Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ??????? | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | RUPEE NEWS | December 7th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | ????? ?????
Among the many visions for the Subcontinent, the vision of the Quaid e Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah won out.
There are two major tectonic political events that shattered the trust between the Muslims and the Hindus of the Subcontinent. This that led to the re-creation of Pakistan:
1) The rejection of the 14 points of Jinnah by the Nehru report
2) The rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 by the INC. The CMP would have created a Group “A” (Hindustan), Group “B” (Kashmir, Punjab, Sarhad, Sindh, Balauchistan), Group “C” (Bengal, Orissa, Asaam). Each would have 11 members in the center in a kind of a Senate.
Pakistan existed 5000 years ago. The Indus people lives on the banks of the Indus.The Indus people never lived with the Gangetic people. The Sindhis, Punjabis, Pathans, Baluchis, and Kashmiris have lived together for more than 5000 years. http://rupeenews.com/2007/11/27/why-we-created-pakistan-the-pakistan-ideology/
Pakistan (aka Indus Valley) exsited 5000 years ago
This was the British empire with hundreds of states in the Subcontinent.
Could the Indus people have joined the Gangetic people in 1947? Possibly! But the events before 1940s since 1947 teach us that the Gangetic people are fundamentally different from the Indus people, and could not have lived together. These are the maps of the Subcontinent over the past few centuries where the hundreds of states that existed in the Subcontinent exchanged hands and alliances on an ongoing basis.
These maps show Pakistan during the Persian and Taimurs empire– Pakistan centuries ago.
Lord Curzon’s British “On to the Oxus” (Amu Darya) policy and then the retreat to “Back to the Indus” policy.
The British Empire in 1857 shows hundreds of states in the Subcontinent.
The British Empire before Curzon and afterwards.
Lord Minto in the Subcontinent
There is a huge discussion of the One Nation Theory and the Two Nation Theory posted on it. Search for it.
These are the maps of the Pakistan that was proposed
The Hindus and the Muslims in the Subcontinent.
Proponents of the TNT were originally the Hindus and then the Muslims.Proponents of the ONT were the Muslims and then the Hindus. What happened and why did loyal Indian Muslims like Iqbal ask for Pakistan. Why did nationalist leaders like Jinnah leave the Indian National Congress and join the Mulims League. The reasons are discussed in many of my articles on this site. Here are some major milestones preceding independence in 1947.
In the 1937 Indian elections, Tharoor points out, Muslim voters failed to support the Muslim League – which later led Muslims to independence under Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But the popular, and integrated, Congress Party made the mistake of resigning from office to protest the British government’s lack of consultation over its 1939 war declaration.“
It was a huge political blunder because it left the field open for the British … to kick the Congress people out of office and put unelected Muslim Leaguers in power in a number of key provinces,” says Tharoor.Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India Movement, opposing British rule at the height of World War II, was also a mistake, he adds. The Congress protesters were jailed, later to re-emerge “completely out of touch.”
The Muslim League, later won a majority of the Muslim provinces.“Until that happened, partition was not inevitable.”Part of the problem, says Pakistani-born historian Ayesha Jalal, was the failure of Congress leaders Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to cut a power-sharing deal with the Muslim League.And, she says, Jinnah was astonished by the violence that overtook India in the final months of the British Raj:
“The complete absence of adequate security measures to tackle an unexpected breakdown of law and order has to be blamed for the sheer magnitude of the killings.“
CMP: The Cabinet Mission Plan proposed by Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and initially approved by Nehru was the last hope for the Subcontinent to stay as one country. After the Indian National Congress rejected the CMP both major parties the INC and the All India Muslim League had lost all trust in each other and went their different wasy. The INC was busy consolidating their power while the ML was busy consolidating its power in the Muslim majority areas.
In the 1937 Indian elections, Tharoor points out, Muslim voters failed to support the Muslim League – which later led Muslims to independence under Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But the popular, and integrated, Congress Party made the mistake of resigning from office to protest the British government’s lack of consultation over its 1939 war declaration.“It was a huge political blunder because it left the field open for the British … to kick the Congress people out of office and put unelected Muslim Leaguers in power in a number of key provinces,” says Tharoor.Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India Movement, opposing British rule at the height of World War II, was also a mistake, he adds. The Congress protesters were jailed, later to re-emerge “completely out of touch.”
The Muslim League, later won a majority of the Muslim provinces. “Until that happened, partition was not inevitable.”Part of the problem, says Pakistani-born historian Ayesha Jalal, was the failure of Congress leaders Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to cut a power-sharing deal with the Muslim League.And, she says, Jinnah was astonished by the violence that overtook India in the final months of the British Raj: “The complete absence of adequate security measures to tackle an unexpected breakdown of law and order has to be blamed for the sheer magnitude of the killings.”
The Cabinet Mission Plan proposed by Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and initially approved by Nehru was the last hope for the Subcontinent to stay as one country. After the Indian National Congress rejected the CMP both major parties the INC and the All India Muslim League had lost all trust in each other and went their different wasy. The INC was busy consolidating their power while the ML was busy consolidating its power in the Muslim majority areas.
Shameful Flight” by Stanley Wolpert
This book is about the last years of British rule of India – an unwise partition, an incompetent colonial government, and a botched up migration leaving bitter legacies. The author is UCLA’s Professor Emeritus teaching history with several other books about India to his credit.
The book is outstanding for many reasons: It is written in an easy style that would force you to read it one go, quite rarely seen in books covering history. Yet the book has sufficient background research that can only be expected from UCLA’s professor of history. It has a balanced presentation of facts by a scholar far removed by geography and time from the events.
Stanley Wolpert provides some interesting insights:
British rule of India is a tale of incompetence:In 1943, India produced 50 million tons of food grains – enough to feed its population of 400 million. Yet 1.5 million people died of starvation in Bengal that year primarily due to mismanagement.
Bengal’s governor Herbert and Viceroy Lord Wavell pleaded for food grains. Britain’s war transport minister Baron Frederick James Leathers kept 6 million tons stored in ships in Indian Ocean but did not spare it for the starving. Wavell’s report to an uninterested Prime Minister Churchill says “the famine in Bengal was largely due to ministerial incompetence”.
The incompetence was acknowledged in London as well. Churchill’s Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery confesses in a private letter to the Viceroy Linlithgow “nothing has convinced me more than the Cabinet meetings…. of the fundamental incapacity of a British cabinet to try and govern India”.
Viceroy Wavell condemns Churchill four years later after sitting in one cabinet meeting: “He hates India and everything to do with it. Winston knows as much of the Indian problem as George III did of the American colonies!”
British rule of India is a tale of political insensitivity:The best example of this insensitivity is Winston Churchill’s peevish telegram to his Viceroy asking “why Gandhi has not died yet?” after releasing the Mahatma from prison because of medical conditions. Not a class-act in international politics.
Partition could have been avoided with greater wisdom in Indian/British leadership.
In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority in six of the eleven provinces. Jinnah’s Muslim league failed to win a single province. Jinnah appealed to Nehru to agree to a coalition Congress-League ministries in the multicultural provinces. Nehru refused and retorted that there were only two parties left: “the British and the Congress”. Jinnah devoted the next ten years to create Pakistan. If Nehru had pursued an “inclusive style of politics” there would have been no opportunity to “divide and rule”.
1946 offered another opportunity to unite. British Secretary of State, Lord Pethick Lawrence advocated a coalition cabinet (made up of Congress and Muslim League) that decides by consensus (as coalitions normally do) and not by majority vote. Nehru declined to cede parity to Muslim league and share power. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad sadly reflected in his autobiography that “Jawaharlal’s mistake in 1937 had been bad enough. The mistake of 1946 proved even more costly”. This resolved Jinnah to insist on partition.
Britain played the “divide and rule” card to the long term detriment of India. Viceroys were quick to ignore good examples. Chief Ministers Sikandar Hayat Khan and Fazl-i-Husain governed Punjab province by using local patriotism and common language to unify the multi-religious Punjab society. It was the same Punjab that recorded the largest death triggered by inept governing.
British rule had no strategy to deal with partition.
Britain, as a colonial ruler, has a history of shameful behavior. In 1942, when Britain exited Burma “the civil administration suddenly collapsed and those in charge sought their own safety. Private motor cars were commandeered for the evacuation of Europeans, leaving their owners stranded. …. The city of Rangoon was left at the mercy of …. hardened criminals”. There was no thought for life after British rule.
Months ahead of independence most of the British staff were evacuated to Britain leaving no credible law enforcement mechanism for the infant governments of India and Pakistan to deal with the migration induced violence and death.
Mountbatten was aware of the likely violence and the lack of a plan to deal with this. Though Cyril Radcliffe’s maps with the boundary lines of India and Pakistan were ready earlier, Mountbatten kept it under lock and key until the pageantry, splendor and photo opportunities of the Independence day were over and the British could no more be blamed for the violence or the ineptitude with which it was handled. His reasoning: “the earlier it was published, the more the British would have to bear the responsibility for the disturbances which would undoubtedly result”. Reasonable opportunity to manage the migration was denied for the sake of glory.
Says Bengal Secretary John Dawson Tyson, “Mountbatten’s focus was on withdrawal in fairly peaceful conditions….. the India after 15 August will not be the kind of country I should want to live in”
ear Admiral Viscount Lord Louis Francis Albert Victor Mountbatten expressed what he thought about the way he had done his job in India to BBC’s John Osmon in 1965. Thirty nine years later Osman says that though he dislikes using vulgar slang, the only honest way of reporting accurately what the last Viceroy said was “I fu….d it up”.
Stanley Wolpert concludes that both India and Pakistan are still saddled with the bitter legacies of Great Britain’s hasty, shameful flight.
http://rupeenews.com/2007/11/27/why-we-created-pakistan-the-pakistan-ideology/
Even after independence and even today the policies of India….Kashmir, East Pakistan, and now Baluchistan create more distance between the people of the Subcontinent. Had there been no issue of Kashmir, there would have been no wars. Think of the Subcontinent with 60 years of peace.
“Pakistan is a strong state held together solidly by the patriotism of its people and the strength of its civilian and military institutions. With a dynamic (7 percent) annual growth rate, significant foreign investment, the best performing stock exchange in Asia and the progressive reduction of poverty, all Pakistanis, including Pashtuns, Sindhis and Baluchis, are much better placed to achieve their aspirations within Pakistan, as they decided in 1947 through an irrevocable act of self-determination.
The machinations of external powers and their hired guns will not succeed.”
Munir Akram, Permanent Representative, Pakistan Mission to the U.N., New York, Feb. 1, 2008
Cracks are showing in “India”.
http://www.pakhistorian.com
Why we created Pakistan? History of Pakistan by Pakistan Historian
The Geographic Two Nation Theory. Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the “Indus Valley Civilization”
Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ??????? | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | 
Defensebriefs
Intellibriefs
Translate to: 
RSS feed: 
| RUPEE NEWS | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | ????? ????? | Save/Share
according to the comment of Moulana Azad, the pakistan was not inevitable.some greedy and power hungry leader made it inevitable. They did it mostly for the chair which is still matetr of concern among the leader of India, for chair leader can go any depth.
No pakistan was not inevitable initially but on the verge of independence so called leaders of our country created such a situation whish had no other option