Posted by admin | Posted in archery | Posted on 22-09-2011
Tags: congress, courts, government, law, loc supreme sunglasses, reference, sure loc supreme, sure loc supreme 400, sure loc supreme 550, sure loc supreme sight
 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 6 Black RH 42mm Scope Body 10 red up pin Lots ofextrasNEW $389.99 Time Remaining: 27d 10h 44m Buy It Now for only: $389.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 9in bar Target site $200.00 Time Remaining: 1d 3m Buy It Now for only: $300.00 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 550 9 Sliver RH Green Sticker Kit 42mm Scope Body NEW $389.99 Time Remaining: 26d 8h 40m Buy It Now for only: $389.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 550 9 Sliver RH NEW $309.99 Time Remaining: 7d 9h 34m Buy It Now for only: $309.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 550 6 Sliver RH NEW $309.99 Time Remaining: 26d 8h 19m Buy It Now for only: $309.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 550 9 black $322.99 Time Remaining: 12d 12h 3m Buy It Now for only: $322.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 550 9 Silver $322.99 Time Remaining: 12d 12h 5m Buy It Now for only: $322.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 6 Black $314.49 Time Remaining: 12d 12h 11m Buy It Now for only: $314.49 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 9in bar Target site $200.00 Time Remaining: 1d 4m Buy It Now for only: $300.00 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 550 6 Silver $322.99 Time Remaining: 12d 12h 6m Buy It Now for only: $322.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 6 Silver $314.49 Time Remaining: 12d 12h 9m Buy It Now for only: $314.49 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 9 Black $314.49 Time Remaining: 12d 12h 11m Buy It Now for only: $314.49 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 9 Silver $314.49 Time Remaining: 12d 12h 10m Buy It Now for only: $314.49 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 550 6 black $322.99 Time Remaining: 12d 12h 2m Buy It Now for only: $322.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 550 Sight w 9 Extension LH Black $409.99 Time Remaining: 12d 8h 42m Buy It Now for only: $409.99 |
 RH Sure Loc Supreme Model 550 Sight $275.00 Time Remaining: 4d 6h 17m Buy It Now for only: $325.00 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 550 Sight w 9 Extension RH Silver $409.99 Time Remaining: 12d 8h 42m Buy It Now for only: $409.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 Sight w 9 Extension RH Black $409.99 Time Remaining: 12d 8h 42m Buy It Now for only: $409.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 Sight w 6 Extension RH Black $409.99 Time Remaining: 12d 8h 42m Buy It Now for only: $409.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 550 Sight w 9 Extension RH Black $409.99 Time Remaining: 12d 8h 42m Buy It Now for only: $409.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 Sight w 9 Extension RH Silver $409.99 Time Remaining: 12d 8h 42m Buy It Now for only: $409.99 |
 Sure Loc Supreme 400 Sight w 6 Extension RH Silver $409.99 Time Remaining: 12d 8h 42m Buy It Now for only: $409.99 |
WHO PARTITIONED INDIA - JINNAH OR NEHRU ?
WHO PARTITIONED INDIA - JINNAH OR NEHRU ?
INTRODUCTION
The partition of the Indian subcontinent is one of the major historical events of the twentieth century. It had a major impact on the subsequent histories of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It's aftershocks are still being felt today in more ways than one. If we compare the magnitude of the loss of human lives then it has the same relevance for the subcontinent what the Holocaust has for Israel. The question of who was responsible for this huge disaster is as complex as the event itself. Often the answer depends on which side of the LOC one is and within a border on which political party one belongs to. Hence there is no single answer to this question.
THE QUAID-E-AZAM
In Pakistan he is deified as the Father of the Nation. In India he is considered the villain of the saga of Partition. Which is true and which is false? According to me whenever we talk of events which took place six decades ago a certain amount of myth is created around the persons we talk about. This is because historians of different hues tend to distort reality to a certain extent and also due to the time gap which seperates us from the past. Thus most of the time we do not get the picture of a historical character as he actually existed but rather we get a one-sided image which paints the character as entirely good or completely bad. The same is the case with Mohammed Ali Jinnah. In 1916 when he played an important role in the signing of the Lucknow Pact between the Congress and the Muslim League he was hailed as "the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity" by Gopalkrishna Gokhale. Yet by the 1940's he had become the propounder of the "two nation theory" which stated that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations by every definition and therefore Muslims should have an autonomous homeland in the Muslim majority areas of British India for the safeguard of their political, cultural and social rights. How did this transformation take place? In 1896 Jinnah joined the Congress. In 1913 he left it to join the Muslim League eventually becoming the president in the 1916 session in Lucknow. Jinnah broke with the Congress in 1920 when M.K. Gandhi launched a law violating Non-Cooperation Movement against the British which a tempermentally law abiding barrister Jinnah disapproved of. Jinnah criticized Gandhi's support of the Khilafat Movement which he saw as an endorsement of religious zealotry. Jinnah resigned from the Congress with a prophetic warning that Gandhi's method of mass struggle would lead to divisions between Hindus and Muslims and within the two communities. Becoming president of the Muslim League Jinnah was drawn into a conflict between a pro-Congress faction and a pro-British faction. At the Round Table Conferences in London Jinnah was disillusioned by the breakdown of talks. In the 1937 elections to the Central Legislative Assembly the League emerged as a competent party , capturing a significant number of seats under the Muslim electorate, but lost in the Muslim-majority Punjab, Sindh and the North-West Frontier Province. Jinnah offered an alliance with the Congress - both bodies would face the British together, but the Congress had to share power, accept separate electorates and the League as the representative of India's Muslims. The latter two terms were unacceptable to the Congress, which had its own national Muslim leaders and membership and adhered to secularism. Even as Jinnah held talks with Congress president Rajendra Prasad, Congress leaders suspected that Jinnah would use his position as a lever for exaggerated demands and obstruct government, and demanded that the League merge with the Congress. The talks failed, and while Jinnah declared the resignation of all Congressmen from provincial and central offices in 1938 as a "Day of Deliverance" from Hindu domination,some historians assert that he remained hopeful for an agreement. Following the failure to work with the Congress, Jinnah, who had embraced separate electorates and the exclusive right of the League to represent Muslims, was converted to the idea that Muslims needed a separate state to protect their rights. Jinnah came to believe that Muslims and Hindus were distinct nations, with unbridgeable differences—a view later known as the Two Nation Theory. Jinnah declared that a united India would lead to the marginalization of Muslims, and eventually civil war between Hindus and Muslims. This change of view may have occurred through his correspondence with Iqbal, who was close to Jinnah. Jinnah felt the state of Pakistan should stand upon Islamic tradition in culture, civilization and national identity rather than on the principles of Islam as a theocratic state. Jinnah became the first Governor-General of Pakistan and president of its constituent assembly. Inaugurating the assembly on August 11, 1947, Jinnah spoke of an inclusive and pluralist democracy promising equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion, caste or creed. During Partition he visited the border regions with Indian leaders to calm people and encourage peace, and organised large-scale refugee camps. The then capital city of Karachi saw an explosive increase in its population owing to the large encampments of refugees, which personally affected and depressed Jinnah. Some historians like H M Seervai and Ayesha Jalal assert that Jinnah never wanted partition of India —it was the outcome of the Congress leaders being unwilling to share power with the Muslim League. It is asserted that Jinnah only used the Pakistan demand as a method to mobilise support to obtain significant political rights for Muslims. Thus from all this we see that Jinnah is far from the picture of pure evil which is potrayed by most people in India especially the Hindu nationalists.
NEHRU
Nehru cannot be absolved of the responsibility for Partition as he was the one who carried the mighty Congress with him, signed the documents and jumped into the seat of supreme power. He was not prepared to accept the fact that the Congress could share power with any other party. He knew that if the unity of India was maintained then the Muslim League would emerge as an alternative power centre. His centralized policy was partly responsible for Partition. Many midnights ago, when Jawaharlal Nehru ushered in the freedom of a people from imperial rule in a speech soaked in poetry, he could not have noticed those uninvited guests who lurked beyond the gates of the Constituent Assembly in New Delhi. They were the ghosts of Partition, and trapped in their whispers were the untold stories of loss, separation and savagery. Stories whose first drafts should be traced to the hundreds of resolutions passed by the interlocutors of Independence and their competing rhetoric. But Nehru was more concerned with achieving immediate freedom for the subcontinent no matter what the human or material cost. While Gandhi was fasting to stop the Great Calcutta Killings Nehru was busy with the nitty-gritties of the transfer of power. The creation of an Islamic Pakistan out of India was the very negation of the idea of a secular Indian State, which he envisaged to create yet Nehru could not do anything about it. In the Congress' view any criticism of Nehru is denigration and any praise of Jinnah is eulogy, a classic case of seeing something in black and white. But when neighbours anywhere see their disputes in black and white , they leave no room for compromise, and compromise is essential if good relations are to be restored. Nehru wrote a letter to the Nawab of Bhopal on July 9, 1948 in which he says,
"I know we are to blame for many matters…… Partition came and we accepted it because we thought that way, however painful it was, we might have some peace…….. Perhaps we acted wrongly".
Thus Nehru himself was prepared to admit that he might have made mistakes which helped to partition India. Nehru refused to accept the possibility of Dominion status which, had it been accepted, may have allowed a transitional period during which Jinnah's trust could be gained. He insisted that India needed a strong central state. He was partly responsible for the lack of rapport between himself and Jinnah, a relationship hugely consequential for Indian history. The two men were similar in various respects: both were from marginal, cosmopolitan communities (Khoja Muslim and Kashmiri Pandit), both trained as lawyers, both were Anglicized, fastidious and vain. And both cultivated their dislike for each another. In their letters to one another, Nehru condescended and sermonized while Jinnah resorted to stilted mannerism: " I reciprocate the sentiments expressed in the last but one paragraph of your letter at the end of it." To Nehru's lectures, Jinnah could only reply," You prefer talking at each other whereas I prefer talking to each other." Crucially in the run-up to the Partition, Nehru was unable to fully grasp the irreducible fear that many Muslims felt, and that Jinnah voiced- fear at the prospect of having to live as a minority within a democratic regime where political power was based on numerical strength.( That Nehru after Partition made up for this earlier failure by his many efforts to assure Muslims of their place as full citizens of the Republic, is a vital part of any assessment of Nehru.) It was Rajaji who was the first Congress leader , as early as 1942, to accept the legitimacy of the Pakistan idea as a way to safeguarding the rights of Indian Muslims. " What is required now is to concede the ultimate right of regional self-determination," he said in 1943 to the fury of Nehru, who declared it a ‘ totally intolerable ‘ idea. Might things have turned out otherwise if, for instance, the Jinnah-Nehru relationship had been different? In history, in so far as it is an account of human actions, things might have turned out differently; and very often we like to rest those possibilities upon the choices or character of an individual. But in considering the volatile decades between 1920 and 1950, it's striking how many crucial events were not intended by the leading individual actors , how sheerly contingent they were. To prove his as well as the Congress party's secular credentials Nehru ultimately played a part in the creation of an Islamic Pakistan. He accepted the creation of Pakistan to ensure that communal riots do not engulf the subcontinent on the eve of Independence. Yet during Partition the most devastating communal riots took place in the subcontinent's history. Thus the very calamity which he sought to prevent through Partition took place. If Nehru had visualized a future in which Pakistan would constitute a permanent thorn on India's north-western border he would have never accepted Partition.
Conclusion
It's important to remember that, at that time, there was no widely accepted definition of India, a map that was then torn up by a trunculent Jinnah, an impetuous Nehru or whoever ‘dunnit'. There was instead much debate over what future India might look like-a confederation, groupings of provinces, an Indian Union, a mix of princely and other states, a dominion or a republic. To accept that India was a united entity under imperial rule is to accept a central myth of British colonialism. In fact for Indians in the 40's, geography was by no means seen as given, but as something to be shaped by human decision. Parallel efforts to shape the map were underway across the world, as minorities struggled for recognition and protection( eg. The Jews and Arabs of Palestine). Here there was great bloodshed and the borders were arbritarily drawn by colonial powers without taking the people into consideration. Seen thus the Indian predicament far from being unique was part of a global one. The human mind is accustomed to assigning blame and responsibility, and it is difficult to accept that something like the Partition, which produced such momentous consequences, might, in fact, have been only weakly intended. We wish to find monsters at the origin of terrible events . Yet part of what makes such events so terrible is less that they arose from malign individual motives, but that they happened despite the intentions of the leading actors.
About the Author
I am Anirban Sen.I have done my graduation in Economics and my Masters in South and Southeast Asian Studies.I am interested in current socio-economic and political issues especially international ones.
Sure-Loc Supreme Pro Target Scope!!!