.

So from where do you think the 93 representatives from princely states are going to come from. Not through elections (even by the flawed communal electorate system.) but by the personal whims of the princes

Have some decency and accept that you were caught lying. I`ll check back in a few hours to see if you are ready to surrender or not.

Buddy,

This is what you came up with. :-) Again where did I say Princes got less or more in the IOIA than the CMP. It fits exactly with my position that CMP is good only for the Muslims and the Princes and not for the non-Muslims who were denied close to half the seats under CMP. This strawmen argument won`t work.

How about replying to my points on Jogindranath Mandal?. You shamelessly used him in your article here too and dishonestly left what happened to him.. Why did you chose 1974 as the end of Jinnah`s secular dream instead of 1950(?) when he was chased out of Pakistan.?

In Jinnah`s Pakistan, where a scheduled caste Hindu could be trusted to head the law ministry of the country, the question of an entire sect`s status as Muslim would never have been discussed in the parliament.

Masanamuthu,

Very clever in trying to hide your statement. This is what you actually said:

359 by masanamuthu on May 26, 2007 7:47am PT
I learned this about Cabinet Mission Plan.


- A constituent Assembly consisting of 389 members - 292 from provinces, 4 from the territories governed by chief Commissioners and 93 from Indian Princely States - would draft the Constitution of India.


So from where do you think the 93 representatives from princely states are going to come from. Not through elections (even by the flawed communal electorate system.) but by the personal whims of the princes. So you`d probably have have Hyderabad Nizam appoint a dozen reps, and the prince of patiala appoint a couple. And the 90 million people living in the princely states would have to just live with their princes` whims, because the `British crown`` supposedly respects the ``solemn agreements`` made with the princes.

It`s amazing to think that Congress even accepted the plan first. That`s when our hero Jinnah came to the rescue.


After having failed to prove that the CMP was unfairly to the advantage of the Muslims you tried to take a novel line about 93 Princes... You tried to give the impression that the real problem with the plan was that Congress was too democratic allow 93 seats to go to princes...

It was a lie. 93 Seats for the Princes happened to be under the GOIA 1935 and IOIA 1947... and 93 seats were there all through out the Indian Constituent Assembly`s functioning and was completely acceptable to the Congress.


My response is given as under:


#385 by Mantolives on May 29, 2007 8:57am PT
From the June 3rd Plan which Congress and Mountbatten produced:

``His Majesty`s Government wish to make it clear that the decisions announced above (about partition) relate only to British India and that their policy towards Indian States contained in the Cabinet Mission Memorandum of 12-5-1946, (Cmd. 6835) remains unchanged.``

That means that the entire story that Masanamuthu is spinning is wholely untrue...

As for Masanamuthu`s other claim... that independence of India Act 1947 did not give the 93 representatives to Princely state... that is absolutely FALSE. The 93 members who represented the princely states in the Indian Constituent Assembly which was first constituted December 9, 1946 continued to be part of the Indian Constitutent Assembly till 1950.

Hence... not only did the status not change but the representation remained the same (because only 4 princely states chose to go to pakistan and at most had one representative in the PCA if any).

So why is Masanamuthu fooling himself... god only knows.

[Reply to interact #385]

Re: # 1181

``father of their notion``

Gandhi was the true father of the Jehadi notion.

Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: `It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE `HIMALAYAN ERROR` of Gandhiji`s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali`s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League`.

It is quite clear that it was Gandhi who was the real father of Islamic fundamentalism in South Asia... and Jinnah the one person who warned him against it.


I would say then that 9/11 is a remarkable coninincidence... whereby the first 9/11 strengthened Gandhi`s erstwhile jehadi allies (who had till then called Pakistan Kafiristan) in Pakistan.... and the second 9/11 brought their work to fruition.

Re: # 1178

Why don`t they have any choice? They are globally well placed and have their strongest presence now in the West... in Canada and in the UK. But the fact is that Ahmadis worked for Pakistan because it was a just cause.

As for speaking against the Mullahs... perhaps you are indeed blind, but what exactly happened on this board? Ahmadis have been speaking against the Mullahs consistently.
For all your claims- has it not occured to you that I am constantly writing in national newspapers and websites against the Mullahs... sitting right here in Islamabad ? So far no one has managed to ``kill`` me for speaking against the Mullahs.

So have some shame... and tell that hydrophobic fool to not mouth off with ``very true`` to every untrue statement every idiot makes.

Re: # 1179

Dear Majumdar.......9/11 it is.....Our jehadi neibours sure know how to honor the Father of their notion,

... er nation...........

#1178 by shishapa

Very true!

Chennai,

(The Day he died must be a day of national mourning.........)

His punya teethi incidentally is 9/11.

Regards

Ahmadiyas have no choice but to say partition was good.
What else can they say, if they say otherwise, they will be killed.
Do they have guts to say and do things against Mullahs as they used to
say and do things against Hindus? I do not think so.

Mantolives repeatedly hangs on to this statement of mine that I made in the other board to somehow indicate that I lied and he caught me..

Princes had nothing in the IOIA that states they can send representatives selected on the whims and fancies of the princes to dictate policy like in the case of CMP . They are given an ultimatum on either to join India/Pakistan/ stay independent and more importantly the ``agreements with the Brits`` are worth the ``toilet paper``. :-)

What I`ve said above is right. Princes did not have the power to dictate policy in IOIA that they otherwise had in tandem with Muslim seats against the Congress like in the case of CMP. For the Congress, both the Muslims under Jinnah and the Princes are the enemies and they rightly divided the enemies and tackled them one by one.

I`ve not mentioned that the Princes got more or less seats under CMP or IOIA act. As a lawyer, he creates many strawmen and then takes them down thereby claiming vicotry. I can just laught at his efforts in trying to spend so much time in this issue rather than on the patetic situation that the Ahmedis find themselves in Pakistan now which is the point of this article.

Again my sincere wishes on your efforts and try to channel your energy in the right direction instead of worrying about the sour grapes of CMP. :-)

I should add that Congress leaders are not like the poor Jogindernath Mandal who believed in the secular BS of Jinnah and ended up a big loser. I wonder why you did not chose the year 1950(?) when he was chased out as the end of Jinnah`s dream and chose 1974 instead for your article. I can understand that if it is because of family reasons you chose that date, only when your relatives get hurt you feel the pain and not when someone else especially if it is just the poor ``Scheduled castes / namasudras`` .