India_Pakistan_union

Nothing is new under the sun- India- Pakistan Union Group
The need of the hour by putting an end upon Religious fanatism- Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate, High Court
Risk ! Risk anything ! care no more for opinion of other , for those voice. D the hardest thing on the earth for your Act for yourself, Face the truth. Inherited wealth is a big handicap to happiness. It is as certain death to ambition, as cocaine is to morality. Anybody can become angry that is easy . but to be angry with the right person and to right degree, and at the right time and for the right purpose and in the right way that is not within everybody and is not easy. Happy the man who has learned the causes of things and has put under his feet all fears and inexorable fate , and the noisy strife of the Hell of greed. It is not the brain that matter most, but that which guides them the character, the heart, generous qualities, progressive ideas. Compared with our wondrous progress in physical science and practical applications our system of government , of the administration of justice, of national education and our whole social and moral organization remains in the state of barbarism. The wealth and knowledge and culture of few do not constitute civilization and do not of themselves advance us toward the “ Perfect social state” Our political democracy is more authoritarian because it can push its authority under the mask of representative Government .Parliamentarian Democracy has the authority deviated through mass meeting negating property rights to the masses will of the representative to formulate law against masses governed by passion, prejudice and impulsive without bothering its consequences resulting in agitation discontent and anarchy. When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near. National injustice is the swept road to national downfall. A kingdom founded on injustice never last. persons would disintegrate the rule of law upon which the edifice of our civilized society stands.

Partition of India was purely a political game fought with a mark of religious fundamentalism the speech of Quaid Azam Zinnah on 11-08-1947 who vehemently advocated the two nation theory was enunciated the Government of Pakistan policy has also realised the folly committed in accepting partition on communal lines in these words:
“If you change your past and work together in spirit that every one of you , no matter what community he belongs to, no matter what his colour , caste or creed , is first , second and last , a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligation there will be no end to the progress you will make. I cannot emphasise it too much ; we should begin to work in that spirit , and in course of time , all these angularities , of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community , because even as regards Muslims, you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias , Sunnis, and so on and among the Hindus you have Brahmins , Vaishnavas, Khatris also Bengalis Madrasi’s and so on , will vanish. You may go to your temples, Mosques or any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state …….We are starting with the fundamental principle that we all citizens and equal citizens of one State….”
The general expectations that by accepting partition of India , communal madness would subside and peace would prevail and both countries would live like good neighbours and friends, were belied immediately on the wake of partition , in human tale of woe and misery followed communal hatred ., madness, barbarism and its free hands both in Pakistan and India according to an estimate about 6 lacs people lost their lives and 14 lacs had lost their homes. The religious fanatism spread over the Indian continent in bitterness and repeated the story of shame and barbarity. Large scale exodus of refugees and their rehabilitation , subsequent three wars fought with severity loosing the life of many patriot living in both the sub continent, river water dispute and still continuing to create fresh problems of terrorism and sabotage with hostility and mutual suspicion in the inhabitants living between the two states, large scale violence , regional problem are the direct out come and the after effect the partition of India

India -A country having a constitution on which galaxy of fundamental rights to its citizens is now being ruled with governance through laissez faire, a policy with political set-up having co-ordination with divisive forces for economic social and national oppression of the people at large where about 50% of the population are still illiterate after 50 years of independence. The people are enjoying the fundamental right without any enforceable fundamental duties.
There are virtually no individual fundamental right except the right conferred under article 19 of the constitution of India , rest are the fundamental duties of the state which are likely to be enforced for the protection of its citizen. By the gradual advancement of the judicial activism , the basic fundamental duties embodied in our constitution, have now been regarded as enforceable rights of the citizen without taking into consideration as to whether the person , who is coming forward for seeking the enforcement of such duties by the state , may actually deserve for such enforcement under an equitable discretionary jurisdiction of the constitutional courts in India. This is a basic flow in the process of judicial verdict. There is the need that the impact and implementation of the law which is primarily concerned with a social science , may be able to achieve its objective the concept and the guarantees enshrined under article 14 having two connotation ,i.e equality before the law and the equal protection of the law are not the same phraseology, although they appears to serve a common objective to eradicate the social evils of inequalities and discrimination. Thus Article 14 has a pervasive potency and a versatile quality, equilitarian in its soul, but allergic to discriminatory dictates. It is well known that equality is anti-thesis to arbitrariness. Since the licence may not be given to a blind man to drive a car, how worthwhile it may be to give the similar licence to a criminal to do every sort of atrocities being committed by indulging into the crime of the innocent people. There are inherent restrictions applicable for the enforcement of the individual personal right under article 19, which empowers the state to enforce reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right of the people in the interest of sovereignty , integrity of India security of the state, friendly relations with foreign state , public order , decency or morality etc. including the incitement to an offence pertaining to the reasonable restrictions regarding freedom of speech and expression , to assemble ,to form associations and freedom to reside and move freely throughout the territory of India. By the constitution (first amendment ) Act 1951 ,there have been further restrictions to practice any profession , or to carry on any occupation, trade or business for professional or technical qualification as well as carrying on any occupation , trade or business by the state and its instrumentality to the exclusion , complete or partial , of citizens. Thus the question arises as to whether there may not be a valid test of classification based on qualities or characteristics necessarily coupled with the object of legislation based on intelligible differential which has certain nexus with the realities of the time to dealt with the law and order situation by providing necessary restriction over the unchecked liberty granted to the individual detrimental to its integrity and sovereignty for prohibition to avail the benefit of equality clause by taking the rescue for forbid classification. . there cannot be any enforceable fundamental right to an individual for indulging in anti national activities .Thus the verdict given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minerva Mills limited Vs union of India (1980 3 SCC 625 is required to be reviewed for effective enforcement of the duties caste upon the citizen by passing through the test of “Form and Object” and “Pith and Substance” to mould and replace by the test of “Direct and Inevitable” effect.
With the demand for local self government the tempo of national movement gain movement gain momentum , thus the government of India act 1909 Known as Morely Minto Act was passed by the parliament of England. Then came the first world war 1914 in which the people of India forgetting all differences , co-operated in anticipation of self government and Home rule after the war . This was done on the basis of pronouncement in parliament on 20th August 1917 regarding assurance as per policy of British government for granting responsible government by providing for the increasing association of Indians cocuy branch of Indian administration and for gradual development of self governing institution with a vision to progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of British empire and there after quit of India. Act 1919 was passed by the parliament. The governor general issue ordinance which were to have the free of law for six months. The Indian people had expected much more and men co-operation , civil discipline disobedience movements and terrorist activities started . Inspired communal riots insisted the necessity to send statutory commission popularity knew as Simon commission for England in 1927 to study the problems which was boycotted by Indian national congress. The commission submitted its report vehemently condemning diarchy which was discussed at round Table conference led to the government of India Act !935. Sir Stafford Cripps made negations with the acceptance that the elected body of Indians should frame the Indian constitution and for the purpose cabinet mission was send to assist the viceroy in setting up the constitution and to mediate between the congress and Muslim league. The plan was made public on May 16, 1946. India was to remain one state with the central government power to empire to Foreign affairs, communication and defence. The provinces would be grenped geographically into three regions, are predominantly Hindu other Muslim and third nearly equal population of the communities. Both Congress and Muslim League accepted the cabinet mission plan .
Government of India Act 1935 has provided separate electorate and communal representation in the central and provincial legislature. To strengthen hands of all India Muslim league that critical stage in 1945 , British Government had decided to hold general election both for central legislative assembly and provincial legislature under the government of India Act 1935. In that high pitch of communal frenzy, the result was foregone conclusion.
Elections to the central legislative assembly was held first. The results of election to the to the central legislative assembly were known towards the end of December 1945. The congress won overwhelming success in the general constituencies while Muslim league won all the Muslim seats. The nationalist Muslims mostly forfeited their deposits in many constituencies. Congress secured 91.3%of the votes cast in Non Mohammedan constituencies and the Muslim league got 86.6 % of the total votes cast in Mohammedan constituencies.
The Final Figures were
Congress …………….57
Muslim League …………30
independents ……………5
Alkali Sikhs ……………2
European ……………8
Total elected seats……….102
Elections to the provincial legislature followed shortly. The results in the different provinces may be summed to as follows :
i) Sindh The Muslim league won 27 seats and one independent member joined it after the election. The congress won 21 seats but was joined by seven members belonging to two other group And by one independent labour members . Although the congress coalition commanded a majority of one over the Muslim league. The leader of the league was asked to form a ministry by the Governor.
ii) N.W.F.P : The Congress won 30 seats (Including 19 Muslim seats ) while the Muslim league got only 16 Dr.Khan Saheb formed congress ministry.
iii) Punjab out of 175 seats the result of the election were as follows :
1)Muslim league 75
2)Congress 51
3)Akali Dal 22
4)Unionist 20
5)Independents 7
There were some changes after the elections ,Congress and Akali Sikhs formed a working alliance and invited Muslim league to join it. But the negotiation failed . Eventually a coalition was formed between Congress, Alkali Sikhs and unionist , under Mr. Khizar Hyat Khan who formed the ministry .
iv) Bengal :Out of 250 seats , the Muslim league won only 113 seats and the congress 87 seats. Mr. H. S. Shuhrawardy the leader of the Muslim league negotiated with the Congress for a coalition , but being unsuccessful, formed a league ministry with the support of independent members .
v) In other Provinces of Bombay , Madras, U.P, Bihar and C.P the Muslim league captured 54,34 and 13 seats , out of the total Muslim seats numbering 66,40 and 14 respectively .
vi) The result of the election in the provinces confirmed the deductions made on the basis of the election to the central legislative assembly . They proved that the congress and the Muslim league were the only two parties that counted in the country ,representing respectively the Hindus and the Muslim communities, except in the N.W.F.P and Singh . But it is noticeable that the Muslim league could not get absolute majority anywhere , even in the Muslim Majority Provinces.
It is significant to note that apart from all other factors it is the diplomacy of the then British Rulers that was mainly responsible for partition of India. While leaving India their main attempt was to hustle everything with undue haste and to balkanise India into several political units. Ultimately India was partitioned into two states and leaving 500 and odd Indian states as independent units giving option to them either to join India or Pakistan as per their discretion . It is obvious that the British rulers wanted to keep always , a vast country like India, internally weak and divided ,as part of their global strategy and international power game .
On May 15 just before the despatch of the Cabinet delegation to India , Mr Attlee , the British Prime Minister, used these words ---
My colleagues are going to India with the intention of using their utmost endeavour to help her attain her freedom as speedily and fully as possible .What form of government is to replace the present regime is for India to forthwith the machinery fore making that decision
But if she does so elect it must be her own free will . The British commonwealth and empire is not bound together by chains of external compulsion. It is a free association of free peoples. If on the other she elects for independence, in our view she has a right to do so It will be for us to help to make the transition as smooth and easy as possible .
Charged in these historic words we - the cabinet ministers and the Viceroy have done our utmost to assist the two main political parties to reach agreement upon the fundamental issue of the unity or division of India After the prolonged discussion in New Delhi we succeeded in bringing the Muslim league together in conference at Simla .
The size of the non Muslim minorities in a Pakistan comprising the whole of six provinces enumerated above would be very considerable as the following figures show –
North western Area-----
Muslim Non Muslims
Punjab 16,217, 242 12,201, 577
North west frontier Provinces 2,788, 797 249,270
Sind 3,208, 325 1,326,683
British Baluchistan 438, 930 62,701
22653294 13840231
62.07% 37.93 %

North Eastern Area---
Bengal 33005434 27301 091
Assam 3442479 6762254
36447913 34063345

( Based on Census 1941)
These figures show that the setting up of a separate Sovereign state of Pakistan on the lines claimed by the Muslim League would not solve the communal minority problem ; nor can we see any justification for including within a sovereign Pakistan those districts of Punjab and Assam and Bengal in which the population is predominantly non Muslim. Every argument that can be used in favour of Pakistan can equally in our view be used in favour of exclusion of Non- Muslims area in Pakistan. This point particularly affect the position of Sikhs.
Six major proposals
Common case recommended that the constitution should take the following basic form -
1)There should be a union of India , embracing both British India and the states which should deal with the following subjects :-- Foreign Affairs ; defence and communication ; and should have the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above subjects
2) The Union should have an executive and a legislature constituted from British Indian and states representatives Any question raising a major communal issue in the legislature should require for its decision a majority of the representatives present and voting of each of the two major communities as well as a majority of all the members present and voting.
3) All subjects other than the union subjects and all residuary powers should vest in the provinces.
4) The states will retain all subjects and the powers other than those ceded to the union.
5) Provinces should be free to form Groups with executives and legislatures , and each group could determine the provincial subjects to be taken in common
6) The constitutions of the union and of the groups contains a provision whereby any province could by a majority , vote of its legislative assembly call for a reconsideration of the terms of the constitution after an initial period of 10 years and at 10 yearly intervals thereafter.

After careful consideration conclusion was that the fairest and most practicable plan would be
a) To allot to each province a total number of seats proportional to its population, roughly in the ratio of one to a million , as the nearest substitute for representation by the adult suffrage.
b) To divide this provincial allocation of seats between the main communities in each province in proportion to their population .
c) To provide that the representative are allotted to each community in a province shall be elected by the members of that community in its legislative assembly.

Table of representation

Section A
Province General Muslim Total
Madras 45 4 49
Bombay 19 2 21
United Provinces 47 8 55
Bihar 31 5 36
Central Provinces 16 1 17
Orrisa 9 0 9
Total 167 20 187

Section B
Province General Muslim Sikh Total
Punjab 8 16 4 28
N.W.F.P 0 3 0 3
Sind 1 3 0 4
Total 9 22 4 35

Section C
Province General Muslim Total
Bengal 27 33 60
Assam 7 3 10
Total 34 36 70

Total for British India .. 292
Maximum for Indian states .. 93
385

Viceroy’s broadcast (May 17 , 1946)
I wonder whether you realise that this is the greatest and most momentous experiment in government in the whole history of the world –a new constitution to control the destiny of 400,000,000 people . A grave responsibility indeed on all of us who are privileged to assist in making it.
Lastly I must emphasise the seriousness of the choice before you . It is the choice between peaceful construction or the disorder of civil strife , between ordered progress or confusion . I am sure you will not hesitate in your choice for co-operation .
May I end with some words which were quoted by one great man to the other at a crisis of the late war , and may well be applied to India at this crisis ?
Thou too , sail on , O ship of the state ,
Sail on , O Union , strong and great :
Humanity with all its fears
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate.’

Letter from the president of the Muslim league to Lord Pethick -Lawrence , dated May 8 , 1946

I have now receive the letter of your private Secretary , dated May 8 ,1946 and the enclosed document to which you had referred in your letter of May 8, 1946 .
It is proposed by you that this paper be discussed at the next meeting of the conference to be held on Thursday afternoon at 3 p.m
if this is agreeable to the Muslim league delegation .
Your proposal embodied in your letter of April 27, 1946 , runs as follows :
“A union government dealing with the following subject -----Foreign Affairs ,Defence and Communications . There will be two groups of the provinces , the one of the predominantly Hindu provinces and the other of the predominantly Muslim provinces , dealing with all other subjects which the provinces in the respective groups desire to be dealt with in common The provincial government will deal with all other subjects and will have all residuary sovereign rights”

Mr Jinnah speaks on the Mission’s proposal
(May 22 , 1946)
I have now before me the statement of the British cabinet delegation and the viceroy dated May 15 .Before I deal with it I should like to give a background of the discussion that took place at Simla from May 5 onwards till the conference were declared concluded and its breakdown announced in the official communiqué dated May 12.
We met in conference on May 5 to consider the formula of embodied in letter of the secretary of state of India dated April 27 inviting the league representatives
The formula was as follows :
A Union government dealing with the following subjects :foreign affairs, defence and communications. There will be two groups of provinces the one of the predominantly Hindu provinces and the other of the predominantly Muslim provinces dealing with the all other subjects which the provinces in the respective group desire to be dealt with in common. The provincial governments will deal with all other subjects and will have all the residuary sovereign rights.
MUSLIM LEAGUE DEMANDS
Muslim league position was that :
Firstly the zones comprising Bengal and Assam in the north -east and the Punjab , the N.W.F.P, Sind and Baluchistan in the north west of India constituted Pakistan zones and should be constituted as a sovereign , independent State and that an unequivocal undertaking be given to implement the establishment of Pakistan without delay .
Secondly, that separate constitution making bodies be set-up by the people of Pakistan and Hindustan for the purpose of framing their respective constitution.
Thirdly , that the minorities in Pakistan and Hindustan be provided with safeguards on the lines of the Lahore resolution.
Fourthly, that the acceptance of the league demand and its implementation without delay were a sine qua non for league co-operation and participation in the formation of an interim Government at the centre.
Fifthly, it gave a warning to the British Government against any attempt to impose a federal constitution on a united India basis or forcing any interim arrangement at the centre contrary to the league demand and that Muslim India would resist if any attempt to impose it were made. Besides such an attempt would be the grossest breach of faith of the declaration of his Majesty’s Government made in August 1940 with the approval of the British Parliament and subsequent pronouncement by the Secretary of State for India and other responsible British statesmen from time to time reaffirming the August declaration.
Hindu Mahasabha’s ‘resolution’
The All India committee of Hindu Mahasabha notes that the fundamental principles of the Hindu Mahasabha, namely the unity and integrity of India , has been accepted only in theory by the cabinet Mission by their proposal for the formation of one Indian union and by their rejection of Pakistan. But the committee regrets that in practise this has been whittled down and the apprehension of the communal domination of the Muslims has been unduly exaggerated , although the apprehension of the minority in the Muslim majority area has been totally ignored. The Hindus , as such have no existence in the political scheme of the mission and have been lumped together with others under the misleading category of “General”
The Mahasabha has opposed Pakistan or the partition of India into two entire sovereign states not on sectional or communal grounds but in the interest of India as a whole . The Central Government as envisaged in the cabinet Mission proposal will be too weak. To pull her full weight in the international world.
The committee reiterates its demands for the formation of a strong central Government to check and control the disruptive forces in the Indian body politic and to pool all national resources for effective planning in order to prevent the economic exploitation of the poor masses. World security is linked up with the building up and maintenance of a really free and prosperous India . That object can never be achieved with a truncated centre and a hybrid constitution based on artificial grouping of the provinces with residuary powers vested in them. Those provinces will then be in a position to put up tariff walls and to clog the progress of India in the social and economic fields. In order to make effective any large scale economic and administrative and to prevent the disintegration of India after the withdrawal of the British power of India , it is essential that the centre should be strong enough and should be clothed with constitutional authority to deal with customs tariffs currency , banking , and other subjects should have authority to intervene in cases of emergency minority oppression or inter-provincial deadlock and to co-ordinate All India resources to fight famine and pestilence .
The Mahasabha cannot accept any constitution which negatives in actual practise , the salutary principle of India’s integrity. It stands for an indissoluble union of provinces which may be re-constituted on cultural and linguistic basis.
The dominant idea lies behind the cabinet mission is to appease the Muslim league to the detriment of all other minorities .
The Mahasabha is opposed to a complicated machinery which seeks too set-up a three Decker constitution and which will place the Hindus of Punjab ,Bengal , Assam , Sind and the N.W.F.Province as well as the entire Sikh community at the mercy of Pakistanis and which will not provide any acceptable solution of the communal of the communal problem. The injustice done to the Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab, Bengal and Assam is further intensified by reason of the fact that these are vast areas in these provinces which are predominantly non Muslim .
The committee demands that the artificial systems of grouping and the sub federation should be withdrawn . The constitution should be framed on the recognition of the principle of the sovereignty of the people. There should be one constituent assembly which will frame the constitution of the provinces . We are opposed to introduction of the principle of regionalism based on communalism and to the grant of residuary powers to the provinces. The Mahasabha is also opposed to the pernicious principle of the parity in any shape or form .
The committee notes that one of the principles for which the hindu Mahasabha stood , viz. representation on the basis of population strength has been recognised by the cabinet mission in the constitution of the constituent assembly which is based on principle of one representative for one million people But this very principle has been vitiated in allowing the European members of Bengal and Assam Legislative assemblies to vote for or stand as candidates for the constituent Assembly . Thus of Hindu members of these assemblies will be deprived of their own choice in proportion to their population.
The committee demands that the sovereign status of the constitution assembly should be recognised so that Indians may frame a constitution for themselves. The minority must not be allowed to veto the progress of the majority or to retard the building up of a healthy , self sufficient and prosperous India.
The Committee records its emphatic opinion that the scheme is inspired by the pro Muslim league tendencies of the British government, strengthened by the policy of appeasement pursued by the congress. The scheme is unacceptable to the Mahasabha unless it is modified in respect of the fundamental defects enumerated in this resolution .
The committee calls upon the Hindu status to realise the danger inherent in these proposals and urges upon them to mobilise the public opinion effectively so that these proposals are not implemented , unless suitably modified in order to meet the aspiration of a free and united Hindustan.
The committee cannot accept the basis on which the interim government has been constituted by the viceroy . The principle of parity between caste Hindus and Muslims which formed part of the Wavell plan in June 1945 has been received and thrust upon the country . This was condemned by the Mahasabha as antidemocratic and anti Hindu . Besides it runs counter to the principle of representation on population strength applied by the cabinet mission itself to the composition of the constituent assembly .

Resolution of the congress working committee
(April 2, 1942)
The working committee have given their full and earnest consideration to the proposals made by the British War cabinet in regard to India and the elucidation thereof by Sir Stafford Cripps . These proposals , which have been made at very last hour because of compulsion of events , have to be considered not only in relation to India’s demand for independence, but more especially in the present grave war crisis with a view to meeting effectively the perils and dangers that confronts India and envelops the world.
The congress has repeatedly stated , ever since the commencement of the war in September 1939, that the people of India would line themselves up with the progressive forces of the world and assume full responsibility to face the new problems and the shoulder the new burdens that had arisen , and it asked for necessary conditions to enable them to do so to be created . An essential condition was the freedom of India , for only the realisation of the present freedom could light the flame which would illumine millions of hearts and move them to action. At the last meeting of the all India congress committee , after the commencement of the war in the pacific , it was stated that “only a free and independent India can be in a position to under take defence of the country on a national basis and be of help in the furtherance of the larger causes that are emerging from the storm of war”
The British War cabinet ‘s new proposals relate principally to the future upon the cessation of the hostilities . The committee , while recognising that self determination for the people of India is accepted in the principle in that uncertain future , regret that this is fettered and circumscribed and certain provisions have been introduced which gravely imperil the development of a free and united nation and the establishment of a democratic state. Even the constitution body is so constituted that the people’s right to self determination is viated by the introduction of non-representative elements . The people of India have a whole clearly demanded full independence and the congress has repeatedly declared that no other status except that of independence for the whole of India could be agreed to or could meet the essential requirement of the present situation. The committee recognise that future independence may be implicit in the proposals, but the accompanying provisions and restrictions are such that real freedom may well become an illusion. The complete ignoring of the ninety millions of the Indian states and their treatment as commodities at the disposal of their rulers is a negation of both democracy and self determination . While the representation of an India state in the constitution - making body is fixed on a population basis , the people of the state have no voice in choosing those representative, nor are they to be consulted at any stage , while decisions vitally affecting them are being taken . Such states may in many ways become barriers to the growth of Indian freedom , enclaves where foreign authority still prevails and where the possibility of maintaining foreign armed forces has been stated to be a likely contingency, and a perpetual menace to the freedom of people of the states as well as of the rest of India .The acceptance beforehand of the novel principle of non accession for a Province is also a severe blow to the conception of Indian unity and an apple of discord likely to generate growing trouble in the Provinces , and which may well lead to further difficulties in the way of Indian states merging themselves in Indian Union. The congress has been wedded to Indian freedom and unity and any break in that unity especially in the modern world when people’s minds inevitably think in terms of ever larger federation , would be injurious to all concerned and exceedingly painful to contemplate .Nevertheless the committee cannot think in terms of compelling the people in any territorial unit to remain in an Indian unit against there declared and established will. While recognising this principle , the committee feel that every effort should be made to create condition which would help the different unit in developing a common and co-operative national life . The acceptance of the principle inevitably involves that no charges should be made which result in fresh problems being created and compulsion being exercised on other substantial groups within that area . Each territorial unit should have the fullest possible autonomy within the union , consistently with a strong national state. The proposal now made on the part of British war cabinet encourages and will lead to attempts at the very inception of a union and thus create friction just when the utmost co-operation and goodwill are most needed .
Any proposal concerning the future of India must demand attention and scrutiny , but in today’s grave crisis , it is the present that counts , and even proposals for the future are important in so far as they affect the present .It has been made clear that the Defence of India will in any event remain under British control.
To take away defence from the sphere of this stage is to reduce that responsibility to a farce and a nullity , and to make it perfectly clear that India is not going to be free in any way and her government is not going to function as a free independent government during the pendency of the war . The committee would repeat that an essential and fundamental prerequisite for the assumption of the responsibility by the Indian people in the present is their realisation as a fact that they are free and are in charge of maintaining and defending freedom. The committee , therefore , are unable to accept the proposals put forward on behalf of the British War cabinet.

The Working committee of the All-India Muslim League have given their most earnest and careful consideration to the announcement by Mr. Churchill , the British Prime Minister , in the House of Commons on March 11, 1942 and the draft declaration of the War cabinet of his majesty Government regarding the future of India and also the interim proposals , during the critical period which now faces India , for the immediate participation of the leader of the principle sections of the Indian people in the councils of their country.
The committee appreciated the proposal of his majesty’s Government regarding the draft declaration of August 8 1940 , which had promised to the Musalmans for the framing of the constitution to be enforced without the approval and consent of Muslim India.
The possibility of creation of Pakistan was recognised by implication of two or more independent establishment of unions in India which was not open to any alternative proposal and therefore was not open to any modification such proposal was unacceptable to them for reasons given below ;-

1)The Musalmans after 25 years of genuine efforts for the reconciliation of the two major communities and the bitter experience of the failure of such efforts, are convinced that it is neither just nor possible , in the interest of peace and happiness of the two peoples ,to compel them to constitute one Indian union , composed of two principal nations -Hindus and Muslims -which appears to be the main objects of His Majesty’s Government , as adumbrated in the preamble of the Draft Declaration , the creation of more than one union being relegated only to the realm of remote possibility and is purely illusory
2)The primary object in the Draft Declaration has been proposed by a constitution making body with creating one Indian union. The Muslim league decided finally that it will be unfair to Musalmans to compel them to enter with such a constitution making body whose main object is the creation of a new Indian Union which according to them may exacerbate bitterness and animosity among the various elements in the country .
3)The right of non -accession to the union, as contemplated in the Draft- Declaration has been conceded ; presumably , in response to the insistent demands by the Musalmans for the partition of India .The Musalmans were not satisfied on a vital question affecting there future destiny and demand which according to them was a process of evading the real issues to court disaster .
The secretary of Sir Stafford Cripps on April 2 addressed to the president of al India Muslim League ;-“A province should reach the decision whether or not to stand out of the union by a vote in the legislative assembly on a resolution to stand in . If the majority for accession to the union is less than 60%, the majority will have the right to demand a plebiscite of the adult population”.
4)With regard to Indian states , it is considered opinion of the committee that it is a matter for them to decide whether to join or not to join or form a union
5)With regard to the negotiations made between crown and the Indian union or unions , since it was not indicated as to what would happen in case of disagreement on the terms between the contradicting parties, there is a difference of opinion in negotiating a revision of treaty arrangements
6)The committee was unable to express their opinion with regard to their interim arrangement as there is no definite proposal except the bare statement of His Majesty Government and secondly is on account of the reason that Sir Stafford Cripps has made it clear that his scheme would either4 be accepted as a whole or is rejected as a whole but it is not possible to retain only the part relating to immediate arrangement at the centre and discard the rest of the Draft scheme .

In conclusion the committee wish to point out that unless the principle of Pakistan scheme, as embodied in the Lahore resolution dated March 1940 ,the same is now the creed of the Muslim League, namely,
“The establishment of completely independent states formed by demarcating geographically contiguous unit into regions which shall be so constituted which such territorial adjustments on numerically in north western and eastern zones of India in which Musalmans are in the majority shall be the homeland of Muslim as constituent unit , autonomous and sovereign” :
“That adequate effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the above mention units for the protection of their religious , cultural , economic , political , administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them”.:
“That in other part of India where the Musalmans are in minority , similar adequate, effective and mandatory safeguard shall be provided in the constitution”.
This was unequivocally accepted and conceded the true verdict of Muslim India for enforcement of the right to self determination by the Musalmans and no other proposal or scheme was acceptable to the Muslim league regarding the future.
Let us recollect the course of the events that led to partition of India on 15th August, 1947.
1) On 20th February 1947 , Lord Attlee the then Prime Minister made the Historic announcement of the end of British Rule in India by stating :
His Majesty’s Govt. , wish to make it clear that it is their definite intention to take necessary steps to effect the transference of the power to responsible Indian hands by a date not later than June 1948 .
The above declaration was absolute and unconditional in as much as the transfer of power would not depend upon any agreement between the Indian Parties and it had set at rest al the doubts about the intention of the British Government in regard to the transfer of power by declaring a definite date i.e.June 1958, when India would be free from the British control.
ii)On 24th March 1947 Lord Mountbatten has assumed charges as New viceroy of India with the task entrusted to him of transferring to Indian hands , the responsibility for the government of British India .
iii)On 3rd June 1947 Lord Attlee announced the plan containing the actual proposals for partition of India in the House of commons.
iv) Indian national congress working committee met on 3rd June 1947 and approved the new plan .Mr Jinnah had also accepted the new plan on 3rd June 1947 representing the all India Muslim league.
v) On 4th June 1947 Lord Mountbatten had announced in a press conference that the transfer of power would be affected not on June 1948 as was declared by lord Attlee in the statement of 20th February 1947 but much earlier than that date in 1947 itself probably about 15th August 1947 .
vi) The Congress committee again met on 12th June 1947 and prepared a draft resolution for the approval of All-India Congress Committee which met at New Delhi on 14th & 15th June 1947 to accepted the proposals embodied in 3rd June Plan .
vii) On 4th July , 1947 Indian Independence bill was Introduced in the house of commons . It was passed on 15th July 1947 It received Royal assent on 18th July , 1947 Beside other provisions contained in it main provision of the Indian Independence Act was that there shall be set-up two Independent states India and Pakistan on 15th August 1947 .
viii) On 14th August 1947 Governor general of India promulgated India (Provisional constitution ) Order 1947 modifying an adapting Government of India Act 1935 to suit the new circumstances.
ix) India that is Bharat became independent on 15th August ,1947 .
From the chronology of event s stated above , it is evident that as per that famous unconditional announcement of February 1947 made by lord Attlee , it was the date June , 1948 , and not the 15th August , 1947 which was originally fixed for transfer of power. All things were settled by 3rd June 1947 ,British Government , congress and the Muslim league has accepted the partition plan by that date . In the face of all things settled , where was the urgency and the need to advance and expedite the original l time schedule for transfer of power from June 1948 to a much earlier date of 15th August 1947 . it is unfortunate that in that high pitch of communal frenzy And bitterness, the fate of the Hindu and the Sikh minorities then living in Pakistan and the fate of the Muslim minorities then living in India who were the real victims , was unfortunately forgotten . Lakhs of poor and illiterate , Hindus , Sikhs and Muslim minorities
living in their respective homes in far of f villages became overnight ,some what aliens and were mercilessly subjected to communal madness. If the original time schedule of June 1948 was adhered to by the leaders, the British rulers would have been compelled before the bar of World Public opinion to maintain Law and Order in the whole of India till June of 1948 , and no prejudice would have been caused to either party, since all things were finally settled by 3rd June 1947 . The Hindu and Sikh minorities in Pakistan and the Muslim minorities in India would have got some advance intimation and would have got some time to adjust their own circumstances and sentiments and there would not have any such large scale panic stricken immediate migration overnight barbarism on either side. When partition of India was found inevitable and unavoidable and was accepted by one all, least that could have been done as small as mercy to all religious minorities residing both in Pakistan and in India , was to allow some berating time to them by adhering to original time schedule of June , 1948 or some other convenient date instead of rushing every thing with undue speed by 15th August ,1947 .They could have jointly requested the British Government to fix some other date instead of putting 15th August 1947 in the Indian Independence bill for the sake of adjustment and migration.
The configuration of 2nd world war threatened the very foundation of British government . The bill amending the constitution Act of 1935 in order to provide Special powers of co-ordinating the activities of central and provincial government to strike at the very root of provincial autonomy. And to render it in a force in case of war which in affect could create a war dictatorship of central government was promulgated .

Politics is the conduct if public affairs for providing advantage. Politics is the refuge of scoundrel. The politicians are worse than a thief is. You cannot adopt politics as a profession and remain honest. There are no morals in politics, there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of any use in politics but not the intellectuals. Politicians are the set of men who have interests aside from the interest of the people and as the mass always be away from honesty. The intellectuals of the society are keeping away themselves to serve the nation. All these allegations are made on the politics, politicians and the political set-up of the Country. This is no answer to the problem. It is not possible to away from politics. The culture and social values cannot survive without political interference. Keeping out of politics, the thereby impliedly allowing to perpetuate the corruption by the opportunist dishonest and the issues like a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred between fellow citizens and thereby the people in politics with low calibre are gaining through the labour of honest benevolent innocent citizen and ultimately ruining the prosperity of the nation. Let those who have taken shelter in politics as a refuge to scoundrel may be replaced by intellectuals, efficient and impartial citizens of the society only then the nation may survive the question is to protect and serve for the betterment of next generation by the society and therefore the participation of the intellectuals is more essential to save the next generation otherwise the future generation will not exempt them from making the imputation of committing a crime of apathy towards the society.
Politics is now regarded as the art of obtaining power and governing the masses through any means irrespective of objectivity towards its ends. The causality of intellectual honesty and lack of understandability with detachment are the result of confrontation and conflict of mutual interest. Superiority over the command between rival groups resulting in the Cold War. Politics war considered to be the branch of ethics, but now it is a powerful brut force of human stupidity greed, jealousy and malice towards fellow citizens. These forces sit over the command of the people. Man has many enemies such as lion, wolves, serpents, but is worst enemy is considered to be his own species with the man power having brutality and destruction at there commands. Mankind has now arrived at crisis on account of its own fate, ignorance and superstition may co-ordinate with these forces which are considered to be the greatest enemy of civilisation. It has come to stand still by the cumulative compulsion of divisive forces fighting with each other with materialistic approach towards life.
Mutual love and affection with sympathy towards human cause is based on ethics and not on the theory of give and take. This is based on co-ordination and spiritual power of the individual. Our potential may provide a guide line for success. In the recent time we have visualised that those politicians, who were indulged in accumulating the wealth without providing any consideration for justification of their action, they have undergone through a great mental agony, frustration, discomfiture and disappointment as those people who have provided their best co-ordination to drag these politicians for monetary considerations; they have completely ruined the carrier and reputation due to their criminal prosecution launched by the investigation authorities on the motivation of judicial accountability and the principle of trusty hood as one of the statutory obligation caste upon these custodian’s of power.
Marshal Stalin declared during world war "It would be ludicrous to identify the Hitler's clique with German people with the German State. The experience of history shows that Hitler's come and go, but the German people and the German State live on. President Roosevelt said - " I should be false to the very foundation of my religious and political conviction if I should ever relinquish the hope and even the faith -- that in all people without exception these lives some instinct for truth, some attraction towards justice and some passion for the people. Buried as they may be under the brutal regime."
In anxiety to punish and disable Germany, the allied Powers flung her into abyssal of economic despair after the first World war, from where emerged the demon of Nazism. They drove them to the frenzy by injustice and then we make that excuse for not redressing the wrong. Hitler became Chancellor of Third Reich in January, 1933. He re-armed Germany first secretly and then openly. He influenced the plebiscite which resulting in an overwhelming majority for return of Saar to Germany. He denounced the military classes of the Versailles treaty and introduced, conscription in March, 1935. He marched into demilitarised shine land zone in 1936. He threw himself on the side of France in Spain-Britain adopted the policy of non-intervention. Hitler grew strength and confidence to fight against the atrocities committed by allied forces during the first World war against Germany. The result as that that Austria brought back to the German provinces for which even Bismarck had not courage to speak. The campaign started for liberation of Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, a sovereign state bound by ties of treaty and friendship of Great Britain, France and Soviet Russia. This was followed by seizure of memel and defacto annexation of still free Czech territories. People grew furious. The occupation of Prague lead to the war. Till this period Hitler was led to believe that his policies and programme was not likely to a arouse the hostility of Great Britain and France. This has ultimately led to the second world war resulting into the loss of millions life and destruction through aggressive ambitions, which could have averted, if the allied forces have exercised their right of rebellion against the superior command. There would have not been any number. Trial and destruction of humanity by dropping two atom bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to demonstrate the evil desire of domination by Americans at the end of the war.
Churchil spoke with enthusiasm of Mussolini's " Gentle and simple bearing " whole- heartedly from start to finish in the triumphant struggle against leninism on 20th January, 1927. The Italian system was appreciated as being founded on two rocks:- (i) The separation of church and state; and (ii) The right of labour. The Churchill's party defeat after Second World War a symbolic protest against appeasement of Nazi Germany and the opposite to Soviet Russia.
Japan was ally of Britain and France. Japan invaded manchuria. No single government felt that it as an attempt against the reign of law among nations. Secretary of state for India said Japan has got a very powerful case based on fundamental realities against continual aggression of fundamental realities against continual aggression of vigorous, Chinese nationalism. This was based on conscience decision by which the British were ruling in India. Japan acquired manchuria and Korea and continued to remain great friend of Great Britain till Japan had not joined Germany.
The western democracies were not condemned to the imperialist aggression of Germany. Italy and Japan due to the reason as these countries were saddle in the same boat till the people asserted their rights and forced them to resist. No country was free from sickness of selfish nationalism. The indisputable guilt of excess power should not blind us to the fact to cast the first stone with clear conscience. If we tolerate wrong doing for long; we become responsible for it.
The loud complaints were mode against Germany when she launched the flying bomb and it was condemned as an " Instrument of blind malice." "An aimless destroyer." What about colossal violation of by Americans by dropping Atomic Bomb claimed 2,44,000 out of 2,50,000 population of the Hiroshima. All living things, human and animal in Hiroshima were literally shrouded to death by the Atomic Bombs. Nagasaki suffered equally terrible losses. Both cities were a disastrous ruin. It was not dropped in Europe, but in Asia purposely by Americans. Although the poisonous gas was not used in the Second World War, but the American built London ship " Empire simba" of 5691 tonnes scuttled with 8000 tonnes of poison gas held in readiness which left a little scottish harbour to said out into the Atlantic Ocean. But for atomic bomb there was not fear of retaliation as the excess power had no equivalent and for it. The obvious difference between war and massacre is just here. The war is fought the massacre is merely suffered. We do not make war on people who do not fight and retaliate. We can only murder them, killing unarmed civilians by raining death on them from the clouds is condemned as contemptible crime. It is not war.
President Truman under the grab of Japan's treacherous attack on pearl harbour justified the use of second Atom Bomb and that despotic contemptible criminal of humanity and further threatened to go on until Japan and her people either surrendered or were completely destroyed.
The Christian nations were using a licence to use there weapons under the validity of plea with an implied motive to attain the superiority over innocent Asian citizens; we have just massacre without retaliation of which even barbarous nation would have ashamed while Germans replied to obey the command of their superior officers in a Nuremberg trial were given punishments should Americans be spared from the tremendous cruelties which innocent citizens have suffered ? Whether the future generation bound to suffer due to the effect of radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki can forgive such crime ? Once arms are being taken up all the reverence for divine or Human law were thrown away as they have got a license to commit all the crimes without restraint. Whether it was a war of civilisation against barbarism ? Whether Americans were fighting for moral and not for metalistic approach? This grim ferocious epoch with vast horrors and miseries were inflicted by nations who claimed themselves to be the most civilised. The victorious allies were forgiven all compatible massacre of Japanese and humanity as justification urged for a military necessity. The obliteration without previous warning to human being living at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a crime against the civilisation and there was no parallel to this crime in both the world wars. The fundamentalist of Nazi's slogan for military necessity justifying horrible and barbaric methods were left for behind by the Americans. The war which starts with noble object of fighting brute forces, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution ended by the outrage on humanity and civilisation. Moral superiority were no where to get the victory over Axis power. The defeated nations be treated in the spirit of tolerance, sympathy and goodwill and not in the spirit of distress, malice or hatred.
The British government cannot escape from the responsibility of deaths from 15-20 lakh of people living in India, a figure higher that the losses of lives of Hiroshima and Nagasaki people, a figure higher than the losses of whole British Common wealth in war over total period of 6 years which was estimated to be the only about 11 lakhs. In-spite of British rule in India over 150 years, that could not save the civilisations due to their imperialism policy. The representatives of three big power Soviet Russia, United States and United Kingdom due to their respective rivalries were totally disappeared to fought against the Axis power, but the outcome of the war has resulted into the reproduction of another kind of Cold War based on economic censor and military superiority. The recommendation of the present Truman for retaining the Atom Bombs by the Great Britain and United States for the alleged protection of the civilisation and will be used for keeping the peace was mere slogan. It was said that the same will not be revealed to Russian. The whole conception was fantastic. Soon Russian speaking on October Revolution anniversary celebration in Moscow declared that " We too shall have Atomic energy and many other things."
General Degaulle, then Foreign Minister of France declared that the Ruineland be again placed under the joint strategic of military and political security of France, Belgium, Holland and Britain, It should be once for all be cut-off from Germany in such a way that its inhabitants should realise that their future did not live with Germany. If nation whose welfare depended on Ruler coal and industry imposed on international regime, some restriction than the rest of the Germany would certainly not be as powerful or rich as Germany would certainly not be as powerful or as rich as before and would never again be a danger because control over the ruler meant control of German industry.
The same is the fate of Indian continents given by the British imperialism through their diplomacy and enshrined policy of divide and rule in the state of partition in of Indian continents. About 6 lakh Indian people lost their homes. Three successive battles were on the motherland and still more to be witnessed if the good sense will not prevail over vitious designs of imperialism. British’s who still maintain their supremacy with remote control having significant interference from our leadership. Recently the Americans aggressive bombardment on Korea, Vietnam and Iraq and thereby exploring the natural resources including petroleum products under the protective umbrella over Kuwait is the alarming signal for military aggression by the Americans. The disintegration of existence of U.S.S.R and economic confrontation with China may further suggest that the land on which the future war will be fought, will be of Asians most probably belonging to the land of Indian continents. The economic blockade to China and insurrection of multinationals in India continents may prove the substantial evidence for aggressive bombardment by the imperialism Americans. Our existence may be on stake as being visualised after second world war over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let us try to avert through constant constructive role for strengthening the national unity and if possible making a confederation of United States of Indian continents. The unified Germany is the recent example of such unification of two portions of a great nation.
Let us visualise the impact of broad cast made by the President Truman on his return from Potsdam "America will maintain the basis necessary for be complete protection of our interests and of world peace (as being visualised by aggressive bombardment over Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Vietnam and recently in Iraq). We may acquire any other basis which our military experts deem to be essential for our protection (the production which was done by dropping two Atom bombs against the attack of Japanese on Pearl harbour), a policy of military imperialism. Let us not forget that we are fighting for peace and for the welfare of mankind (slogan and false propaganda is
further aggravate the militants aggressive policies). The strategical interest of America must be deemed to be extended upto Mediterranean, outside the site to establish the necessary basis for our own protection. We look for nothing which belong to any other Power- We seek to use our military strength solely to preserve the peace of the world, for we knew that it is the only way to make our own freedom secure."
The collapse of Soviet Union, the spectacular economic growth of China as most important power in international system after Americans and the drifts towards a confrontation shaping the dynamics of Cold War is the fresh indication of such policy being adhered to by the Americans in the recent future. China has now emerging as superpower and the Clinton's assertion on of no confrontation policy may be provided with the stagnation over the Americans trade expansion policy, the arm's control establishment and thereby losing the popular support for the presidential candidature due to such policy and therefore the Americans have started realising the issues like expulsion of Dalai Lama, the freedom of Tibetan people and demonstrating it for international independence, identity of American alliance with military co-operation from Japan, Australia and South Korea.
This has further broadened the possible aggression by Americans and thereby providing uncertain strategic environment in Asia. It has to be kept in mind that the second world war was not the consequence of German aggressive policies of expansion of their strategic territorial superiority, but it was also the outcome of providing economic censor in Rhinland as a retaliation to the German attack during the first world war.
The suffering from the domination of Germany and Japan was fought while the imperial power do not like to get off the backs and cause of the depended people for the independence-Racial pride is not a creation of Nazi's. President Roosevelt said. "Radical strife renders us suspect abroad. Man of all races black, white, Brown and yellow fight beside us for freedom. We cannot stand before the world as champion of oppressed people unless we practice as well as preach the principles of democracy for all men. Race prejudice and radically justified injustices reveal the contrast between the promise and the performance of imperial power. Britain could not have defended herself without help of Indians in the second world war--- what has these British’s given to the Indian people? The miseries our people may visualised by observing the apathy and thereby giving promotion to the fundamentalist to Muslims and the political aspirants Indians to see the creation of two nation theory. They cannot remove evil by announcing ideals."
Stalin in November, 1941 declared "We have not nor can we have such war aims as the seizure of foreign territories or the conquest of other people's irrespective of whether European people's territory or Asiatic people's territories are concerned. We have not nor can we have such aims as imposition of our will and our regime on Slavic and other enslaved people of Europe who are waiting for help. Our aim is to help these people in their struggle for the liberation from Hitler's tyranny and then to accord them the possibility of arranging their own lives on their own lands as they see fit with absolute freedom."
The people of a week and backward country, however strong and healthy they might be, could only serve to be made examples of or as witnesses of such futile spectacles; and it was not necessarily deplorable if many of them dies of prolong illness. The most important thing is to change there spirit. The real tragedy is to life up their voice among the living and meet with no response; neither approval nor opposition, just as if they are stranded in a boundless desert completely at loss.
Imagine an iron house having not a single window and virtually indestructible, with all its inmates sound asleep and about to die of suffocation. Dying in their sleep they would not feel the pain of death. Now if now you raise a shout to wake a few of the lighter sleepers, making these unfortunate few suffer the agony of irrevocable death, do we really think we're doing them a good turn?
It is true that there is no hope of destroying the iron house. But still one can not blot out hope, for hope belongs to the futures.
There is no refutation of affirmation of the affirmation of faith clear day light swallowed up the lamp light. If we can persuade our citizens the American disastrous consequences of confrontation with imperialistic policy of expansion and thereby unified together to avoid these fundamentalists forces to raise their heads for forthcoming confrontation through collusion with each other, we hope we are discharging or obligations to serve the nation.
Unless progressive intellectuals with the capacity to fight and make their consistent and sustained efforts to sponsor and extend the cause of humanity by fighting with the evil design of divisive forces dominating over the arena of present political set-up of our nation, nothing can be achieved from the emancipation from the prevailing maladies and thereby resulting into the survivability of our civilisation in the complete darkness for future generation.
Nature has created men not to war but to friendship, not to destruction but to health, not to wrong but to kind and benevolence. Nature has armed the beasts with armours. Man alone left fourth naked, week, tender with the most soft flesh and smooth skin do better to be knitted together be the leagues and conventions.
Our politicians have yet to start thinking of making and enacting laws against the moral crime as one of the sociological need felt to amend on the ethical schools of law. The law is not to be compared to a venerable antique, to be taken down, dusted admired and put back on the shelf moral damage is more terrible. Politicians from the changes like chameleons. Thus the politically motivated sub-version of the popular mandate is now a common phenomenon. Thus the law can not be the devoid of morality. The courts of law are the proverbial to the temple of justice. Tilting the balance of justice or sales of justice by weight of coin is the very antithesis of justice. Are the judges are indispensable? If we tolerate them like that of imperial power having their superior commands over the whelmn of the people, we are also protecting that aggressive policies of imperialism over the innocent victim. We cannot dispense with such a responsibility one has to fight for having a command over the whelmn of affairs in the country, otherwise we may witness the same fate of massacre committed over the defenceless citizens and thereby committing the greatest sin against the civilisation and humanity. In the system where the law protect the corrupt politicians and judicial pronouncements keeping justice inaccessible to the poor and downtrodden, a class of lawyer who stood in forefront of national struggle offered the supreme sacrifice and untold miseries for the cause of independence should also rise the occasion and earn a probation and leisure had their command.
The Arab position on Israel didn’t change at all. Human mentality doesn’t change. About ninety years ago, a prince of Mecca named Faisal signed an agreement with Zionists recognizing the Jewish right to the land and actually welcomed Jews. His successor recently unveiled Arab peace plan which ostensibly welcomes Jews in the Middle East. Saudi rulers even secured theological backing from their corrupt and subservient clergy for the peace with Israel.
Egypt, too, is fairly consistent in dealing with Jews. It fought Israel under the king Farouk, communist Nasser, pragmatic Sadat, and cynical capitalist Mubarak. In Mubarak’s case, the war is tacit, as Egypt allows Palestinian terrorists a free hand in supplying weapons. That policy is not new, either: Egypt supported Palestinian fellaheen fighters from 1948 to 1967, at which time Israel took over the Sinai and pushed Egypt sufficiently far away. Israel fought Egypt in 1956 specifically because of its support of fellaheen, and the US intervened on Egypt’s behalf: first diplomatically, followed by a military threat to Israel.
Jordan’s policy didn’t change. It treats the West Bank as Jordanian territory, banned or ignored native Palestinian organizations from 1947 onwards, and intermittently hosted and ousted Palestinians. Jordan’s goal is clear: to swallow as much land as it can. Pursuing that objective, Jordan cooperates with Palestinians to destroy Israel, but keeps the Palestinians in check so that they don’t destabilize Jordan. If other Arab countries do away with Israel, Jordan would love that, but it doesn’t want provoking a powerful Zionist neighbor. When Jordan had an upper hand against Israel, it annihilated virtually all traces of Jewish presence in Jerusalem, but when there is no hope of prevailing, Jordan is equally ready to sign peace treaty with Israel.
Palestinians could have proclaimed statehood long ago, but beyond the empty declaration of statehood by the PLO in Tunisia, they didn’t. Peace with Israel means for Palestinians accepting responsibility for their lives, which they cannot. Palestinian economy, meager before the 1940s, is irreparably damaged. A million-something Gazans cannot be meaningfully employed, the refugees coming back from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Gaza would find no arable land for themselves. Some Palestinians will always be discontent, and the continued guerrilla attacks on Israel, even if reduced to a minimum, would still provoke retaliation which disrupts Palestinian attempts to build a normal life. Palestinian state, no more the focus of world’s anti-Semitism, will gradually lose the massive foreign aid. In other Arab countries, agricultural improvement went slowly, and the influx of displaced peasants into cities was gradual, though even such an influx shifted national politics greatly. In the case of Palestine, refugees who have long lost the employment skills will flood the cities, double and triple their population, and make them into perpetual slums, where poverty breeds more poverty, one unemployed generation breeds another, and all of that breeds crime and terrorism. So the Palestinians leaders sensibly ask from Israel maximum concessions in the peace process to delay their statehood as much as possible.
Iraqi Arab Nazis repressed the Jews, prompting their emigration in the late 1940s. After the US occupied Iraq and manipulates its government as puppets, there is still no peace agreement with Israel.
Israel cooperated with the Shah of Iran even to the extent of helping him with his nuclear program, but peace was not an option. Neither is it an option now, regardless of the Saudi peace plan.
Lebanon is too fragile to sign peace with Israel. Opposition would haunt the government which signs such an accord, and now that Iran-backed Hezbollah controls Lebanon, peace treaty is altogether unlikely.
Syria was a prominent enemy of ancient Israel, and so is now. Syria’s core territory includes a part of the Land of Israel, and Syrian mentality, notorious even among Arabs, precludes any true peace with Israel.
This brings us to the question, what does peace with Arabs mean? Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, but comes nowhere close to normalization. The people of Egypt and Jordan are hostile to Israel, government media approves and fans the popular hatreds, and economic contacts are negligible (short of the few high-profile traitors of Jewish background using Jordan to skip on taxes and ecological regulations).
Centuries of prosperity made Westerners, including Jews, straightforward. That laziness of thought is often presented as honesty. Affluent people who live in established societies want a degree of honesty from others and offer it in return. The cultural phenomenon of honesty is not inbuilt: the medieval poets’ praise of knightly honesty was a blunt lie. And so the Arabs are not honest in the Western sense. Not dishonest, either - just practical. Westerners, too, are not paragons of honesty or morality in foreign relations, but Arabs don’t even bother substantiating their whims with acceptable rhetoric.
And so the Arabs claim they want peace with Israel.
Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Advocate, High Court
H.I.G.203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem sarai, Allahabad-211001
yogrekha@gmail.com, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, yogrekha@yahoo.co.in
Founder President- World Citizenship Group Foundation, Swami vevekanand world ethical foundation,
Executive Member- World Parliament Experiment conference 2008 at Bonn (germany),
Vice President- Geeta Asharam International Cheritable Trust, Rishikesh, Pauri Garhwal
Ex Vice President- Advocate’s Association, High Court, Allahabad

India_Pakistan_union_Group

Saturday, November 3, 2012

The Electronic Book Company: Free ebooks

Thursday, November 1, 2012

SAVE INDIANS FROM CONGRESS ATTROCITIES : THE CONTROVERSY OF RAJIV GANDHI MURDER , NO OTHER ...

SAVE INDIANS FROM CONGRESS ATTROCITIES : THE CONTROVERSY OF RAJIV GANDHI MURDER , NO OTHER ...

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Can I sign up for more than one account?

Saturday, May 17, 2008

The need of the hour by putting an end upon Religious fanatism- Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate, High Court

About Me