Naqvi urges 'all political parties' to settle issue of more provinces, says current 'system' has collapsed

[Goenitz]

Dude, what the heck are you talking about?

Yes, it is theirs, as it is ours, how difficult is that to understand? or does Pakistan belong to some political party?
Which one? PMLn? PTI? PPP? Who?
Pakistan belongs to all Pakistanis, including the Wardi.

Didn't win a war? Have they lost a war?
If you say 1971 without context, that'll be just childish.

We just gained some hills and a Jain village in Tharparkar (if that is a win), which was equalised when we lost a village in GB to India.
Other than that, in 65 and 99, we advanced assuming it would not blow into a full-scale war, but it did. 2019 and 2025 skirmishes are somewhat a zero-sum game.
Our role in Afghan Jihad was prominent, but still Afghans fought and won. Soviets lost huge numbers of troops, aircraft/helis, and armoured vehicles.
In WOT, the US losses were minimal. We were not involved like in the past, and TTA won due to their everlasting resilience.
We are at a perennial disadvantage in a cold war between ISI and RAW.
Based on that, my argument was that the military has failed in their core competency many times.
Therefore, their political experiments (which are not their forte to begin with) with Pakistan, such as one-unit, non-party elections, NROs, etc have hugely damaged the political landscape of Pakistan.

They are doing it again in their infinite wisdom and arrogance.

Scotland is not like AJK, it's like a province.
What Ireland episode? Ireland was never part of Great Britain or the UK, i hope you know they mean different things.

There was no lesson to learn from 1971, it's silly statement. Too many lies have been repeated about so-called unfair treatment.

No country has ever existed with 2000km direct and 5000km maritime distance between the two wings and a large terror supporting neighbour in-between.

The whole point was that AJK is not formally part of Pakistan. Scotland is a country itself (but not sovereign by choice).
When there was a referendum, the British reluctantly welcomed it and didn't launch an operation, having learnt from Ireland.
Whereas, like 71, state violence is still always our first choice.
I am not debating geographical distance, as the Eastern Wing was majority. If they were with us, Indians couldn't take over anyway.

I certainly believe that this type of division would work even better than naming the new provinces "Siraikistan, Brahuistan, and a gazillion ...istans,"

The name can be derived from the region. For example, for Multan, it can be Pajnad or Aam Bagh or simply; the capital name will also be the province name, e.g. Multan Province.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Lucky you .... you got YLH clone here to to rub your itches.

YLH is a published author with Pan Macmillan...... Disagree with his conclusions by all means, but he works from archival material and his sources are checkable, which is more than can be said for most of what gets asserted in this thread and elsewhere....

I can see the position is an uncomfortable one to hold, so let me put it plainly...

Jinnah was making the case for defence against the USSR himself, months before he had a country, rather than having it made for him. So no, Pakistan was not chartered by London to play anyone's game.... Its founder was working the same board as everyone else, which is what political leaders do...

On 1 May 1947, Jinnah sat down for an hour and a half with two American diplomats, Hare and Weil. The US Charge in India cabled Washington the next day reporting what was said. Jinnah told them the establishment of Pakistan was essential, that the Muslim countries would stand together against possible Russian aggression, and that they would look to the United States for assistance...

That is a secret State Department telegram, filed 2 May 1947, catalogued as 845.00/5-247, published in Foreign Relations of the United States 1947, Volume III, document 96.... It sits on the State Department's own website. Go and read it.

First of May... Before the 3 June plan... Before the Indian Independence Act... Before Pakistan existed on any map.

And it was not new.... Jinnah had sent Ispahani to test the ground in Washington in November 1946, nine months before independence.... Ispahani went on to become Pakistan's first ambassador there.

So yes... Pakistan leaned West, Congress leaned the other way, the interests fell where they fell, and Pakistan benefited.... I have no difficulty saying that out loud. It is what states and statesmen like Jinnah do, and pretending otherwise is not history, it is sentiment...

 

[peagle]

@M. Sarmad @peagle

The right person to answer this would be Dada @Joe Shearer if he is still around.

My interpretation is that there was a Constituent Assembly of India. The Hindu majority provinces never expressed any desire to opt out of the CA.

Regards

There is no right person, truth and facts are not stored up in some personage.

I have had many discussions with him on many matters so I'm fully aware who is.

They were not given a choice so the option of opting out did not arise, so your statement is hollow.
The Princely states did have a choice which was taken away by Mountbatten, the British.

The fact remains, no one voted to be part of india, that choice did not exist.

 

[peagle]

Peddling pedantry makes them feel as if they are Bismarck's of Pakistani ....noisy mullahs of neighbourhood mosques are excellent narrators , how seriously shall we take them.

They think noise is intelligence.

 

[peagle]

We just gained some hills and a Jain village in Tharparkar (if that is a win), which was equalised when we lost a village in GB to India.
Other than that, in 65 and 99, we advanced assuming it would not blow into a full-scale war, but it did. 2019 and 2025 skirmishes are somewhat a zero-sum game.
Our role in Afghan Jihad was prominent, but still Afghans fought and won. Soviets lost huge numbers of troops, aircraft/helis, and armoured vehicles.
In WOT, the US losses were minimal. We were not involved like in the past, and TTA won due to their everlasting resilience.
We are at a perennial disadvantage in a cold war between ISI and RAW.
Based on that, my argument was that the military has failed in their core competency many times.
Therefore, their political experiments (which are not their forte to begin with) with Pakistan, such as one-unit, non-party elections, NROs, etc have hugely damaged the political landscape of Pakistan.

They are doing it again in their infinite wisdom and arrogance.


The whole point was that AJK is not formally part of Pakistan. Scotland is a country itself (but not sovereign by choice).
When there was a referendum, the British reluctantly welcomed it and didn't launch an operation, having learnt from Ireland.
Whereas, like 71, state violence is still always our first choice.
I am not debating geographical distance, as the Eastern Wing was majority. If they were with us, Indians couldn't take over anyway.

The name can be derived from the region. For example, for Multan, it can be Pajnad or Aam Bagh or simply; the capital name will also be the province name, e.g. Multan Province.

I am going to respectfully apologise for what i am about to say, but it needs to be said.

This reply is too stupid for me to reply. It's an argument for sake of argument, reality can go to hell.
Since I don't enjoy running around in a circle. I refuse to partake.

 

[peagle]

India inherited everything British India under legal pretext.

One can argue that India is still a continuation of the same old colonial state imposing an artificial identity on 1300 princely states it usurped via military means like the British.

Pakistan came out with having to build everything anew and purposely advocated that her freedom was an ideological struggle against colonial rule.

That's a misplaced argument, although i can understand your sentiment, and it does have some basis, but ultimately it's a bit twisted.

 

[peagle]

You advised me to get away from pedestrian history.... Come back when you have read a single primary document.

From a circus to a clown. Well done.

If you want to discuss, then discuss. Otherwise please do not waste my time with ignorant understandings.

 

[peagle]

India was the successor state.... That is not a reading of history, it is the documented legal position, and it was settled within weeks of partition...

The UN Secretariat's legal opinion held that India's international status was unchanged. It continued as the same state, carrying the same treaty rights and obligations, and therefore retained its UN seat without applying for anything...... Pakistan was the territory that broke off...... A new state, without the old state's treaty rights, and without membership. The comparison drawn at the time was the Irish Free State separating from Britain.....

This is why Pakistan was admitted to the UN on 30 September 1947 and India was not admitted at all, having never left....

Our own foreign minister cabled the UN on independence arguing both should be automatic members, and then added that if that view was not accepted, he was applying for admission.... It was not accepted. He applied. We joined as a new state.

So before calling it a bare faced lie we grew up with, you should know that the position you are disputing is the one Pakistan's own government accepted in writing in August 1947....

I have no interest in arguing the rest with someone who does not even know such basic things about our own history, but has the audacity to call others liars... Take you Mutalia Pakistan nonsense elsewhere please

Seriously, what is wrong with you?
Are you incapable of having a cohrerent discusison.

When did i dispute india is not a successor state. But it's not so simple. I provided the history behind it and the fact it was not an automatic right.

It was disputed by the Muslim League/Pakistan, it was negotiated and ultimately accepted as part of a settlement.
That doesn't mean the people shouldn't have had the right to choose whether they wish to be part of india or not. They did not decide, they were thrown into india.

I provided you a detailed factual argument, all you can do is rehash and parrot the same statement with more words. this is beyond absurd.

 

[mythbuster]

YLH is a published author with Pan Macmillan...... Disagree with his conclusions by all means, but he works from archival material and his sources are checkable, which is more than can be said for most of what gets asserted in this thread and elsewhere....

I can see the position is an uncomfortable one to hold, so let me put it plainly...

Jinnah was making the case for defence against the USSR himself, months before he had a country, rather than having it made for him. So no, Pakistan was not chartered by London to play anyone's game.... Its founder was working the same board as everyone else, which is what political leaders do...

On 1 May 1947, Jinnah sat down for an hour and a half with two American diplomats, Hare and Weil. The US Charge in India cabled Washington the next day reporting what was said. Jinnah told them the establishment of Pakistan was essential, that the Muslim countries would stand together against possible Russian aggression, and that they would look to the United States for assistance...

That is a secret State Department telegram, filed 2 May 1947, catalogued as 845.00/5-247, published in Foreign Relations of the United States 1947, Volume III, document 96.... It sits on the State Department's own website. Go and read it.

First of May... Before the 3 June plan... Before the Indian Independence Act... Before Pakistan existed on any map.

And it was not new.... Jinnah had sent Ispahani to test the ground in Washington in November 1946, nine months before independence.... Ispahani went on to become Pakistan's first ambassador there.

So yes... Pakistan leaned West, Congress leaned the other way, the interests fell where they fell, and Pakistan benefited.... I have no difficulty saying that out loud. It is what states and statesmen like Jinnah do, and pretending otherwise is not history, it is sentiment...

Telling me about YLH accomplishments is like teaching your father how to make love.

 

[M. Sarmad]

From a circus to a clown. Well done.

If you want to discuss, then discuss. Otherwise please do not waste my time with ignorant understandings.

You were asked for a primary document and produced the word clown.... I will take that as a concession.....

And let us remember who is lecturing whom here. This is the contributor who told us India was not the successor state to British India. Thousands of words, and the very first premise was wrong. Pakistan's own foreign minister accepted the opposite in writing in August 1947 and applied for membership as a new state. India never applied, because India never left.

So length is not substance, and volume is not knowledge....

CAB 21/1800, National Archives. FRUS 1947, Volume III, document 96, State Department. Ispahani, November 1946. Nehru at Lucknow, 1936. All still there. All still unread.

Bring something with a catalogue number, or stop...

 

[M. Sarmad]

Telling me about YLH accomplishments is like teaching your father how to make love.

So you know Hamdani's work well. Excellent.... Then name the archival claim of his you say is wrong, and show me why.

That is all it takes... One claim, one correction, one source...

Still waiting, from either of you...

 

[mythbuster]

So you know Hamdani's work well. Excellent.... Then name the archival claim of his you say is wrong, and show me why.

That is all it takes... One claim, one correction, one source...

Still waiting, from either of you...

I won't waste my time reading his works ...I knew what he's going to publish long before it got published..... feel free to quote YLH in your doctoral research.

 

[peagle]

You were asked for a primary document and produced the word clown.... I will take that as a concession.....

And let us remember who is lecturing whom here. This is the contributor who told us India was not the successor state to British India. Thousands of words, and the very first premise was wrong. Pakistan's own foreign minister accepted the opposite in writing in August 1947 and applied for membership as a new state. India never applied, because India never left.

So length is not substance, and volume is not knowledge....

CAB 21/1800, National Archives. FRUS 1947, Volume III, document 96, State Department. Ispahani, November 1946. Nehru at Lucknow, 1936. All still there. All still unread.

Bring something with a catalogue number, or stop...

When did i ask for a primary document?
You are hallucinating, at least have the decency of having an honest discussion.

There is something seriously wrong with you, you keep making statements, then answering as if it's something i said. Is this how you behave in real life?

It is You who challenged me, the Onus is on you, not me.
Please learn basic respect in how a discussion works. You made silly statements, which i completely destroyed, now you're behaving like a child who didn't get his way, this is beyond ridiculous.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@peagle

There is no right person, truth and facts are not stored up in some personage.

Dada (@Joe Shearer) is not a Prophet. But I know for sure that he has a formal training and education in history and has read much of the original text/history behind the Partition and the events which led to it and has a good understanding of the legal position on the matter.

And Blum Pai (@mythbuster)- while I haven't had a chance of interacting much with Sarmad sahib (@M. Sarmad) from a cursory reading of his posts here it does seem that like YLH he is very much aware of the history of the Pakistan Movement.

Regards

 

[peagle]

@peagle

There is no right person, truth and facts are not stored up in some personage.

Dada (@Joe Shearer) is not a Prophet. But I know for sure that he has a formal training and education in history and has read much of the original text/history behind the Partition and the events which led to it and has a good understanding of the legal position on the matter.

And Blum Pai (@mythbuster)- while I haven't had a chance of interacting much with Sarmad sahib (@M. Sarmad) from a cursory reading of his posts here it does seem that like YLH he is very much aware of the history of the Pakistan Movement.

Regards

History isn't about a bunch if facts, it's also about the framework in which it is presented. I am fully aware from where Dada sahib takes his approach. I have had sufficient number of arguments with him in my early days to know the conclsuion before it starts.
He is also the only person in this and previous forum who has my personal email.

You cannot partition a country which has never existed in history. India was literally created by the British. So, the framework in which partition is presented is a prime example of falsehoods in history.