myth of indian independence ?

[BJP*]

you mean to say indian independce day is 21 June 1948 when Louis Mountbatten give power to Jawaharlal Nehru??????

---------- Post added at 02:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 AM ----------



ha ha heights of stupidity....
India is a nation of developments yo

if you failed to understand its better not to comment and become joke

Indian leaders chose to transfer the power slowly so that it would be easy to handle the vast nation....
do you think any one could handle such the vast nation when all the powers are transferred at once
look at your nation, still fighting with everyone inside and outside the boundries, looks you are yet to achive independence

India is a land of developments
which of the dates would you consider as the date of independence
26, jan 1950- before this date country was governed by british laws
1961- before this year one or the other part of the country was under European power
2001- after this year india is in her present political structure after carving out 3 states (Uttrakhand, chatisgarh and jharkhand)
August 2011- Anna declared second war of independence against corruption and its followers and won the peaceful batter in the same month

all of the above dates are important to Indian political history, as i said all these dates are developments including the one you described above..
India was not born on 15/14 august 1945 only pakistan did. there is different meaning of "Independence" in your country and our country

 

[ranja]

still laws in your country and mine are same, its same British legacy, for how long govt of india act 35 remained by its name is not the point... however what you choose on the day was to be loyal to the british crown, while Jinnah amended it. thats the whole point...and ofcourse india also choose a British governor general...

So in other words you say India chose Mountbaten therefore it becomes loyal to the crown? Take for example a corporate from US or EU appointing an Indian or Pakistani as its Chairman does tht company become loyal to the land where its head comes from? NO...a country is governed by set of laws and principles which India got in 1950 and Pakistan in 1956 till then both countries were dependent on crown some way or the other (none had constitution of its own). When it comes to omitting sentence or words from speech how do we determine when we don't have the orgonal text in front of us? If Jinnah did take oath of allegiance to contitution of Pakistan - what constitution - that didnt even exist? at that time constitution of Pkaistan was Govt. of India Act. 1935 till you got one in 56. Please I'l be very thankful to you if you provide the text of the oaths. Thanks

 

[Leader]

So in other words you say India chose Mountbaten therefore it becomes loyal to the crown? Take for example a corporate from US or EU appointing an Indian or Pakistani as its Chairman does tht company become loyal to the land where its head comes from? NO...a country is governed by set of laws and principles which India got in 1950 and Pakistan in 1956 till then both countries were dependent on crown some way or the other (none had constitution of its own). When it comes to omitting sentence or words from speech how do we determine when we don't have the orgonal text in front of us? If Jinnah did take oath of allegiance to contitution of Pakistan - what constitution - that didnt even exist? at that time constitution of Pkaistan was Govt. of India Act. 1935 till you got one in 56. Please I'l be very thankful to you if you provide the text of the oaths. Thanks

both, not only by words, but by action/dealing or whatever you may like to call it....

your example is wrong, even your father wont appoint you Chairperson of his company, unless he plans to give his assets to you in his life.... he may make you CEO, Chairperson is owner.

yes, that constitution never existed at that time but change of words show that he never showed loyalty to the British Crown, neither by words, nor by actions...

 

[ranja]

both, not only by words, but by action/dealing or whatever you may like to call it....

your example is wrong, even your father wont appoint you Chairperson of his company, unless he plans to give his assets to you in his life.... he may make you CEO, Chairperson is owner.

yes, that constitution never existed at that time but change of words show that he never showed loyalty to the British Crown, neither by words, nor by actions...

Chairperson maybe the wrong word i chose, CEO is the right one that i must have used in my last reply. One side you say actions and other side Pakistani state heads, PM, was invited and titled at par with other dominion that had allegiance to the crown, Canada, Australia etc. and Pakistanis accepted those invitations and acted on those as on the crowning of the Queen.
Sorry for asking again for the original text of the oath. Does it exist or is lost as the original copy of Pakistani constitution from 70:s?

 

[Leader]

Chairperson maybe the wrong word i chose, CEO is the right one that i must have used in my last reply. One side you say actions and other side Pakistani state heads, PM, was invited and titled at par with other dominion that had allegiance to the crown, Canada, Australia etc. and Pakistanis accepted those invitations and acted on those as on the crowning of the Queen.
Sorry for asking again for the original text of the oath. Does it exist or is lost as the original copy of Pakistani constitution from 70:s?

yes, and CEO with oath of loyalty to the British Crown (Chairperson), what does that mean ?
then comes why make him the CEO (governor general) when you could have made him an advisor ?? was it really your choice ?? or would you now like to go with Fateh's view ?
obviously it would be there in some Museum custody, copies and details can be found in libraries...no issue whatsoever.

 

[ranja]

As I said earlier there are no doubts about India being ruled as dominion til jan 50 and Pakistan til 56. about the oath i'l wait for the text to see which parts did jinnah ommit. the only omission i found was that what i stated earlier by zahid chaudry.if you have any link to credible source on net which shows jinnahs omission pls provide that.

 

[Leader]

As I said earlier there are no doubts about India being ruled as dominion til jan 50 and Pakistan til 56. about the oath i'l wait for the text to see which parts did jinnah ommit. the only omission i found was that what i stated earlier by zahid chaudry.if you have any link to credible source on net which shows jinnahs omission pls provide that.

you can believe whatever pleases you, but the fact remains the same that Jinnah didnot take oath of loyalty, for the record Jinnah didnot join AIML uptill the article from AIML constitution of loyalty to British Crown was removed in 1913, rather it was Jinnah who proposed the article to be removed, anyways the constitutional procedure were not violated in course of doing it, S. Mehmood a Great Historian has discussed it in detail and so many other authors... on the other hand the Indians not only accepted to take oath of loyalty to the british but also made a governor general who was himself a British born white man as their leader. which quite significantly give rise to the view of collaboration between INC and the British Viceroy.

 

[ranja]

So can you believe in whatever pleases you. In 1906, Jinnah joined the Indian National Congress, which was the largest Indian political organization. Like most of the Congress at the time, Jinnah did not favour outright independence, considering British influences on education, law, culture and industry as beneficial to India.Jinnah was in favour of dominion from the begining and it was only in 1930 that Muhamad Iqbal put forth theory of seperate state, not Jinnah. Didn't he that he use to sit on a chair with british insignia carved on it?

 

[Leader]

So can you believe in whatever pleases you. In 1906, Jinnah joined the Indian National Congress, which was the largest Indian political organization. Like most of the Congress at the time, Jinnah did not favour outright independence, considering British influences on education, law, culture and industry as beneficial to India.Jinnah was in favour of dominion from the begining and it was only in 1930 that Muhamad Iqbal put forth theory of seperate state, not Jinnah. Didn't he that he use to sit on a chair with british insignia carved on it?

in fact it was the only political party at that time made by the A.O Hume, ex Civil servant...

leverage is not granted, its taken...and thats what Jinnah did throughout his constitutional struggle..