1. Provisions of the CMP are not taught in schools, would not find school text books(Hindi or Urdu)..most of the information is only available on web sites, like the one you copy-pasted your information from.
Main Provisions of the Cabinet Mission Plan
2. First and fore most flaw in the plan(incidentally information that is not mentioned in the article you pasted) was "Separate electorates for Muslims"
ie. Muslim voters will only vote for Muslim candidates.
Now do tell, why would some one opt for such an obvious idiocracy...where a voter is forced to choose his representative based on his religion.
3.Second flaw in the plan, was dissolution of power..instead of having..one strong center ..you create multiple power centers..resulting in pure chaos in the country..few years later each state power center asking for autonomy..more resources and finally independence.
And do tell why should Muslims be give preferential treatment and not Sikhs and Christians?? Why should rules of democracy be bent to appease Muslims?
Finally also do tell..if CMP was such an "ideal Utopia" ..why didn't the newly independent state of Pakistan implement its provisions in its own country??
You guys are only good for demanding more rights, more power when you are minority and not giving them, when you are in Majority?..Why weren't separate electorates created for Pakistani minorities?
Why wasn't there dissolution of power b/w East and West Pakistan..why was there a single power center(West Pakistan) in your country after Independence?
Sir Salute you for the brilliant post.
for me, my simple mind tells me.
everyone should forger about religion. SIMPLE.
State function should be irreligious.
Personal life is your choice.
So no favours to anyone from the STATE which is irreligious in function - that is democracy.
if muslims demanding anything based on religion, then the very idea of democracy means every religion should get it. WHY ONLY MUSLIMS? why not Sikhs why not hindus why not christians why not atheists why not jains why not buddhists should have separate electorates?
My simple mind tells me in democracy there is no place for any religious benefits being conferred on any particular religion by the STATE Legislature.
So rejecting of the plan was right by Nehru. I hate even the idea of muslim reservation in jobs which some parties wanted to give in India. I just hate any religion based rule.
I say to these ministers Give 3 times more reservation to the economically backward then u r giving to muslims, but dont divide my country on reliious lines.
Also in democracy there is no place for ISLAMIC rule or Shariah as Pakistan has today. Nor would such demands have been acceptable in India as arer not today if there was no division. Now it is difficult to say how many Pakistanis today would or could imagine to live in a country where there is no FAVOURITISM to muslims and where all religions are equal and a country which is non RELIGIOUS in its affairs and where there is no Islamic rule and no Shariah rules.
Democracy has no place to favour even 99% majority nor .01% minority population. When democracy looks down on us immortals it sees only human flesh and blood, so all same and no other difference.
So I am against any rule in favour of particular religion, and I find the demand that give SUCH UNDEMOCRATIC rights like separate electorate and reservation to muslims and others like that as a blackmail to Nehru to prevent division of India. But Nehru did right by sticking to the PRINCIPLES of DEMOCRACY.
It is like a true police officer would loose his job rather then to accept order from his senior to not imprison a criminal who is close to his boss. Well done Nehru in not accepting any biased rules and upholding the rights of equality for one and all in India.
I hate anyone who says give this to someone coz of his religion in my country. i keep repeating and I will stand by it always.. STATE SHOULD BE IRRELIGIOUS IN DEMOCRACY..
state and religion should NEVER be mixed.
If Pakistanis want to and can live as any other ordinary citizen of hindustan with same rights as any other person, then there would have been no need for the request for division. There was no point in even thinking about it.
Sikhs are doing so well when they are not even 2% of Indian population. they dominate in almost any sphere of life. DOES ANYONE HERE THINK THAT SKIHS ARE NOT WELL OFF IN INDIA? Mind it they are not EVEN 2%.
So this is planely foolish that 40% muslims would be under the rule of Hindus. WRONG. In India not even a community which is just 2% of population is subjugated, simply because
MOST IMPORTANTLY THERE IS NO DESIRE to do anything like this.
Secondly the state doesnt allow to do this under the democratic constitution.
SO no way 40% of muslims would be discriminated. Firstly no desire, secondly 40% is too big, thirdly the State Constitution would not allow it.
Yes but at the same time Muslims would not have been given any favouritism. SO if they come around and say that there is no shariah rule and therefore it is discrimination against us by Hindus then it is not acceptable and obviously it has nothing to do with discrimination but their own desire to see the STATE HAVE A RELIGIOUS ROLE, which is something not acceptable in democracy and not accepting this is not discrimination.!!
