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

[M. Sarmad]

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.

Your opening statement was flatly incorrect: "India was not a successor state." Your words, not my paraphrase.....

And Pakistan's position was not accepted, before partition or after.... Not on the name.... Not on the drafting..... Not at the UN.... India kept the seat and the treaty rights. Pakistan applied and was admitted as a new member.

You keep telling me it was contested. It was. It was contested and it was lost, and those are not the same thing.

Claiming India was not a successor state on the basis of a position that was never accepted, and that Pakistan itself conceded by applying for membership, is what is actually absurd here....

 

[mythbuster]

@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

Everyone who is literate knows what's necessary to know about the history of Pakistan movement..... everyone is not interested in counting grey hair in his undergrowth.

 

[M. Sarmad]

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.

Feel free not to read him... . Though you may have missed that I have not quoted him once in this thread.... I have read his books, which is a different thing entirely.

Everything I have actually cited came from the National Archives, the US State Department and the UN record. Refuse those as well if you like, but at least refuse the right ones....

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@peagle

India was literally created by the British.

One could argue that way. In any case there was such a thing called British Indian Empire or British India. It was governed by the Government of India Act 1935 from 1937 onwards. In 1946, a Constituent Assembly was elected by a limited electorate to draw up the Constitution of India. The Muslim League's position was that the Muslim majority provinces wouldn't be a part of the CA unless safeguards were provided by them. Since the INC didn't agree to them and there was no possibility of the INC/Britain to coerce the Muslim majority provinces to be part of India, a partition plan was drawn up.

What part don't you understand?

Regards

 

[peagle]

Your opening statement was flatly incorrect: "India was not a successor state." Your words, not my paraphrase.....

And Pakistan's position was not accepted, before partition or after.... Not on the name.... Not on the drafting..... Not at the UN.... India kept the seat and the treaty rights. Pakistan applied and was admitted as a new member.

You keep telling me it was contested. It was. It was contested and it was lost, and those are not the same thing.

Claiming India was not a successor state on the basis of a position that was never accepted, and that Pakistan itself conceded by applying for membership, is what is actually absurd here....

Did you read my entire argument? My entire statement.
Or like a child are you going to just cut and paste.
Seriously, you need real help.

Your argument was that the people included in india did not have to choose because india was a successor state.
My argument proved it was not a necessary condition.


Ok, Einstein. i am going to accept your childish behaviour because you are incapable of a respectful discussion, nothing except parroting.

Please tell me when the negotiations regarding successor state status took place?

I am going to stick to your answers.

 

[M. Sarmad]

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.

Lecturing me on respect two posts after "from a circus to a clown" is quite the move....

You have not touched a single document. You have gone from "India was not a successor state" to "it was contested," which is a retreat, not a demolition...

One document, one error, one source. Still waiting...

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@peagle

Please tell me when the negotiations regarding successor state status took place?

Why do you think the British called into existence the Constituent Assembly of India?

Regards

 

[peagle]

@peagle

India was literally created by the British.

One could argue that way. In any case there was such a thing called British Indian Empire or British India. It was governed by the Government of India Act 1935 from 1937 onwards. In 1946, a Constituent Assembly was elected by a limited electorate to draw up the Constitution of India. The Muslim League's position was that the Muslim majority provinces wouldn't be a part of the CA unless safeguards were provided by them. Since the INC didn't agree to them and there was no possibility of the INC/Britain to coerce the Muslim majority provinces to be part of India, a partition plan was drawn up.

What part don't you understand?

Regards

Did you understand what you wrote?
Peddling implied fantasies isn't history.

British India and India created in 1947 are different historical entities. The history as presented as ancient India, India like it has always existed. Utterly and completely false.

What exactly are you opposing? You're not making sense.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@peagle

What is the "implied fantasy"

Regards

 

[peagle]

Lecturing me on respect two posts after "from a circus to a clown" is quite the move....

You have not touched a single document. You have gone from "India was not a successor state" to "it was contested," which is a retreat, not a demolition...

One document, one error, one source. Still waiting...

Presenting lies to me and misrepresenting me i find extremely insulting. clown is the most mild response i could give.

You cannot turn a discussion into a circus and not expect a response.
Now, you're just running away, lol, clown show on top of a clown show.

I asked you a direct question. Please answer.
When did the discussions regarding the successor state status took place.
Its a simple question.

Like i said, i am going to stick to your answers. You keep lying. So i am going to hold you to your words.

Please answer my question.

 

[peagle]

@peagle

Please tell me when the negotiations regarding successor state status took place?

Why do you think the British called into existence the Constituent Assembly of India?

Regards

Answering a question with a question. How old are you?

 

[peagle]

@peagle

What is the "implied fantasy"

Regards

You tell me.
Didn't you reply to my statement.
Please tell me to what you are objecting?
Also tell me what do you mean by india?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Presenting lies to me and misrepresenting me i find extremely insulting. clown is the most mild response i could give.

You cannot turn a discussion into a circus and not expect a response.
Now, you're just running away, lol, clown show on top of a clown show.

I asked you a direct question. Please answer.
When did the discussions regarding the successor state status took place.
Its a simple question.

Like i said, i am going to stick to your answers. You keep lying. So i am going to hold you to your words.

Please answer my question.

I will ignore the tantrums and answer the question directly, since you refuse to read what is already posted in this thread.....

There were no negotiations.... That is the answer.

It was built into the drafting..... The Indian Independence Bill proceeded on the basis that one dominion would be the successor and the other the seceder, with assets undividable until a new centre was created for the seceding areas..... Jinnah understood exactly what that meant, which is why he refused a joint Governor-General and insisted power pass to Pakistan first while Mountbatten was still Viceroy..... He was objecting to a framing already fixed before the Bill left the drafting table....

The rest is dates.... Assent on 18 July 1947.... The International Arrangements Order allocating treaty rights from 14 August, drafted on India's continuity rather than negotiating it..... Pakistan's cable of 15 August arguing for automatic membership, with an application in the alternative...... The Secretariat's opinion went the other way..... Admission as a new member on 30 September.

Assumed in the drafting.... allocated by order... objected to afterwards... objection refused.... At no point negotiated...

 

[mythbuster]

@peagle

What is the "implied fantasy"

Regards

Would it be Modijis fantasy ?

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@peagle

How old are you?

54. If it is of any relevance to the debate.

Regards