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

[M. Sarmad]

I am here for grown up discussions.

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

 

[El Sidd]

Read the post again and tell me which part you fail to comprehend or consider historically inaccurate...

Pakistan suited both the Muslims of northwestern India and the British... Our interests happened to align at that moment in history, and we were fortunate that they did..

So it was a British favor than some democratic will of the British subjects inspired by some Poet writing in Persian from Punjab which motivated an ambitious Sindhi advocate fueled by Bengali agitation.

This goes well with the prepositions that Pakistan administration is the successor to East Indian Company and aims a similar colonisation of innocent indigenous races.

 

[M. Sarmad]

So it was a British favor than some democratic will of the British subjects inspired by some Poet writing in Persian from Punjab which motivated an ambitious Sindhi advocate fueled by Bengali agitation.

This goes well with the prepositions that Pakistan administration is the successor to East Indian Company and aims a similar colonisation of innocent indigenous races.

You have restated my position as its opposite and argued with that instead....

I said both.... The demand was real and came from below, and it also served British strategic interests..... Those are not in competition.... Interests aligning is how large political outcomes usually get delivered....

Britain was under no obligation to partition anything..... It could have handed power to a united India and left the constitutional questions to Indians... It did not... And the League leadership never faced anything like the mass imprisonment Congress endured after 1942... That asymmetry wants explaining.

The East India Company line follows from nothing I wrote. ..

History is not always convenient... That cuts both ways.

 

[El Sidd]

India was not a successor state.

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.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@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

 

[HAIDER]

@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

aaahhh Joe... @Joe Shearer

 

[M. Sarmad]

@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

Agreed, and that is exactly the point......

They never expressed a desire to opt out because there was nothing to opt out of.... The Constituent Assembly of India was constituted in December 1946 and sat unbroken until January 1950..... Never dissolved, never reconstituted... Its strength simply fell from 389 to 299 as members from Pakistani territory withdrew, and those who stayed became India's Parliament, taking over from the Imperial Legislative Council under the Indian Independence Act....

The delegations from Sindh, East Bengal, Baluchistan, West Punjab and the NWFP left for Karachi and constituted a new assembly on 10 August 1947...

One body continued, the other was created..... That is the successor and seceder structure the Independence Bill was drafted around, and it is why India kept the UN seat and the treaties while Pakistan applied as a new member.

Would be very interested to hear respected @Joe Shearer sb reading of it.

 

[El Sidd]

You have restated my position as its opposite and argued with that instead....

I said both.... The demand was real and came from below, and it also served British strategic interests..... Those are not in competition.... Interests aligning is how large political outcomes usually get delivered....

Britain was under no obligation to partition anything..... It could have handed power to a united India and left the constitutional questions to Indians... It did not... And the League leadership never faced anything like the mass imprisonment Congress endured after 1942... That asymmetry wants explaining.

The East India Company line follows from nothing I wrote. ..

History is not always convenient... That cuts both ways.

1930s and 40s from the British perspective can only be given by the British. The Crown was under no obligation to give up India and nor were the British officer class.

Indian congress was a big influential entity and British could afford little in terms of civil disobedience during the period. Muslim League did not have funds nor resources nor significant infrastructure required for any meaningful sabotage from a position which they described as marginalised.

How do you assess 'Indian' leaning towards communism or Soviet Russia? These are all good stories invented at the height of the cold war and present a romanticised revisionism.

 

[mythbuster]

I am going to apologise for replying to your statement in quotations because it's a personal pet peeve of mine, something i hate but you have presented such a wishy washy version of history, which amounts to bare faced lies that we have grown up with all our lives, I have to break it into it's core absurdity.
Some of what you say is true but that's how the best lies work, they mix the truth with half truths mixed with lies, just beautiful.

Just to be clear, I am not accusing you as a person of lying deliberately. It's the understanding of issues which have over time come to be accepted as fact.


India was not a successor state. The entire process was about post British withdrawal, and the creation of india and independence of Pakistan was a result of those negotiations.
India was created by the British, it did not exist before the British arrived.

Nothing was decided until it was decided, the decision was after the fact, not before the fact, the fact of British withdrawal came after joint negotiations and unfair powerplay (unfair towards the Muslim League/Pakistan).
The British withdrawal was part of a negotiated process consisting of a troika.
The Hindu dominated Congress party, around 95% Hindu, almost all upper caste Hindus, the Muslim League and the British.

The successor state issue is a legal process, not a historical right. It only exists in a modern nation-state framework.
Furthermore, the successor state claim was contested by the Muslim League/Pakistan, not something given to india automatically as a right, it was a compromise.

The referendums by the people, or in assemblies were also the result of a compromise. It does not matter why they happened, but the fact they did and the people whether in assemblies or by vote, did choose.
It's absurd to ignore the side which had no choice, who did not get to choose their country and throw accusations at the side that did decide democratically and willingly.

I have more to say but to keep it condensed i will keep it at that.



When i say no-one in India, that is a fact, no one in india choose, they were not given a choice. They were thrown into the new country of india.
Bengal and Punjab voted as part of the negotiated compromise to create difficulties for Muslim League/Pakistan.
Their vote was a default action as a result of the Muslim league accepting that process, not an inherent right given to them, they did not choose india, they, the Hindus and Sikhs rejected Pakistan, there is a difference.

If their position is we can all live together in this new country of India, and my position is i do not trust the future setup and i desire a fair settlement, a fair power sharing formula, it is on you to live up to your words.
Or did they mean that we can live together as long as We are the majority, but we refuse to live together if You are the majority. The burden was on them to live together, which they rejected.

That option given to them was a byproduct of what the Muslim League/Pakistan accepted as a compromise, not a standalone right given to them.
So no part of india got a choice to be part of india, they did not choose, they were thrown into that newly created country of india. That is a fact.




There is nothing interesting about it, unless you wish to create fantasies.
A fair process is an essential part of a fair vote. NWFP was the only part where the people had a different demand from the party in power, it was painfully clear, things do not happen in a vacuum.

The result of the referendum prove that the people had a different desire from the ruling party. Despite a call for a boycott, the people turned up in the same numbers as the previous election, and unanimously voted for the independence of Pakistan. A 99% yes vote, it's an incredible result.
Even if you account for the people who did not vote, count all the registered voters whether they turned up to vote or not, it was still a majority Yes vote. The Yes vote was so strong.

If you want to look for excuses, that's on you, then that's not history, it's fantasies, always looking for excuses rather then facts on hand.



I am sorry but i have to say this is nothing but childish fantasies, i have heard this many times, it is so ridiculous i am shocked it keeps getting a mention. In fact I find it insulting because it is intellectually dishonest.

Britain tried their damn best to stop the independence of Pakistan. Mountbatten even presented his wife, how can you be a neutral broker if your wife is having an affair with one of the party involved.

Mountbatten constantly gave secrets to the Congress party, including allowing Nehru to see the new boundaries before the handover and changing the border according to his wishes. The official release was on the 17th August. I am shocked that the likes of you constantly, forget such facts.
Reducing the handover timeframe from over a year to about 10 weeks was clearly designed to ensure Pakistan failed as an independent state.

Britain did not want to quit India, that's painfully obvious. What do you think decades of negotiations and the struggles was for?
It was forced to leave because both the Muslim League and the Congress party wanted their own country.
It was forced to leave because it was a much weakened state after two world wars. It was forced to leave as part of a negotiated settlement.

Strategic depth, buffer, bases these are so ridiculous that i do not even know where to start so i will leave it at that, and delve on such matters if you decide to push it.

You really need to get away from this pedestrian history, it is the main cause of constant instability in this region, because people are constantly being fed ridiculous lies.

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.

 

[M. Sarmad]

How do you assess 'Indian' leaning towards communism or Soviet Russia? These are all good stories invented at the height of the cold war and present a romanticised revisionism.

Invented during the Cold War?

The Congress Socialist Party was founded inside Congress in October 1934, in Bombay, under a portrait of Karl Marx, members addressing each other as comrade.....

Two years later Nehru told the Lucknow Congress that the only solution to India's problems lay in socialism..... The same year he wrote to Lord Lothian that the transition would require nationalising the instruments of production and distribution..... In 1938 the National Planning Committee was set up with Nehru as chairman.

Nehru was Congress president in 1929, 1936 and 1937... Bose in 1938 and 1939. That is the leadership, not a fringe.

Not claiming Congress was a Soviet client..... But the direction of travel was announced from the presidential chair in the 1930s, and the British were in the room....

 

[HAIDER]

this whole debacle is like this .... Nawaz Sharif cholay lao...

 

[El Sidd]

Invented during the Cold War?

The Congress Socialist Party was founded inside Congress in October 1934, in Bombay, under a portrait of Karl Marx, members addressing each other as comrade.....

Two years later Nehru told the Lucknow Congress that the only solution to India's problems lay in socialism..... The same year he wrote to Lord Lothian that the transition would require nationalising the instruments of production and distribution..... In 1938 the National Planning Committee was set up with Nehru as chairman.

Nehru was Congress president in 1929, 1936 and 1937... Bose in 1938 and 1939. That is the leadership, not a fringe.

Not claiming Congress was a Soviet client..... But the direction of travel was announced from the presidential chair in the 1930s, and the British were in the room....

It simply means Congress and in general the masses were clinging anything anti Britain. Be it the Nazis or Soviets or Caliphates. To them, end justified the means.

To create an elaborate theory that Dominion of Pakistan was chartered to play the great game or provide strategic manovering is one thing but to present them as historical facts is just ingenious.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It simply means Congress and in general the masses were clinging anything anti Britain. Be it the Nazis or Soviets or Caliphates. To them, end justified the means.

To create an elaborate theory that Dominion of Pakistan was chartered to play the great game or provide strategic manovering is one thing but to present them as historical facts is just ingenious.

Not really .....

India established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union on 13 April 1947. Four months before independence, under the interim government, while the British were still in charge.....

Nehru pressed for the Moscow embassy to open before independence and obtained the Viceroy's consent.... It was the interim government's first diplomatic mission anywhere in the world, and his sister landed in Moscow on 9 August, a week before the flag changed....


Now the part that answers you directly....... British intelligence had K.P.S. Menon and Krishna Menon under surveillance and was intercepting their correspondence with Nehru.... The Foreign Office instructed its ambassador in Moscow to put obstacles in the way, recording that Delhi appeared to want relations with the USSR and that London wanted the process delayed until things became clearer....


That is not a Cold War invention. That is the British, in 1947, in writing, worried about precisely the thing you say nobody was worried about....


As for elaborate theories, I did not say Pakistan was chartered to play the Great Game..... I said interests aligned....

Here is the 1947 Cabinet paper on defence policy against the USSR, held at the National Archives under CAB 21/1800.... It names Russia as the most likely and formidable threat, and lists the best bases for offensive action as the United Kingdom, the Middle East, and if possible North-West India.


North-West India. Written in 1947, by the British, for the British Cabinet. Auchinleck's own assessment was that the North West could serve as a lever to influence the Middle East and block Soviet advance if a united India inside the Commonwealth could not be had.....


Not my theory... Their filing cabinet....

 

[mythbuster]

@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

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

 

[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.