What's new

Marching towards justice

I would call partition as India's fate.


Kashmir has always been the bone of contention between the 2 countries (ur's and mine!). But frankly I dont believe talks would ever get us to any solution, infact right now there's no solution to Kashmir unless one of the countries gives up its claim on Kashmir. The issue becomes a gargantuan one when we realise that kashmir is not just about the muslims living in Kashmir but also the Buddhists, Sikhs, hindus/kashmiri Pandits etc who also stay in that region.
I dont see peace in the region anytime soon.

Biplab had you not been a friend you would 've received a crisper answer for that, but otheriwse I think that there's nothing worth replying to in your vacuous post.


taking a dig at me eh??? Lolzzzz
You know what?
Sometimes it helps to read between lines and understand what a member (in this case me) has written. As they say "its better to keep shut and be thought as a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

@utraash where did I call Jinnah or Gandhi a secular that you felt the need to post a link for me to read?? First let me clear that only a state can be secular and NOT people.
Jinnah was a smart man, he knew that it was practically impossible to achieve a completely homogeneous state and so did the Indian leaders, ergo they(Jinnah and Nehru)had always said that they would protect the minorities. And the words in Lahore resolution "adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards” for minorities that would form a part of these “independent states” proves me right.
Our partition model was planned not to be a failure like the League of Nations Minority Treaties, that underpinned the formation of new European nation-states out of old multi-ethnic empires. It was desired that our partition be a success like internationally sanctioned, planned exchanges of populations between Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey, under the Treaties of Neuilly and Lausanne in 1919 and 1923.
But unfortunately things did not go as planned!
In my very personal opinion partition, should 've never happened but like Dr.Ambedkar rightly identified the problem as the existence of majorities and minorities, which he called “the crying evils of the day”, and ergo it was a reasonable solution in his view to create the create homogenous nation-states.
I am quoting Ambedkar here because it was his article which was published after the Lahore Resolution which made a significant impact(not that Lahore resolution didnt!).

Read between the lines. he he he
 
Then u must have understood what I mean. everything can not be discussed on open table. Also I have to increase my post count.
I understood for a fact that with your posts on this thread you were taking digs at me....rest doesnt matter. :)
 
I would call partition as India's fate.


Kashmir has always been the bone of contention between the 2 countries (ur's and mine!). But frankly I dont believe talks would ever get us to any solution, infact right now there's no solution to Kashmir unless one of the countries gives up its claim on Kashmir. The issue becomes a gargantuan one when we realise that kashmir is not just about the muslims living in Kashmir but also the Buddhists, Sikhs, hindus/kashmiri Pandits etc who also stay in that region.
I dont see peace in the region anytime soon.

Biplab had you not been a friend you would 've received a crisper answer for that, but otheriwse I think that there's nothing worth replying to in your vacuous post.


taking a dig at me eh??? Lolzzzz
You know what?
Sometimes it helps to read between lines and understand what a member (in this case me) has written. As they say "its better to keep shut and be thought as a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

@utraash where did I call Jinnah or Gandhi a secular that you felt the need to post a link for me to read?? First let me clear that only a state can be secular and NOT people.
Jinnah was a smart man, he knew that it was practically impossible to achieve a completely homogeneous state and so did the Indian leaders, ergo they(Jinnah and Nehru)had always said that they would protect the minorities. And the words in Lahore resolution "adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards” for minorities that would form a part of these “independent states” proves me right.
Our partition model was planned not to be a failure like the League of Nations Minority Treaties, that underpinned the formation of new European nation-states out of old multi-ethnic empires. It was desired that our partition be a success like internationally sanctioned, planned exchanges of populations between Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey, under the Treaties of Neuilly and Lausanne in 1919 and 1923.
But unfortunately things did not go as planned!
In my very personal opinion partition, should 've never happened but like Dr.Ambedkar rightly identified the problem as the existence of majorities and minorities, which he called “the crying evils of the day”, and ergo it was a reasonable solution in his view to create the create homogenous nation-states.
I am quoting Ambedkar here because it was his article which was published after the Lahore Resolution which made a significant impact(not that Lahore resolution didnt!).
I was just seeking your opinion on secular credentials of both so called Messiah....
Ambedkar was pragmatic about the problem so sided with jinnah ..... N partition was best thing happened in SA else the same diseases would have attributed to a fail state(Undivided India) on the verge of breaking up into pieces.....
 
@
Slav Defence

1.Sorry, this had escaped my attention earlier.
2. The Marxists analyze a targeted society in terms of Dialectic Materialism in determining the revolutionary course to be adopted. Such study of a society is really an exact science. History, sociocultural and economy are major items to be considered. Marxists had selected British colony of India for their first revolution. Being a colony of imperialist capitalists was a major factor considered. The earliest communist top brass included S Asians like Muzaffar Ahmed, M.N. Roy, S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed, Nalini Gupta, Shaukat Usmani, Singaravelu Chettiar, Ghulam Hussain and R.C. Sharma, etc. However Marxism failed to take off in SA. The Communist ideologues had not researched enough on the iron-hold of cast system over the predominant community, namely Hindus. To the minority Muslims any godless ideology was anathema.
3. A Marxist analysis of each groups/segments/regions of SA would be interesting to understand our political situation. Landed aristocracy and tribalism have hold on all except in BD, W Bengal, Kerala and TN. However, industrial bourgeois class and a greedy politico bureaucratic class holds sway over entire SA. Pakistanis might find some answers in analyzing these.
 
@
Slav Defence

1.Sorry, this had escaped my attention earlier.
2. The Marxists analyze a targeted society in terms of Dialectic Materialism in determining the revolutionary course to be adopted. Such study of a society is really an exact science. History, sociocultural and economy are major items to be considered. Marxists had selected British colony of India for their first revolution. Being a colony of imperialist capitalists was a major factor considered. The earliest communist top brass included S Asians like Muzaffar Ahmed, M.N. Roy, S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed, Nalini Gupta, Shaukat Usmani, Singaravelu Chettiar, Ghulam Hussain and R.C. Sharma, etc. However Marxism failed to take off in SA. The Communist ideologues had not researched enough on the iron-hold of cast system over the predominant community, namely Hindus. To the minority Muslims any godless ideology was anathema.
3. A Marxist analysis of each groups/segments/regions of SA would be interesting to understand our political situation. Landed aristocracy and tribalism have hold on all except in BD, W Bengal, Kerala and TN. However, industrial bourgeois class and a greedy politico bureaucratic class holds sway over entire SA. Pakistanis might find some answers in analyzing these.
Sir,
Pakistan was created with aim to provide safe homeland to Muslims where we could freely practice our religion and law.It was also part of our agenda to provide safeguard to minorities.The constitution of 1971 was specially designed to re define the objective and infrastructure of law and justice system.
Things went nasty when these well defined laws were failed to be implemented properly due to corruption and injustice. Plus,all those challenges which were being faced by Pakistan right after her creation were other major causes as a result if which Pakistan is going through such crisis recently.
What Pakistan currently requires is effective implementation of all laws so proposed to assure provision of safeguards of our people.
Regards
 
Back
Top Bottom