Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

Re: # 1156

Yep, both parties are happy with what has happened, if not how it happened... paradoxically they ``blame`` the folks who actually made it happen, instead of actually praising them, as suggested by masan... :)

One person who is not happy is YLH... looks like it`s more a personal issue for him, being an ahmedi and what not... he thinks the CMP arrangement may have been a better outcome from an ahmedi POV... in a pure muslim pakiland, ahmedis have clearly lost out... hence this article that pakiland is dead and all that...

But CMP had no chance being adopted since it clearly went against the interest of hindus, the largest of the groups... any plan that compromised on their interest being the rulers of the land would not have worked...

So we really for YLH and ahmedi predicament, but there ain`t anything we could about it...

Pakiland, RIP.
Hinduland, zindabad.

Masanamuthu,

For the vast majority of indigenous Pakistani Muslims... including Ahmadis who continue to be one of the most educated and well to do upper middle class communities despite discrimination post 1974... Pakistan has created opportunities for them that would have never been given to them both under United India or CMP...

CMP was good only because a- it would have averted bloodshed b- given a framework for i- working out differences between two uncompromisable positions ii. framework for an amicable partition later.

So making up these stories when your lie was caught on the other board.. is merely dishonesty and nothing else.

And yes it beats me that if Injuns and Pakis are all happy with partition, why bash poor MAJ.


I don`t think people are bashing MAJ. A lot of people are realising how MAJ saved India (though unintentionally) from a catastrophe. and I think i`d gather a lot of support for my movement to award ``Bharat ratna`` to Jinnah. :-)

Yeah, yeah right.. I think there is agreement that CMP is a good plan for the Muslims and the Princes.. and especially Ahmediyas. :-) They would still be Muslims if CMP was in place. Does anyone know that Ahmediyas are declared non-Muslims and treated so in countries where Muslims are in a minority.

Manto mian,

Muthu seems to have replaced Harishbhai as your favourite anatgonist.

(1. its own centralised conception)

Pakistan appears to be even more centralised.

( 2. unnatural division of Punjab and Bengal 3.)

Back to the debate whether it is OK to partition a country but not a state.

( Dishonest and unfair actions of Mountbatten vis a vis Gurdaspur. )

If MAJ (pbuh) had flirted a little bit with Lord and Lady M, never know waht might have happened.

And yes it beats me that if Injuns and Pakis are all happy with partition, why bash poor MAJ.

Regards

Kaalchakra

People like Masanamuthu and Mohar are basically dishonest. They know full well that people like would not undo partition even if we were held at gun point.

The issue here is of the CMP which was a good plan. Now Masanamuthu continues to lie- as he did on my other board- that Princes had some extraordinary privileges under the CMP ... which is just not true. The Princes` position remained unchanged through out from GOIA 1935 to IOIA 1947... they had 93 seats - not through the CMP- but GOIA 1935.

Ofcourse... Muslims did not lose out... as Mohar naively puts it. Muslims of Pakistan were the greatest beneficiaries of partition... without partition we would have remained a backward agriculturalist/ martial community... it the rigors of creating a nation state that has forced Muslims into professions that they considered beneath them... like Banking, money lending ... commerce etc. Ofcourse their inexperience messed up the state in the process... but that is a separate issue.

The issue here is of the massive death toll ... caused by Congress` insistence on 1. its own centralised conception 2. unnatural division of Punjab and Bengal 3. Dishonest and unfair actions of Mountbatten vis a vis Gurdaspur.


This is for historical record only. Congress and its supporters should admit what is historically a fact.


Masanamuthu,

Pointing out something wrong does not mean that one does not agree with the basic principle...

My father`s community was the foremost beneficiary of the creation of Pakistan in the period 1947-1974.

mohar

Pakistanis are happy. Indians are happy. I don`t know what we are arguing about. :)

Look, all of us will keep believing what we believe. All I sometimes do is to try to look through different people`s eyes, and describe what I see objectively, to the best of my ability. That creates a possibility of understanding others, of exploring any common grounds if any are possible. I am not out there trying to create divisions. If I see any actually existing, I try to point those out, so people don`t run into walls they do not see. What people do with those descriptions is up to them. One is as free to accept as to reject them according to their own personal preferences.

Please don`t read too many of my own personal preferences in my descriptions. To the extent those descriptions are so colored and so biased, they would be unreal and worthless

To re-iterate, don`t know if there is any value in trying to describe things objectively or not, for others to make decisions on, but that is what my ideal is.

I have now FULLY described what I try to do, and there is no more ``magic`` or ``mystery`` left. LOL

Anyways, we have already stretched this rather small matter (of what I personally like or not) long enough. Thanks for your understanding. :)

---

Further, if it will clarify, because I do want it to be clear, as an Indian, my admiration for, and pride in, Nehru and Gandhi, and in their contributions, is not less than that of most other Indians. Like them, I too respect our leaders without necessarily agreeing with them all the time. If I deride them it is out of frustration not with these great leaders - who did the best they could - but with people TODAY who use the names of these great leaders to persist in their misperceptions and maintain their ignorance.

Oh man, this has been exhausting. Hope it will save us from a few misunderstandings in future. Thanks, Mohar. :)

Re: # 1152
[....remembering that they were all human. ...]

Who said otherwise?... but then - one person who is NOT human is jinnah, or so it seems from your and Hamdani`s worship-heavy comments on the man... :)...

Jinnah may have a better grasp of the issues... but this CMP thing was complete buffoonery on his part... I mean, come on... It was possibly a bluff, a max position of negotiation, as YLH has opined a number of times... he should have calculated the risk of his bluff being called... the rest is history...

The point is - who lost?... it`s the muslims who lost out... if you don`t agree with that - then we have nothing to argue about - it`s all good.

Mohar, I do think Iqbal and/or Jinnah had a far better grasp of Hindu-Muslim issues than Gandhi and/or Nehru ever did. But different leaders have different strengths. By the same token, tomorrow someone could point out many problems/issues with Baba Sahib, which could be all true, without diminishing my overall regard for the man (unless his claims to real contributions to our lives turn out to be untrue)

It`s just a matter of being as realistic as possible and remembering that they were all human. :)

Re: # 1146
[..that`s why I am not a Gandhi worshipper,...]

Nobody is... nobody worships the naked fakir, everybody derides him... also Nehru... But curiously - you are already close to being a jinnah-worshipper - not that anybody cares :)

What everybody recognizes is the fellas like gandhi, nehru, patel made immense contributions to take us where we are today... they are political leaders and that`s all there is to it... sure they made mistakes, so what?... they have given us a real platform to build upon...

It`s up to us to take this further, instead of spinning wild theories, re-inventing history and what not...

Re: # 1148

Yep, the land was saved by a whisker... My man Nehru made the right call... :)

Re: # 1137

Gujrat: 2000 muslims died... bangladesh: 1 million muslims died, killed by muslims themselves, people of the ``same race``... All in all - number of muslim killed in all communal riots put together - I will take a guess - 5000, may be 10000 tops. But how many paki muslims have been killed, by pakis themselves, since 1947... bengalis, balochis, shias, muhajirs... the number doesn`t even compare... even if you include the collateral damage of kashmir jihad...

Anycase - my point was that - we hindus have already figured it out... we as a ``race``, do not kill each other with abandon... we do not fight internecine religious or ideological bloodbaths... we sure have caste differences, political/cultural differences, but we are unanimous in our purpose, our destiny, our future...

We know who we are and where we stand.... we are the majority and we will make this nation a success for all - hindus, muslims, whoever... sure, we have fallen flat in our face a few times - babri, godhra, gujrat, bombay... but we will learn our lessons and move on - nothing will to stop us from the destiny, inshallah - a nation free and prosperous...

For people who are not aware of the history behind CMP discussions, I`m providing the summary here. Interesting read.. Let`s ignore the crazy mathematics involving Muslims.. and just see what is proposed for princes..


Cabinet Mission Plan
14. Before putting forward our recommendation we turn to deal with the relationship of the Indian States to British India. It is quite clear that with the attainment of independence by British India, whether inside or outside the British Commonwealth, the relationship which has hitherto existed between the Rulers of the States and the British Crown will no longer be possible. Paramountcy can neither be retained by the British Crown nor transferred to the new Government. This fact has been fully recognised by those whom we interviewed from the States. They have at the same time assured us that the States are ready and willing to co-operate in the new development of India. The precise form which their co-operation will take must be a matter for negotiation during the building up of the new constitutional structure, and it by no means follows that it will be identical for all the States. We have not therefore dealt with the States in the same detail as the Provinces of British India in the paragraphs which follow.
...

15. We now indicate the nature of a solution which in our view would be just to the essential claims of all parties and would at the same time be most likely to bring about a stable and practicable form of Constitution for all India.
We recommend that the Constitution should take the following basic form:

(1) There should be a Union of India, embracing both British India and the States which should deal with the following subjects: Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Communications; and should have the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above subjects.

(2) The Union should have an Executive and a Legislature constituted from British Indian and States` representatives. Any question raising a major communal issue in the Legislature should require for its decision a majority of the representatives present and voting of each of the two major communities as well as a majority of all members present and voting.

(3) All subjects other than the Union subjects and all residuary powers should vest in the Provinces.

(4) The States will retain all subjects and powers other than those ceded to the Union.
...


And the states can appoint (remember these seats are not representative and not thru elections but through the whims and fancies of the princes) 93 out of the 385 federal seats.
i.e, Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of bhopal, add the Raja of Mysore/Travancore can appoint dozen seats each.. And these folks are no democrats. If you want to know about the lives of princes/princesses read ``memoirs of a princess`` by gayatri devi, third wife of the prince of jaipur, where she writes how she was unhappy when her husband told her she can no longer have her private aeroplane. Can you imagine (a private aeroplane) this in 1940s/50s?.. When people in Hyderabad were starving or finding rats to eat, the Nizam was happy that he was the richest person in the world..

Add another 78 for the Muslim seats. So out of the 385 seats, 93+78 (171 seats, just 22 short of majority) is not available for Congress. I`d think that no fool would accept this plan. Congress and Nehru rightly rejected the plan. Great guys, Patel/Nehru/Ambedkar/Gandhi etc.. Hats off to them.

We all know what happened to Ambedkar`s follower Mandal in Jinnah`s ``secular`` Pakistan.
He realised his fate pretty soon, unlike the Ahmediyas (for whom it took some time).. :-)

#1088

[And I`ve showed you that some of the secular nations in the world are states that were hyphenated democracies but secular in practice....

Amazing that millions of Muslims and Hindus have no problem living in the Anglican Christian nation of Britain... where the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church as well... ]


Let`s see where the differences are:

1) This business of ``Queen is the head of the Anglican Church`` was constituted in non-democratic times, and the British, being fond of tradition, have retained the queen`s position SYMBOLICALLY. But the Queen is not who runs the country, the Prime Minister does.

In sharp contrast, Pakistan was created from scratch when the concept of democracy was well known and practiced around the world.



2) Ask any British - are you a ``Christian`` nation? And they will say - no, we are a secular nation. If you asked the same question to Iqbal or any other Muslim when Pakistan was formed, he would have called Pakistan a ``Muslim`` nation.

Therein lies the difference.

While I am deeply indebted to Jinnah for removing a huge number of Muslims from India, I do blame him for not achieving a COMPLETE population exchange.

A TOTAL population exchange would have prevented many of the problems we see today. Everybody would have been happier.

Jinnah was ABSOLUTELY right on the money. Oil and water do not mix. They are finding that out in UK, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Canada, Australia, USA, China, Thailand and everywhere else.

There is going to be a gradual waking up in the world. Listen to TV and talk radio - you`ll feel the change. Already freeing ourselves of Gulf oil is a BIG winner in electoral politics.

Let`s hope the momentum keeps up and Muslims can truly live free lives separately in their own ummahland where they are not repressed by others not belonging to their ``identity``.

Here`s looking forward for a better tomorrow where Muslims and non-Muslims can live COMPLETELY separately in peace, just as Jinnah had envisioned.

That happy day will come.

May be that`s why I am not a Gandhi worshipper, nor do I believe in the divine rights of the Nehrus :(

First, I have not evaded any arguments on any board. The following is what I have said all along.
Princes did have different position, Muslim seats were entirely out of the picture.. after CMP. so that they can`t join with Muslims and make the process a nightmare for the Congress..

It is the classical `divide the enemies` technique of Congress, the enemies being ``Princes`` and the ``Muslims under Jinnah``. Princes are treated as enemies by Nehru and you can learn that from the various statements he made from time to time. Nehru/Patel (and sometimes Gandhi) played the bad cop/good cop act to perfection in the case of Princes.. whose territories criss-crossed the length and breadth of India (45% of the current geographic area) and are so essential for the viability of the country. Get rid of Muslims giving them a ``moth eaten Pakistan`` and getting rid of the princes once the situation is stabilised. Classic.... :-)

Nice to know that your dad is happy, what is the point of this article then. If Ahmediyas feel happy in Pakistan now, what drove you to write this article. :-)

Of all our recent leaders, Baba Sahib is my personal hero. The more I learn about him, the more I like him.

He was not perfect, but compared to my personal self and limitations, he was as perfect as one gets....