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

[mythbuster]

Theory yes but the insinuation that such a theory played significantly in British decision for allowing creation of Pakistan is still not factual history.


Can it be assumed that you do not recognise contributions in sports and other legal framework authorities that gets awarded to 'India' before 1947?

How do you see legalities of McMahon line or even Durand line for that matter?

You are throwing both sides into the snakes pitt and assign the role of referee for yourself... very devilish of you.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Theory yes but the insinuation that such a theory played significantly in British decision for allowing creation of Pakistan is still not factual history.

Invented stories and romanticized revisionism in your first post, then disingenuous, now a theory... Three posts, three positions, each closer to mine....

And on this version we may not be far apart..... I did not argue that strategic calculation caused Britain to create Pakistan... I said interests aligned... That is what the documents show and all I have claimed.

And that theory rests on declassified British documents, and on declassified American ones showing Jinnah discussing joint resistance to the Russians with US diplomats before the 3 June plan existed.... Both already cited in earler posts...

Not a theory laid over the evidence afterwards.... This did not start as a theory that went looking for evidence.... It started with what the British and Americans were writing down at the time.... Everyone was playing the same board....

 

[El Sidd]

You are throwing both sides into the snakes pitt and assign the role of referee for yourself... very devilish of you.

Its entirely for academic purposes.

Invented stories and romanticized revisionism in your first post, then disingenuous, now a theory... Three posts, three positions, each closer to mine....

And on this version we may not be far apart..... I did not argue that strategic calculation caused Britain to create Pakistan... I said interests aligned... That is what the documents show and all I have claimed.

And that theory rests on declassified British documents, and on declassified American ones showing Jinnah discussing joint resistance to the Russians with US diplomats before the 3 June plan existed.... Both already cited in earler posts...

Not a theory laid over the evidence afterwards.... This did not start as a theory that went looking for evidence.... It started with what the British and Americans were writing down at the time.... Everyone was playing the same board....

If it helps all of this can still be categorised as romaniticised revisionism with years of hindsight, it cannot be classified as historical fact. There would have been better solutions to the Soviet question without Pakistan nor Pakistan guaranteed an option.

In most calculations and theories, Pakistan would not have survived her dominion status and there were agreed arrangements in case that happened.

 

[M. Sarmad]

If it helps all of this can still be categorised as romaniticised revisionism with years of hindsight, it cannot be classified as historical fact. There would have been better solutions to the Soviet question without Pakistan nor Pakistan guaranteed an option.

In most calculations and theories, Pakistan would not have survived her dominion status and there were agreed arrangements in case that happened.

Hindsight requires looking back..... A Cabinet paper written in 1947, by men with no idea how any of it would turn out, is not looking back at anything...

Contemporaneous documents cannot be revisionism..... That is not what the word means....

And quite ironically you dismissed catalogued primary sources as theory, then gave me 2 counterfactuals with no citation....... Better solutions would have existed...... Most calculations said Pakistan would fail.... Whose calculations, in which file? Talk about theories??

Whether a better solution existed does not matter here... I never said the British planners were right... I said they wrote it down.

Your last point is the interesting one..... You say there were agreed arrangements in case Pakistan did not survive.... Show us.... If Britain was planning for Pakistan's collapse, that is Britain managing Pakistan's existence, which is the exact thing you keep saying was invented later !!

 

[Trailer23]

All PTI walley..., there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel afterall.

This vlog relates to you all. I am NOT going to tag anyone...

​

 

[El Sidd]

Hindsight requires looking back..... A Cabinet paper written in 1947, by men with no idea how any of it would turn out, is not looking back at anything...

Contemporaneous documents cannot be revisionism..... That is not what the word means....

And quite ironically you dismissed catalogued primary sources as theory, then gave me 2 counterfactuals with no citation....... Better solutions would have existed...... Most calculations said Pakistan would fail.... Whose calculations, in which file? Talk about theories??

Whether a better solution existed does not matter here... I never said the British planners were right... I said they wrote it down.

Your last point is the interesting one..... You say there were agreed arrangements in case Pakistan did not survive.... Show us.... If Britain was planning for Pakistan's collapse, that is Britain managing Pakistan's existence, which is the exact thing you keep saying was invented later !!

Cabinet mission believed to have been of the opinion that it would 10 years for Dominion of Pakistan to fail.

 

[peagle]

Theory yes but the insinuation that such a theory played significantly in British decision for allowing creation of Pakistan is still not factual history.


Can it be assumed that you do not recognise contributions in sports and other legal framework authorities that gets awarded to 'India' before 1947?

How do you see legalities of McMahon line or even Durand line for that matter?

You do realise before 1947 British india was a separate legal entity.
Why am i answering fantasy questions from everyone today?
It's like reality can go to hell.

Once you accept history for it's own value, you don't need to ask such Questions.

Mac-Mohan who? Does he effect me?
Durand, I don't see what the confusion is.

There's a difference between a legal entity, and historical fact.

India is a country created in 1947,
Fact.
It was accorded assessor state status, with the objections of Pakistan. Successor state does not mean the same thing,
Fact.
(Loosely speak, this is the nation state version of a "Legal heir status", where a person dies, and the debt and obligations are passed on, but both remain different entities)
The same logic applies to inheritor state status. People here are not understanding the correct context, parroting silly understandings, nitpicking sentences out of context and behaving like children. Clearly i'm not referring to you.

 

[peagle]

@peagle

How old are you?

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

Regards

Yes, because your reply suggested something else, I thought you were still a spritely 12 year old. You should be happy, you look good.

 

[Blueishere]

This vlog relates to you all. I am NOT going to tag anyone...

​

I would take everything these pseudo-journalists on Youtube say with massive amounts of salt. Most of Mansoor's sources are he talked to a "very high level individual" and can't reveal the name of. (No Disrespect to Mansoor, he's a credited journalist, but this Youtube rat race brings the worst out of people)

 

[Sainthood 2.0]

This account is known for his or her bongiyaan
But if this is true than it is preferable compared to the British styled parliamentary democracy we have

Thats all I gotta say
It'll be an improvement.

 

[peagle]

It was built into the drafting..... The Indian Independence Bill proceeded on the basis that one dominion would be the successor

I am going to ignore your diffusions, I find your approach shameful. But let's continue.

Please justify the above, since your entire statement is based on that assumption.

You still have not answered my question. But I will reword it.
When did the successor state issue arise?
Dates or Months please. Pretty please with sugar and honey on top.

Because you have added another aspect, was it, and the name India discussed with the Muslim League/Pakistan?
Did they Object?

Although I have already very clearly explained in my very first reply. My continuous answer to your claims will follow, after I am done getting clear answers from you.

Thank you, and regards as some would say.

 

[Trailer23]

I would take everything these pseudo-journalists on Youtube say with massive amounts of salt. Most of Mansoor's sources are he talked to a "very high level individual" and can't reveal the name of. (No Disrespect to Mansoor, he's a credited journalist, but this Youtube rat race brings the worst out of people)

Hey..., I tend to agree with you. That being said, countless times he said its up to you if you wanna believe him or not.

Also, I haven't seen anyone else Breaking this news & we all know who are the people he has spoken with. Clearly, its the untouchables. Question is why hasn't anyone else caught up on the rat race?

Like him or hate him - aside. His news always turns out to be the actual news, whereas others are just taking shots in the dark.

But lets see what happens. Looks like PTI are finally gonna get the golden oppertunity they've been hoping for.

#SamePage

 

[M. Sarmad]

I am going to ignore your diffusions, I find your approach shameful. But let's continue.

Please justify the above, since your entire statement is based on that assumption.

You still have not answered my question. But I will reword it.
When did the successor state issue arise?
Dates or Months please. Pretty please with sugar and honey on top.

Because you have added another aspect, was it, and the name India discussed with the Muslim League/Pakistan?
Did they Object?

Although I have already very clearly explained in my very first reply. My continuous answer to your claims will follow, after I am done getting clear answers from you.

Thank you, and regards as some would say.

You quoted the line and asked me to justify it.... Fine, that is a real question, unlike the adjectives...

The drafting.... The Indian Independence Act 1947 defined the two dominions asymmetrically.... Section 2(1) makes India "the territories… which… were included in British India except the territories which… are to be the territories of Pakistan." India is the whole, minus what is carved out... Pakistan is then listed piece by piece, East Bengal, West Punjab and the rest.... India defined by continuity, Pakistan by enumeration. ... Same assumption in the machinery: one common Governor General and the Raj's assets held undivided until the seceding areas set up their own centre....That only works if one dominion continues and the other leaves

This is not my invention, it is the documented drafting history, set out Ayesha Jalal, Inheriting the Raj, Modern Asian Studies, 1985....

Jinnah saw the framing exactly and fought it. He refused the joint Governor General precisely because it cast Pakistan as seceding from a continuing India rather than two equal new states dividing.... His resistance is the proof the assumption was there... You do not fight a framing that does not exist...



That is the justification you asked for, with a source.... Now the dates you also wanted.

15 Aug 1947, Pakistan cables the UN asking that both dominions be treated as automatic members.
21 Aug 1947, Security Council refers it, Resolution 29.
30 Sep 1947, General Assembly admits Pakistan as a new member, Resolution 108.

Every date belongs to Pakistan's admission... India has none, no application, no admission, because India was already in the seat and never had to ask.... The continuity itself was settled before 15 August, on the UN Legal Counsel's opinion that India carried on as the existing member and any territory breaking away applied fresh, the same principle the International Law Commission later treated as standard...... Produce the date India applied for UN membership. You cannot. That blank is your answer.

The name, since you raised it...... Jinnah objected to the other dominion calling itself India, he wanted Hindustan, precisely because the name carried continuity with British India.... He lost, India kept it. You handed me my own case.

So, drafting justified with a citation, dates given with resolution numbers, name turned against you.

Three answers to a post that claims I gave none....Your continuous rebuttal was promised once you had clear answers. You have them. Let us see it.

 

[M. Sarmad]

India is a country created in 1947,
Fact.
It was accorded assessor state status, with the objections of Pakistan. Successor state does not mean the same thing,
Fact.
(Loosely speak, this is the nation state version of a "Legal heir status", where a person dies, and the debt and obligations are passed on, but both remain different entities)
The same logic applies to inheritor state status. People here are not understanding the correct context, parroting silly understandings, nitpicking sentences out of context and behaving like children. Clearly i'm not referring to you.

"Assessor state" was obviously a typo, but you're conflating two different concepts........

In this thread, "successor state" has been used in its ordinary historical sense: India continued British India, while Pakistan was a newly created state carved out of it.....

In strict international law, the technical terminology is different.... India was the continuator (continuing) state, while Pakistan was a successor state..... The USSR is the classic example..... Russia was the continuator state, while the other 14 republics were successor states........ Those are distinct legal categories dealing with international legal personality, treaties, assets, and obligations....

So the legal terminology doesn't contradict the original point, it actually reinforces it.


I am clarifying this as much for other readers as for you.....


And India wasn't "accorded" continuator status..... It was treated as the continuing state from the outset, and that position was subsequently accepted in international law...... Pakistan objected, but its objections did not prevail

 

[HAIDER]

tuha yaad ho ya na yaad ho....