Source:- Vasant Krishna Thakur (Adv.)
FOREWORD
The 'BORN YESTERDAY' Pakistan,
conceived in illegality and arbitrariness, `ab-Initio,' in itself a patently unlawful
and unwarranted product of partiality, injustice, a 'scorched earth' tactic
revengefully perpetuated against India and the Hindus in particular, by British
imperialists in retribution for having to 'quit' India in 1947, has been crying
hoarse about its claim to the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the
'two nation' theory (so called). Pakistan has, in the mean while, succeeded in
aggressing upon and forcibly occupying nearby 113 rd of the territory of the
State of J. & K. through three successive wars, Pakistan has waged against
India.
The tragic part of it, however, is
that our leadership has all along been bragging about having defeated Pakistan
in all the three conflicts, when, as a matter of fact, Pakistan has, in fact,
not only succeeded, in forcibly occupying nearly 1/3rd of Kashmir but has also
been 'bestowed' further not only with the territory recovered by our armed
forces right up to the Haji Peer Pass through bloody sacrifice in men and
materials, but also the Poonch and Uri sectors of Kashmir as per the
'compromise' at Tashkent, the shock of which is known to have taken the life of
our then Prime Minister Shri Lal Bahcjdur Shashtri. Our leadership has further
in fact, conceded the Kakrapar region of Kuchcha (Gujrat State) to Pakistan and
the Berubori pocket to Bangladesh against the wishes of the people, living in
those pockets besides the 'Teen Beegha' corridor in addition.
Thus we see a strange spectacle of
the thrice 'vanquished' Pakistan in fact gaining a vast stretch of Indian
territory inspite of allegedly having been defeated in all the three wars, when
India has not gained even ci single inch of the territory of Pakistan either in
the erstwhile East or West, in spite of having 'won' three wars fought within
the past half a century. Such an incompetent leadership has emerged from the
lacunas in our constitutional set up, that stands 'foisted' upon our infant
republic, in it's foetal infancy, which is claimed to have been crafted by Dr.
Ambedkar, who is, infact, on record, to have openly advocated the
'constitution' being burnt instead, as worthless. This fact has further been
established by the amendments that had to be made in our constitution which
have far exceeded the number of years that have gone since it was framed and
promulgated.
Our constitutional framework, it
must be brought out here, places an undue premium on 'QUANTITY' of votes and
money, however ill gotten, against 'QUALITY' being allowed to prevail in all
walks of our national life. Under our set-up even an illiterate 'ANGUTHA CHAAP'
(thumb impression) person is deemed fit and has many a times, in fact, been
permitted to the occupy the highest of offices under the set up and made
'BHAGYA VIDHATA' of the country as in the case of Gyani Zail Singh
Who was straight away elevated to
the Presidential Office, when he openly expressed his readiness to 'sweep' the
floors,’ on which his mentor Smt. lndira Gandhi chose to tread, as on record.
It may further be noted that this
incompetent leadership of our's has not only in a way connived at and wily
Nelly condoned the forcible occupation of the 'ancestral' land of the Hindus by Pakistan and China but has also gone
to the extent of handing over the Kachchathivu Island to Shri Lanka just for
the asking, as if that was the family property of the then ruling dynasty of
the Nehrus, since no mandate of any kind, whatsoever, was, sought or obtained
from the. People so to do.
Our incompetent leadership has not,
till date, bothered even to examine the validity or otherwise of the 1947
exercise/ arrangement/partition (so called) carried out under the British, nor
even to realise the fact of the territory presently under Pakistan and
Bangladesh, infact, still continuing to be the land of the Hindus even to this day,
the 1947 partition (so called) being NULL & VOID, 'ab initio' besides 'NON
EST' in law.
It may be pointed out further that
the entire subcontinent called Bharat, Hindustan, Hind, India, inclusive of
Bhutan, Sikkim and Nepal even, has all along been the land of the Hindus ever
since time immemorial, thousands and thousands and thousands of years before
even Muhammad Paigambar or Islam came to be conceived.
Thus 1ndia's cause, infact, stands
betrayed by the incompetence of it's own leadership ever since the 1947
exercise/arrangement/partition (so called) due to the faulty constitutional set
up mainly, which enables such an incompetent leadership to assume the charge of
our nation. This has to be remedied first forthwith if we wish to see our country
governed and administered efficiently and ably.
This weakness in our leadership has
emboldened Pakistan openly now to claim the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir,
the sacred abode of lord MAHADEO, the deity in the 'war cry' of the Mahrattas
in particular. Pakistan's hirelings are now even 'restraining' the Hindus from
worshipping MAHADEO of Amarnath in their own ancestral land, which is an
unbearable affront for all who pride in calling themselves Hindus, whatever
political or religious beliefs they may be holding.
Pakistan has besides exceeded it's
limits in openly threatening India with a nuclear holocaust over Kashmir on the
overt and/or covert instigation and support of the Clintons, Robin Raphaels and
Talbots of the United States of America, aided and abetted by the armament
manufacturing lobby of the U.S.A. or that of it's NATO Camp following, which is
obviously out to create a new theatre of war, this time in Asia, for the off
loading and profitable disposal of their outdated war material stocks besides
it also being utilised as a 'testing ground' for their new weaponry under
actual battle conditions, now that the middle East theatre of conflict between
the Arabs and the lsraelies has been exploited and unutilised to a point of
exhaustion and battle fatigue to its limits.
If Pakistan succeeds to any extent
in Kashmir today, it will definitely be further emboldened to lay a claim, on
the very basis, to Junagarh, Nizam Hyderabad and Tipu Sultan's holdings around Srirangapattam
tomorrow followed in the sequence by a claim to the Mopla region of Malabar by
the day after and so on and so forth till the entire subcontinent is brought
under the PAN ISLAMIC hegemony and turned into a DAR-UL-ISLAM.
It will be seen that the Clinton
administration is openly helping the Muslims of Bosnia using NATO forces for
subjugating the Serbs. The U.S.A. is also openly siding the Muslims of Chechnya
against Russia. It is this very arm anent lobby commanded by Shri Clinton that
is also out to equip the Muslims of Pakistan with the hardware and an .F 16 flotilla for delivering nuclear war
heads, targeted at India, exclusively, but for a 'Prosier' or two coming in the
way. The secret diplomacy of Shri Henry Kissinger also, in fact, stands revived
in the subcontinent, it be noted.
Our leadership, on the other hand
seems to be embroiled in internal squabbles, money grabbing and/or engrossed,
instead, in the luxury of renaming 'BOMBAY' as Mumbai, AHMEDABAD' as Karnavati,
and AURANGABAD' as Sambhaji Nagar etc. etc. as if that is going to be the
answer to all the evils besetting our country. When 1/3rd of Kashmir already
stands usurped by Pakistan vilifying, the bloody sacrifice of our brave
'JAWANS' besides not even an 'inch' of the territory under Pakistan having in
fact, been redeemed inspite of our allegedly having fought and 'won' the three
wars, how con such a self deceit help us or our country in meeting the nuclear
threat?
What was gained -by our valiant forces on the
battle field seems to have been washed down the drain along with the 'dirty
linen' and spoiled bed sheets slept upon by Shri Z. A. Bhutto, in the 'BED'
episode between Shri Z. A. Bhutto and Smt. Gandhi colourfully narrated at
length by our Media Circles as a star attraction of the Simla Conference. The
Pakistan P. M. has threatened India with a nuclear war ever
The nuclear threat by Smt. Bhutto
can be ignored only at the Nation's peril, also being a threat to the very
existence of the Hindus and Hinduism. The only other Hindu nation Nepal, being
in the immediate vicinity also cannot hope to escape the holocaust or afford to
sleep over the threat and/or ignore it, since nuclear devices are not supposed
to distinguish between national boundaries.
Immediately after the threat by Smt.
Bhutto, this author chanced to read the treatise, on Pakistan and the Partition
of India by Dr. Ambedkar, which is more or less comparable to a 'GEETA' on the
subject. The remedy suggested therein by Dr. Ambedkar, however, lacks conviction
and has been already proven to
Be totally off the mark, as the
problem is still persisting accompanied by a deeper mistrust and antagonism
between the two religious groups, besides having raised its head again in the
shape of the Kashmir issue.
This national irritant has, to the
contrary, assumed a chronic character erupting every now and then in all walks
of our life including sports, wherever the Pakistanies happen to confront the
Indians, irrespective of the ethnic make up of the Indian team as even when a
Muslim happens to be heading the Indians as in cricket.
The Hindu - Muslim divide seems to
have widened further bringing the relations to a breaking point. The Muslim
'hunger' for 'Hindu' land is still in satiated and can obviously
never be put a full stop to, it is obvious.
Realising further that even learned men of the calibre, eminence, and stature of Dr. Ambedkar, Shri Jawaharial Nehru and Mohan Das K. Gandhi, all England returned Bar-at-Laws, have invariably, as also miserably not even bothered to interpret the legal term 'partition' as per law, custom and/or convention and have led the peoples of the subcontinent in a quagmire of illegality and uncertainly, 1 decided to study the perspectives anew in prospects, retrospect and also in Law, which has brought forth this fictional presentation.
1 stand convinced now, that the 1947
partition (so called) is totally 'NON EST' in law, besides a 'Herculean
blunder' by every one involved, unless deliberately contrived or callously
enacted. It was besides totally uncalled for, unwarranted and against low,
customary as well as conventional, besides NULL and VOID ab-initio as well and
as such 'NON EST' in law.
Man made mistakes definitely being
within the range and possibility of being corrected and/or undone to a great
extent and man made problems also likewise within the ingenuity of man for
being solved, 1 have tried to diagnose the Hindu- Muslim problem in India
examining it from all angles and perspectives both in prospects and retrospect
as brought out in this fictional presentation, which is to be entertained in
the spirit, it has been put forth. It is neither claimed as authoritative nor
literary.
1 did it simply because the state of
affairs could not be endured any further by me without doing something about
it, necessitating this presentation in national interests.
The subject matter of this presentation
being of utmost topical and political urgency for the survival of the Hindus
and Hinduism, as also for Islam and it's followers in this subcontinent, in
particular, this treatise has necessarily to be studied and digested by each
and every knowledgeable person inhabiting this 'ancestral land' of the Hindus,
besides authentically translated in all the languages in vogue in this
subcontinent, for the message, herein, to reach every corner of the land.
The solution suggested for solving
the Hindu - Muslim problem in India also being the only possible, feasible and
practicable one, in preference to the extreme ones, the only other sure
alternative to the above, namely being either of the two races or religious
groups completely subjugating, annihilating, eliminating and/or converting the
entire following of the other by force and/or otherwise, to its own faith, if
possible and/or feasible.
The alternatives, aforesaid, would,
admittedly be too tragic and inhumanly harsh
No doubt, though a lesser evil
compared to the holocaust associated with a nuclear confrontation, which is
sure, also to affect the other nations, in the vicinity. The above remedies
will, however, be too barbaric and catastrophic for both the religious groups
as also for the people in the vicinity and others inhabiting the land besides
posing a threat to world peace as well.
This message has, therefore, to be
conveyed to each and every knowledgeable person in the subcontinent in the
interests of his or her own survival, it is hereby emphasized.
This is an uphill task for this
author to accomplish all by himself. The mere presentation and publication of
the treatise has practically consumed all his resources, which had to be raised
with great difficulty from borrowings, more to be true to the salt and soil of
his motherland, than for any personal gain. The presentation also could not
brook any further delay since the immature, shortsighted, trigger-happy
Pakistani Muslims have always been
'itching' for a fight with the Hindus and are rather over enthusiastic about
'unleashing' their newly acquired nuclear arsenal against India any moment,
without warning and thoughtlessly as they have done thrice in the past.
It need not be foretold, that any
nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and India, is sure to devastate and
retard India's progress, achievements and heritage by and forge, but by then
Pakistan itself shall have been destroyed, more or less completely in the
process in retaliation by India, seven times Pakistan's size in men, resources
and armed strength.
Though Pakistan is sure to be
destroyed completely in the end, the fear of our leadership sleeping over the
opportunity and/or being taken by surprise, this time as well, as always in the
past, cannot at all be ruled out and/or ignored, altogether, by the Hindus.
All these possibilities and
probabilities have to be foreclosed in the interests, not only of India and the
Hindus in particular, but also for peace and tranquillity in the World.
This author has laboured hard to
bring forth this presentation to forestall any such tragedy ever overtaking us,
more in the sense of service to the nation than for any personal gain.
Any lapse on the part of India is
sure to pose a serious threat to the very existence and survival of the Hindus,
the Hindu way of life, thought and Hinduism. The message underlying this
presentation, if convincing enough and up to the mark, has therefore to reach
each and every section of the people inhabiting the subcontinent,
This necessitates the treatise being
translated in each and every language of the subcontinent, including those of
Pakistan and Bangladesh, since it will be the Muslims of the subcontinent that
will, most probably, be the worst sufferers in the end, in a nuclear
confrontation, if things take shape as predicted and foretold by this author.
Translating this treatise in all the
languages being far beyond the financial capacity and competence of the author,
the author is compelled openly to invite commercial entrepreneurs and/or
service institutions having the expertise to come forward with business
propositions to carry out this missionary task in the interests of the people
of the subcontinent as a whole and that of our beloved country, since a nuclear
confrontation between the two religious groups shall inevitably prove
disastrous and catastrophic for all involved as also humanity.
Author VASANT KRISHNA THAKUR
Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
Dated the 15 AUG, 1995
KASHMIR. AN UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF
1947 'PARTITION.'
On being confronted with an over bold and
arrogant assertion by Smt. Be Nazir Bhutto -'Jerdarl, Prime Minister, Pakistan
about the State of Jammu & Kashmir being an 'UNFINISHED BUSINESS' of the 1947
'PARTITION' (so called) of the Indian sub continent, under the British, this
author chanced to read Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's 'Writings and Speeches, VOL 8,
(Reprint) of Pakistan or the 'partition' of India (1990)'.
PAKISTAN OR THE PARTITION OF INDIA. DR. AMBEDKAR
This treatise on 'PAKISTAN OR THE
PARTITION OF INDIA' by Dr. Ambedkar, containing a most valuable data bank cum
exposition on the 'partition' (so called) of India (1947) is virtually comparable
to 'GEETA' on the subject in all respects, except to the extent of the last
'sermon', thereon, by Dr. Ambedkar advocating the conceding of the demand for
the 'partitioning' of the Indian sub continent for the creation of an 'Islamic'
nation by name 'PAKISTAN' on the topographical map of the sub continent,
overnight, where none existed ever before, however defies comprehended and/or
conviction, it must be emphatically put on record for posterity to note.
THE ARROGANT 'AFFRONT.'
The
treatise further elevates and 'brings into focus' from out of the dark pages of
Indian history a very arrogant, insulting and sordid 'affront' initially
addressed to the Late Shri Madan Mohon Malviya, a revered Hindu leader of the
day however, in fact, stands specifically and pointedly addressed to and
'challenges' 'ALL SCIONS OF SADASHIV RAO AND VISHWAS RAO', the generals
commanding the 'MAHRATTA' forces in the 1761 'THIRD BATTLE OF PANIPAT' (INDIA).
Dr. Ambedkar as also this author, both happen to be 'MAHRATTAS' by birth, race
and traditionally acknowledged as such.
The 'challenge' was issued by one
late Kwaja Hasan Nizami and one late Moulana Akbcir Shah Khan of Najibabad
(both Muslim leaders, then) in 1928 challenging the said 'scions' of the
'MAHRATTAS' to come forward to 'fight' a '4th battle of Panipat', on the issue
of Pakistan, which, most unfortunately and miserably, seems to have gone
'un-honoured' and 'unanswered' till date.
The 'insulting affront' stands
reproduced 'verbatim' on cover page 11 of this presentation, vide Para 2 &
3, page 303 and Para 1 page 304 of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's Writings &
Speeches, Vol. 8, Reprint of
Pakistan or the Partition of India
(1990).
It may be brought out here that the
MAHRATTAS alone had borne the brunt of the '3rd Battle of Panipat (India) 1761,
unaided and all by themselves, that too for safeguarding the interests and
'throne' of the then Mughal Emperor at Delhi, the Mahrattas were
'contractually' bound to 'protect against a protection 'fee' called 'CHOUTH',
the Mahrattas used to extract, not only from the Mughal Emperor but also from
other chieftains, of the sub continent, within the 'range' their 'horses' could
reach and in acknowledgement of 'Mahratta supremacy. The Mahrattas did not make
any distinction as to the race or religious beliefs of the various chieftains
in the extraction of the said 'fee' nor was the 'Battle of Panipat’ (1761)
fought by them in the capacity of for representing the 'HINDUS' only. As a
matter of fact the artillery of the Mahrattas in the said battle was commanded
by one lbrahirn Khan Gardi and manned by gunners of his Pathan heritage, who
also perished in the battle along with the Mahrattas.
It is also a historical fact that
Najib Khan Rohilia, a scheming chieftain under the Mughal Emperor at Delhi had
in fact invited the Afgan invader Ahmed Shah Abdaili out of his personal
ambitions and court intrigue. Najib Khan had committed the treacherous act in
the sole anticipation of being bestowed with the Prime Ministerial position by
Ahmed Shah Abdall in return for the service rendered since he had invited the
Afgan invader only for loot and booty's sake, which Najib was to help the
invader to acquire.
1761 BATTLE OF PANIPAT NOT A RELIGIOUS WAR
It is also a fact that Nawab Shujauddaula
of Awadh had also chosen to join the Abdalli invader, later, against his
mother's advice with more or less similar motivations, in a way Inadvertently
giving an 'Islamic' complexion to the Abdalli camp following, as against the
Mahrattas, who were mainly Hindus, all in all, excepting lbrahim Khan Gardi and
his Pathan following. Yet the 1761 Battle of Panipat was never ever called or
given the 'colour' of a religious 'war' or 'JEHAD' or even a communal conflict
between the Muslims and the Hindus neither by any of the contestants therein,
nor treated as such by others.
On the contrary, it is a well known
fact that Najib Khan Rohilla had close and intimate relations with Malhar Rao
Holkar, one of the Mahratta generals and had actually helped Holkar in
providing a safe passage to the wives of the Mahratta generals and their
retinue in escaping from the battle zone saving them from being taken prisoners
by the invading forces as also from a disgraceful fate. The Muslim invaders
were known for forcibly enslaving and molesting women prisoners failing in
@heir hands.
It is also a well known fact that
Suraj Mal Jaat, a Hindu Chieftain then ruling over the present day Hariyana,
who at first promised to join the Mahrattas against the invading forces, left
them in the lurch to fight the combined armies of the invading camp all by
themselves.
This proved a catastrophic set back
for the Mahrattas, who had come to fight from over a distance of neatly 800
miles resulting in their rout. The Mahrattas had to sacrifice over a lakh of
their kith and kin in the bloodiest conflict in their historical post. The
battle also, in fact, turned out to be as horrible and bloody for the invaders
that Ahmed Shah Abdalli did not venture invading India again in his lifetime.
He is on record to have praised and appreciated the fighting spirit, valour,
integrity and bravery of the Mahrattas as a race admittedly equalled by none of
the other ethnic groups or races then inhabiting the sub continent.
FIGHTING CAPACITY OF THE
MAHRATTAS
This fighting calibre and fortitude
of the Mahrattas had also specifically been acknowledged and praised by the
famous Chinese traveller Huein Tshang and many others in ancient times as well.
The Mahrattas also stand acknowledged for their political acumen and social
awareness besides their selflessness and character in general.
MAHRATTA SUPREMACY TILL 1857
The Mahrattas lost the 1761 battle in
sheer over confidence besides due to adverse logistical and other factors
beyond their control. Lack of resources and natural calamities added to their
plight for which the Mahrattas were not at all prepared. In spite of the worst
defeat, ever, the Mahrattas soon came back into their own and recovered,
thereafter, militarily, again to reign 'supreme' all over India virtually from
'KATTAK' and 'Bengal' in the East to Gujrat in the West and from 'JINJI' in the
South to 'ATTAK' in the North and had in fact exercised their 'sway' and
supremacy' all over again over the other ethnic groups inclusive of the
Emperors at Delhi from the death of Auranzeb in 1708 till 1857. The 1857
uprising against the British, was also mostly led, commanded and fought under
Mahratta generals such as Nana Saheb Peshwa, Tatya Tope and the legendary
Mahratta princess the Rani of Jhansi, who died fighting the British might
actually bearing her infant child astride.
AURANGJEB'S THREE DECADES LONG BATTLE WITH MAHRATTAS
The Mahrottas compelled Emperor
Aurangjeb, the most capable amongst the Muslim rulers over India to wage a
three decade long ceaseless battle on the Mahratta soil itself, ultimately to
lie’ buried' therein along with his queen at Khuidabad in 1708. The Mahrattas ruled
'supreme', thereafter, over Delhi and the length and breadth of the
sub-continent for over one and a half century till the 'mutiny' stood
suppressed in the form of the 1858 British Proclamation.
Ahmed Shah Abdaili had also come to
India only for loot and booty as was the case with Mohammed Gazni, Mohammed
Ghorl, Nadir Shah, the Uzbeks, Taimur, the lame, the Turks, the Mongols, The
Hoons and the Khaliphites, with no common lineage or inter relationship of any
kind between them whatsoever. All the aforesaid invaders returned back and for
ever to their respective countries of origin except the Mughals under Babur and
his dynasty, besides the few slaves, the Khaijies', the Suries ete who chose to
stay over or perished by themselves.
THE 'AFFRONT MET'.
On reading the 'insulting affront'
of a 'challenge', it was but natural for this author, a Mahratta,
traditionally, to be hurt, instigated and inspired to take up and meet the
'unanswered' challenge of the sold Kwaja Hasan Nizami and Akbar Shah Khan, as best
as the author could under the circumstances, the author happens to be placed
in.
The Mahrattas have never ever, till
date, entertained any kind of ill will, remorse, rancour or animosity towards
Muslims of India or of the World for their tragic defeat or the barbaric
atrocities committed by the invading Muslim hordes, as also taken note of by
Dr. Ambedkar in his book, above said, on 'partition' of India. Neither had the
Mahrattas permitted their religious sentiments and/or emotions to be hurt and/
or adversely affected permanently in consequence of the worst kind of a defeat
they had ever suffered.
The sentiments of the author however
stand offended, it must be admitted in all fairness, by the out burst of Smt.
Bhutto, more so when she openly talks of unleashing a nuclear war against India
at the instigation of’ the Robin Raphaels, Talbots'and Clintons of the U.S.A.
who are openly out to use her as a pawn for World domination by the U.S.A.
after annihilating India and China in that order now that the U.S.A.
imperialists have eliminated the erstwhile U.S.S.R. as a world power for all
purposes.
AN ANSWER TO THE AFFRONT
This presentation accordingly stands
inspired and brought out as an answer to the insulting affront, which, in
fitness of things, ought to have been met and answered not only by each and
every Mahratta worth the name and salt, inclusive of Dr. Ambedkar but by all
Indians taking pride in claiming themselves to be patriotic.
This author in all fairness not only
concedes, but, in fact invitingly anticipates a reply to this presentation from
the Muslims advocating or representing the Pakistani point of view and in the
spirit this presentation stands put up, since even humanity and world peace
stand threatened by Smt. Bhutto's foolish outbursts of starting a nuclear war
over Kashmir, which is sure to prove catastrophic for the entire mankind if
permitted to come about and explode.
This author means and lays emphasis
on each and every word he has used, herein, besides being confident of enacting
and proving every assertion to the last word, opportunity and time permitting.
A FICTIONAL PRESENTATION
This 'fictional presentation' is also aimed at and intended to solve the
vexing issue underlying the 'Kashmir' problem, once for ever, given it's due, a
sub-continent wide publicity and coverage. This author confidently asserts that
inevitably and ultimately it will be no surprise if the Pakistanies themselves
of their own not only choose to abandon and/or drop their entire claim to the
State of Jarnrnu and Kashmir, but may even voluntarily or otherwise seek to
surrender back to India the Pakistan occupied part of the J & K. State, in
not too distant a future. Pakistan as well as Bangladesh may further likewise,
in all probability, even seek being 'readmitted' back into the Indian fold or
family of peoples and heritage in some form or kind of an arrangement in the
shape of a loose confederation of some sort, with India in the interests of the
Muslims of the sub continent as a whole as also their own survival, wiser
counsels and sanity being permitted to prevail. Bangladesh will also follow
suit likewise ... and ... SO BE IT FOR All TIMES TO COME, IT IS PRAYED.
THE 66-YEAR-OLD INSULTING CHALLENGE STANDS ANSWERED AS, HEREINAFTER,
FOLLOWING AND 'RECIPROCATED'.
THE INTERVENER MAHRATTA
NOTA BENA
The subject matter being of
international dimensions and serious ramifications, otherwise, stands presented
in a sober though lighter vein, devoid of rancour or ill will. The fictional
form has been adopted to make it the least offensive and for effect sake. The
characterisation of the author as the 'INTERVENER' 'MAHRATTA' in his
traditional and ethnic background also stands adopted, deliberately, for the
Muslims, who are supposed to be conversant with their own history in the
sub-continent.
The nomenclature 'MAHRATTA'
specifies the ethnic inhabitants of the present day State of Maharashtra,
irrespective of their race, religion, caste, creed, or any other distinction of
the kind and includes also the Aadiwasies, (original inhabitants) Tribals, and
all the other miscellaneous communities and sects traditionally hailing from
and associated with Maharashtra exclusively, cumulatively called and known as
MAHRATTAS since time immemorial.
The author claims to be no authority
on Law, procedure, language, and expression and/or in taking liberties with the
form for convenience and economy of presentation, NO OFFENCE IS MEANT OR
INTENDED AGAINST ANY ONE DEAD OR LIVING. The naming,
If any, has to be taken as
fictional. The other parties involved invariably being national governments the
proceedings to have been conducted on a level of decency and decorum befitting
their stature and standing. Formal denials and refusals of established facts
and events also stand done away with as a needles formality. Historical events
and happenings are deemed gracefully admitted without variance by all in a
spirit of cooperation and as a time saving gesture. Oath taking and other
formalities are also deemed unnecessary and avoided.
One sided or coloured versions
and/or inferences in respect of historical, events, happenings, and facts will
have been taken to be of no weight age and meaningless, except to the extent of
the context, all parties avoiding recourse thereto.
Assertions, interpretations and
opinions expressed by the author in good faith and honesty, are to be taken at
their face value, besides being open to correction and amendment. Facts,
historical and/or otherwise, should have been established without verification
and/or certification. Formality and procedure shall be deemed to have been
complied with, and/or waived as immaterial to save time and space.
BACKDROP OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE 'KASHMIR'
ISSUE
The 1947 'Partition' (so called) of
the then British India was brought about, admittedly and exclusively, on the
sole basis of the 'Infamous' 'TWO NATION'. Theory, propounded by the
protagonists and birth givers of 'Pakistan', represented then by the then
Indian Muslim League, claiming to speak for and represent the entire Muslim
population in the Indian sub-continent under British rule. The 'partition' (so
called) was allegedly done and carried out exclusively on the basis of 'religion',
taking for granted and treating the Muslims of the sub continent as
constituting a separate and distinct 'nation', being of an altogether
'different stock', as distinguished from the 'HINDUS' (also so called)
inhabiting the Indian sub continent since time immemorial.
PAKISTAN accordingly came to be
carved out and formed within the Indian sub- continent comprising of two wings,
then named West Pakistan (present day Pakistan) and East Pakistan (present day
Bangladesh) an independent nation since 1971 in the aftermath of the Pakistan -
Bangladesh war. Nearly 1000-mile wide Indian Territory geographically separated
the two wings as carved out by the British at the behest of the Muslims
exclusively, to be their 'home land' forever, within the sub- continent, where
none existed ever before.
This 'partitioning' (so called)
though neither sought ever, till date nor expressly consented to by even a
single other ethnic or racial group, without exception, inhabiting the Indian sub
-continent since time immemorial, however, unfortunately, remained unchallenged
and unquestioned till 1993194 when Smt. Benazir Bhutto- Jerdari happened to
assume the Prime Minister ship of Pakistan for a 2nd time and all of a sudden
on her own started calling the 1947 'partition' (so called) as brought about
under and by the British sovereign, then, as being an 'UNFINISHED BUSINESS',
besides also laying a claim to the entire Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir on
the basis of the 'TWO NATION' theory and religion, for Jammu and Kashmir being
a Muslim majority State.
THE 1947 EXERCISE/ARRANGEMENT/PARTITION REOPENED
The Prime Minister of Pakistan has,
thus, chosen on her own to 'REOPEN' the 1947 partition' (so called) that too
after a time lapse of nearly half a century of the accession' of the State of
J. & K. to India, which had in fact been brought about at the instance of
Shri Sheikh Abdulla, the then 'Sadr- e- Riyasat', J. & K. State as also
under the governor general ship of the last British Viceroy over the sub
continent, which was never ever disputed and/or questioned by any country in
the World including Pakistan and for that sake even Bangladesh, till date and
even after the two became 'independent' nations in 1971.
In this
connection, it will not be out of place to bring out here that the Pakistani
Prime Minister has chosen to claim so only after Shri Bill Clinton assumed the
President ship of the United States of America and started disputing the
'accession' of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to India. None of Shri
Clinton's predecessors in office had however ever chosen to do so till then as
also when Shri John Major, Prime Minister, Great Britain had asserted the
accession of Jammu & Kashmir to India being lawful and validly accomplished
under Lord Louis Mount Batten.
It will also not be out of place to
bring out here that Shri Bill Clinton has wilfully 'timed' this disputing of
the accession of Jammu & Kashmir to India, cleverly and cunningly, to
coincide with the 'untimely demise' and disintegration of the erstwhile mighty'
U.S.S.R. as a 'super power'. The. U.S.S.R. always used to safeguard and turn
the 'balance of power' in favour of India on the world 'stage' against U.S.A.'s
attempts at dominating it.
Pakistan had, in the mean while,
waged three consecutive wars against India and succeeded in willy-nilly
grabbing and forcibly occupying nearly one third of the territory of the State
of Jammu & Kashmir with the overt and/or covert support of the U.S.A.,
which always came in the way of the territory aggressed being redeemed back by
India. The 'ahinsawadi' weak kneed policy of India under the Nehru dynasty's
rule unfortunately helped Pakistan so to manoeuvre and succeed. The Pakistan
occupied part of Kashmir, hereinafter referred to as P.O.K. has ever since been
the bone of contention between the two nations in a dispute as stands taken to
the U.N.O. by India.
The 1947 'partition' (so called) of
India, in effect and for all purposes, standing reopened' by Pakistan, itself,
and on its own initiative, the entire exercise must, in all fairness, be taken
to have been resurrected and revived in it's entirety and for all purposes,
whatsoever, as also for being freshly agitated and debated anew, in all it's
perspectives, 'de novo,' it is hereby maintained.
THE 'INTERVENER' MAHRATTA'
This 'INTERVENER' MAHRATTA, an
Indian national, belonging to the ethnic race inhabiting the State of
Maharashtra, has since chosen to come forward 'suo motu' in his traditional
role as a defender of 'Hindavi Swarajya', to contest the claims of Pakistan.
The matter has been brought for being thrashed out before this 'INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE in the apprehension of the Government of India, presently also
under the treacherous 'Congressite' leadership, again failing to do justice to
the cause of the Country and/or deliberately or otherwise permitting it to go
by lapse or default to cover up it's past failings and/or the treacheries perpetuated
by the Nehry dynasty as a fait accompli of sorts on the Indian Republic during
it's political infancy.
It has to be clarified further, at
the inception, that the intervener Mahratta is out to challenge and question
the very 'validity' and 'legality' of the 'I 947 partitioning' (so called) 'ab
initio' now that the matter stands 'reopened' as above and in it's entirety by
Pakistan itself. This must in the sequence, be held and taken to have furnished
India as also this Intervener Mahratta with all the options and liberties to
raise and agitate all issues afresh and/or again as may be thought and deemed
necessary in equity, natural justice, fair play and law as well, to support
this intervener’s case.
THE 1947 'PARTITION' (SO CALLED)
The 1947 'partition' (so called) it will be noted, though allegedly on the basis of the 'two nation' theory and based on religion, exclusively, was, in fact and effect, only between the 'Muslims' of the sub-continent, that were to be 'furnished' with a 'home land' ('exclusively for the Muslims') being treated and made 'the PARTY of the 1 st Part (exclusively) and the 'Hindus' (also so called), as the 2nd religious group, to retain whatever was left of the land there after, that too cumulatively with other religious groups, such as the Christians, the Parsees, the Jews, the Siddles etc., groups totally alien to the Hindu religion, not to speak of the Buddhists, the Sikhs, the Jains along with all the aboriginal communities or Aadiwasies and tribal, inhabiting the land since time immemorial, having in fact been made and treated. as the party of the 2nd part, cumulatively.
The 1947 partition (so called) was
thus arbitrarily and most callously and indiscriminately 'foisted' upon the original
inhabitants of the land in question, besides having been brought about at the
mere asking of Muslims alone, claiming a 'share' in the ancestral land of the
Hindus on the strength of an alleged 'PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT' (no where else
claimed by any ethnic group or community in the World till date, neither ever
defined any where). This was accomplished by the Muslims on the basis of having
come to 'occupy' by conquest some pockets of the land, here and there, and
having allegedly and cumulatively 'ruled' over them for over half a dozen
centuries, that too not at a stretch but under several lineages as also not
unchallenged as was the case with the British who ruled absolutely and for over
one and a half century over the entire sub-continent, at a stretch and under a
single dynasty.
As against this the Muslim hold and
occupation, that too in patches with centuries long gaps, in between, at times,
was by several ethnic groups such as the Khalifaites, the Turks, the Afgans,
from Gazni and Ghori, the Hoons, the Mongols, the Ujbeks, the Khaijies, the
Suries, the Slaves etc. and lastly the Mughals under Babur, who alone can be
said to have established a dynastic empire of some sort in India in addition to
the Nizam and Hyder All like petty chieftains, succeeding in establishing their
own principalities here and there.
It will further be noted that there
was nothing in common in or any relationship between the aforementioned
invading hordes except their being Muslims, loosely speaking and only Babut and
the Nizam amongst the aforementioned invader groups can really be said to have
founded some sort of permanent holdings in this land, the rest, invariably
having gone back for ever to their respective places of origin, lot stock and
barrel, leaving no trace.
THE PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT BY CONQUEST AND/OR RULE
Comparatively, therefore, the British can be said to have had a better
'prescriptive right' of the kind on the strength of their one and a half
century long, absolute, unchallenged, single dynasty rule, that too over the
entire subcontinent if mere conquest and partial occupation and unchallenged
rule or sway over some parts of the land is to be taken to be sufficient for
the purposes of claiming any kind of a 'prescriptive' right to have a 'share'
by right in any land, occupied by force and invasion as no-where else claimed
in the World till date.
If 'religion' is or was to be taken
to be a prime criteria for dividing the land on the mere asking of a single
religious group, then on the very basis the British themselves could also have
rightly and similarly claimed and retained for themselves a 'share' in the land
on that very basis for and on behalf the Christians as a whole inclusive of the
Anglo Indians, Franco-Indians, Portuguese-Indians as well as those of Syrian,
Armenian and of other denominations living in the land since centuries past,
for also being of a different stock and nationality as claimed by the Muslims,
as per the infamous 'two nation' theory on the basis of which Pakistan came to
be conceded and/or carved out.
CLINTON'S HYPOCRISY
It will not be out of place to bring
out here that in refusing to give due weight age to one of the lost acts of
Lord Louis Mount Batten, as Governor General over India, also an ethnic ancestor,
most probably and perhaps, of Shri Bill Clinton himself, (in light of the
Americans priding in being of British heritage), the American head of State is
in effect, and in a way, flatly refusing to acknowledge Lord Louis Mount
Batten's authority and/or Mount Batten having, in fact, attested the accession
during his governor general ship and to that extent trying to rewrite history
suiting his own purpose which is an irresponsible act, in itself, for a head of
a State of Shri Clinton's standing and stature.
Pakistan has ever since also leased
out a part of the territory forcibly occupied by it of Jammu and Kashmir to
China, the witness No. 4, herein.
Unfortunately for India, the
Government of India is treating and handling ail these mischief’s by Pakistan
in a most careless, callous and cavalier manner whiling away time in futile
Secretary level talks and fruitless parleys with the obstinate, short sighted
Pakistani leadership, in fear of displeasing the U.S.A., to which India stands
heavily indebted under the Congressite misrule. The Congressite leadership
ruling over India, almost, ever since 1947 is not only blameworthy for an
incompetent and callously treacherous handling of the entire issue, from the
beginning till date, but also in a way for advertently or otherwise conniving
with or aiding and abetting Pakistan in keeping the dispute festering in order
to maintain and perpetuate the hold of the congress party over India under the
pretext from time to time.
The Nehru dynasty has all along been
taking undue advantage of the emergencies declared during the three consecutive
lndo-Pak conflicts to concentrate more powers in it's hands and fortify it's
sway over India, for which it has deliberately kept the issue unnecessarily
burning and simmering ever since and succeeded in perpetuating it's hold over
India, as also the dynastic rule of the Nehru family over the country for over
44 long years.
PARTITION A NULLITY
The Intervener Mahratta maintains
that it was Jawaharial Nehru's indiscriminate greed and hurry to become the
first Prime Minister of India that not only led to the creation of a Muslim
nation on this ancestral soil of the Hindus, where none existed ever before,
but also to a most faulty, unprincipled and discriminatory kind of
partitioning' of our beloved land, which was totally unsustainable and
untenable in equity, fair play, justice as also in Law, as brought out in this
presentation, hereinafter.
Thus not only the partitioning (so
called) of the sub continent carried out on the basis of religion was
altogether contrary to the very principle underlying the 'two nation' concept
but also callous and mischievous in the several religious groups inclusive of
the crores and crores of Muslims left over in the Indian part being indiscriminately
and arbitrarily 'clubbed' together with the Hindus besides being cumulatively
and unjustly held and treated as the PARTY of the 2nd part, so to say, for the
sake of the partitioning, (so called).
This was in clear disregard of
common sense, Law, convention or custom etc. and as such totally unpardonable
on the part of the British, known for their 'rule of Law' to a point of
meticulousness and perfection. THE 1947
'partitioning, (so called) of the sort was thus totally arbitrary, baseless,
untenable, unwarranted, unjust, inequitable unfair, against natural justice as
also law, custom and convention as well, as is brought out hereinafter.
THE 'PARTITION' (SO CALLED) AND PRINCELY STATES OF INDIA.
In the wake of such a partitioning (so
called) the then princely States in British India, one of which was the State
of Jammu & Kashmir, a semi independent entity with a Muslim majority
population under a Hindu Raja, were given an option and choice to join any of
the two independent nations namely India or Pakistan. The State of J. & K,
then headed by the Sheikh Abdulla Ministry, was rather compelled and
unanimously and voluntarily chose to accede to India on being attacked by
mercenary Muslim outsiders supported with arms and ammunition by Pakistan, as came to be exposed
later, as also is being reenacted in Kashmir today.
The Indian forces landed in the J.
& K. State after the accession formalities were duly gone through and
completed under the then British Governor General lord Louis Mountbatten as on
record.
Pakistan in the meanwhile, however,
willy-nilly succeeded in grabbing nearly one third of the territory of the
State of J. K. through three successive wars with India ever since and is now
openly out to claim the entire state of J & K, arrogantly, calling the 1947
'partition' (so called) an 'UNFINISHED BUSINESS' against it's Prescriptive
right' (also so called) the term, whatever it is supposed to mean and convey,
neither was defined under the British nor in independent India till date.
PAKISTAN RECONCILED TO THE ACCESSION TILL YESTERDAY precisely or other wise
It may further be noted that
Pakistan continued, in fact, to be, reconciled to the accession' of J. & K.
to India till Smt. Bhutto's 2nd term in office as Prime Minister of Pakistan,
as was the case with all the other countries of the World including the U.S.A.
till Shri Bill Clinton happened to assume the President ship of America in
19931 94 and started disputing the accession of Kashmir for the first time ever
that too against the British Prime Minister Mr. John Major's publicly asserting
it to be legally and validly accomplished under lord Mount Batton's Governor
general ship over India
ENGLAND RETURNED, 'BAR-AT-LAWS' -ALL !
It was really tragic indeed for
India that illumines educated in England cum Bar- at-Laws of the eminence of
Jawarharial Nehru, Mohandas Karamehand Gandhi and even Dr. Ambedkar's calibre
and repute could not or perhaps miserably failed to realise, as known even to
an illiterate, ignorant Indian, that there cannot be any kind of a
'partitioning' known to law between heirs or share seekers, claiming different
ancestry, heritage, or to be of an altogether different stock, as the Muslims
of the then British India or for that purpose Pakistan and Bangladesh claim to
be even till this day. More so when the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh
refuse to acknowledge and/or to call themselves Indians even to this day, nor
claim any parcenary, blood or other relationship with the rest of the people of
the subcontinent as is a must for any one being entitled to by right to demand
a share in the ancestral assets of a family or otherwise even.
It was tragic indeed that this necessary ingredient for any kind of
'partitioning' of common assets was totally ignored or lost sight of by
Jawaharial Nehru, who was, in fact, not only an interested party to the
mischievous 'partitioning' (so called) but also an immediate 'beneficiary'
there under, besides known then, in fact, also to be under the amorous spell of
and blindly infatuated to one of the Mountbatten Ladies, for which Nehru may
have to be excused to some extent, though.
DR. AMBEDKAR CANNOT ESCAPE THE BLAME Dr. Ambedkar, having, in fact,
recommended the 'partitioning' of India for the creation of Pakistan' however,
cannot be permitted to escape the blame, at least to the above extent, if not
for recommending the creator of a 'Pakistan' within India, which has, in fact,
not at all solved the problem till date.
In view of the three wars already
fought between the two nations, and the issue raising it's head again and
again, presently in the shape of Kashmir, Hyderabad (Deccan) and the Mopla
territory in Kerala and Malabor may most probably be the next on the Pakistani
agenda.
As a matter of fact even Savarkar,
another Bar-at-Law and the many a Saprus, Jaykars down to the Palkhivalas and
Jethmalanies of the day have most miserably, till date failed even to question
the legality underlying the 'partitioning' (so called) of our beloved land even
on an academic plane, but for which it would have been held totally 'illegal'
'ab initio' long back, with an inevitable review 'de novo' following it.
'UNFORTUNATELY THIS WAS NOT TO BE, it
seems, till today. This intervener must therefore gratefully thank Smt. Benazir
Bhutto, in all fairness, for having provided him with an opportunity to redeem
the situation to some extent, his country happens to be in, the issue having
been 'revived' in it's entirety and reopened for all purpose, by Pakistan
itself.
NEHRU THE VILLAIN
According
to this Intervener Mahratta Shri Jawaharial Nehru was in fact the ,villain' of
the piece in knowingly conspiring and/or conniving with the Mountbattens in bestowing
undeservingly any kind of a 'Locus standi' on an otherwise handful of Muslims
heading the then Indian Muslim League, a totally unrepresentative, unselected,
and unauthorised body of it's kind as being really representative of the
Muslims of the then British India, in any sense of the term and in conceding
the demand of such a body for the partitioning of the ancestral land of the
Hindus and the other original inhabitants of the Land, besides also in dividing
the country in perpetuity.
NO MANDATE OF ANY KIND TO PARTITION
Even Jawaharial Nehru and his
congressite following could not claim to have any kind or sort of a 'mandate'
or 'authority' so to divide and/or 'partition' the ancestral land of the Hindus
in any manner, what so ever, that too indiscriminately in the manner it was
brought about, under Jawaharial's Premiership. Neither was any mandate or
authority sought in any manner, whatsoever, by the Nehru administration either
prior or subsequent to the 'partitioning' (so called) or even till date. THIS
BY ITSELF SUFFICES TO VITIATE THE ENTIRE EXERCISE AB INITIO AND PER SE.
This land of the Hindus extending
from 'AASETU HIMACHAL 'TO
KANYAKUMARI AND BALUCHISTAN (SINDH) TO KAMROOP,' initially called BHARAT,
Hindustan also HIND and India after the river 'SINDHU' or 'INDUS' respectively,
the people inhabiting the land around Sindhu or the Indus accordingly came to
be called 'Hindus' and/ or 'Indians'. India or Hind' also Included Kashmir,
encompassed by the Himalayas, the 'abode' of their chief deity MAHADEO. It
could under no circumstance or Low be permitted to be 'partitioned' at the
instance of Muslims alone, who were claiming a share therein on the strength of
an alleged 'prescriptive right' (also so called) that too based on the right of
an invader/conqueror, nowhere claimed and/or practised in the World till date.
The 1947 'partitioning' so called, is accordingly not only questionable but
also a total NULLITY, ab initio on several other grounds, as well, as brought
out in this presentation.
HINDU & THE HINDU RELIGION (SO CALLED)
The word 'HINDU', in fact, is traceable to a faulty pronunciation of the
word 'Sindhu' (the river Indus) as 'Hindu' as pronounced by the Khalifaite
invaders first occupying Sindh. The people around 'Sindhu' accordingly came to
be known as 'Hindus' irrespective of their religious affiliations. Afganistan,
then known as Gandhar after Kandhar was under Buddhist as also 'Vaishnavite'
influence then, which was not distinguishable to the invading hordes, who chose
to address the inhabitants as Hindus after the river Sindhu and not for the
religions they professed.
Accordingly the mountain ranges in
the vicinity of Sindhu or the river Indus came to be known as and called HINDU
KUSH' and the inhabitants of the land beyond Sindhu as 'HINDUS' generally,
though, in fact, they happened to be divided in several religious and ethnic
groups, such as Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Aryans and Unaryans, Dravidians,
Syrean Christians, Jews, Parsees, Nagas, etc. besides the tribal such as Gonds,
Bhils, Tulus, Madias and others not to speak of the Siddies on the West coast
and the Armenian and Syrian Christians settled since long in the land.
If will be seen that all the
aforementioned religious groups, in fact, stand clubbed together and
cumulatively treated with the Anglo Indians, Franco-Indians, lndo - Duch and
the lndo-Portuguese Christians as the Party of the 2nd Part for the
partitioning' so called contrary to religion, alone being the basis of
'partition', on the basis of which each and every religious group distinct from
the Hindu religion ought also to have been considered for a part or 'home land'
in the sub-continent in all fairness and equity if religion alone was to be the
sole basis for the partition, so called.
PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT
In short the so called
'partitioning' stands 'conceded', 'granted' and carried out at the mere asking
of the MUSLIMS alone, who openly claim to have acquired their so called
'prescriptive right' for having conquered and ruled over some parts of the sub
continent for hardly half a dozen centuries at the most that too without
continuity and/or under a common lineage of any kind as also in the form of
fragmented principalities, many of whom became extinct later on.
Similarly the word 'INDUS' used by
the Europeans for the river 'SINDHU' gave birth to the name 'INDIANS' for the
people and INDIA as the name of the Land as was the case with 'HIND' in 'JAI
MIND' and the people residing in 'HIND' being generally termed as 'HINDUS'. As
against this, it is noteworthy that the ancient name of India was and is BHARAT
and 'GANDHAR' the present day Afganistan was, In fact, a part of the Gupta empire as late as when
Alexander invaded India as also Hindu in character since time immemorial and
the Mahabharata times as well when it's princess Gandhari was wedded to the
Kaurav King Dhritrashtra.
HINDAVI
SWARAJYA THE CONCEPT OF 'HINDAVI SWARAJYA' PROPOUNDED BY THE GREAT 'JIJA MATA'
THE ILLUSTRIOUS MOTHER OF SHIVAJI also, it must be noted, was to ENCOMPASS THE
ENTIRE LAND AND TERRITORY KNOWN AS 'HIND' INCLUSIVE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND
SINDH.
As against this it could have been
also held that the British had a better prescriptive right' on the strength of more
than one and a half centuries 'ABSOLUTE,
UNCHALLENGED RULE' over the entire
subcontinent as a whole and under a single dynasty which could have entitled
them to a share of the land by right for and on behalf of the Christians and
for Christianity being totally distinct from the Hindu religion, as was
contended for the carving out of Pakistan as a 'home land' for the Muslims
exclusively.
MUSLIMS
'INVADING TRESPASSERS' The Muslims of the sub continent claiming the
'prescriptive right' by 'conquest' were initially 'invading trespassers' as
were the British, who later 'gracefully' chose to 'QUIT INDIA' on their own
since they were also not willing to become and/or call themselves or be treated
as INDIANS.
Likewise in choosing to consider themselves of an altogether different stock and a separate nation the Muslims and specially the protagonists of Pakistan ought also in fitness of things to have 'quit India' being of an altogether 'different' 'stock' and nationality' as the Pakistanis inclusive of the Bangladeshies still keep on refusing to address, call or acknowledge themselves to be.
Accordingly the Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis amongst the Muslims of the sub continent, ought also in all
fairness and grace to have voluntarily 'QUIT' the 'LAND' in the 'foot steps' of
the British and followed suit or in the alternative they will be exposing
themselves still to be taken as and treated as 'TRESPASSING INVADERS' in Law to
the last for all purposes. Such a stance will not leave for the Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis even a moral right or justification to continue to be possessed
even of the portion of land under their respective sway today, except as
trespassing aggressors and to hold it at the sufferance of the Hindus till they
are also likewise made to 'QUIT' it honourably or otherwise as the British did
or made to vacate it one day or the other by force or otherwise by the Indians.
One cannot but wonder as to how the
British, who are known for their meticulousness in all things they do, could
have permitted and/or conceded such an illogical and unlawful demand of the
Pakistanis to prevail.
If at all the Pakistanis and the
Bangladeshis happen by chance to be possessed of a part of the ancestral land
of the Hindus, which never, ever belonged to them, except under the law of the
invaders, it can also mean and come to that they have, in fact and in Law, been
occupying it forcibly against Law, or otherwise as it may turn out to be. THIS
NEED NOT BE EXPLAINED ANY FURTHER.
This very logical conclusion shall
also be applicable 'mutatis mutandis' in case of Bangladesh as well, whether it
becomes a 'party' to the present proceedings or not, unless consented to
otherwise by the defendants and the intervener, it may be noted.
THE 'HINDU' RELIGION (ALSO SO CALLED)
A clarification about the 'Hindu'
religion (so called) becomes relevant and a ‘must' here under the circumstance
and in the sequence. In the preceding paragraphs it has been brought out that the
word and nomenclature HINDU was generally applied to all the inhabitants of the
land around and beyond the Sindhu or the Indus river from which India and
Indians came to be called and distinguished by the Muslims and the Europeans.
This was also the case with the 'red Indians' of the Americas who wrongly came
to called as Indians, under the impression that Columbus had touched the shores
of India and also because they had a more or less similar complexion.
The religious practices, though
varied amongst the Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Shaivaites, Vaishnavites and others
of the sort in fact being propounded by Peers born out of Hindu stock, came
also to be cumulatively included in term HINDU in general by the outsiders, who
could not make out the finer distinctions and divergence amongst the HINDUS,
aforementioned. The religious festivals, thought, action, philosophy and common
forms of prayer and worship came also wrongly to be described and designated as
the 'HINDU' religion and those practising it as HINDUS all in all.
The
'HINDU' way of thought, belief, action and philosophy is wedded to and worships
'Shakti' or 'power' inherent and present in the most elementary forms of
progenyture symbolized in 'mother hood' or the 'female specie in animal Dom, Plants’, the 'bird' and 'Marine'
world besides the Universe, engulfing the 'Cosmos' it distinguishes as
'antariksha' and the 'Aakash' extending to infinity inclusive of the heavenly
bodies made up of the 'panch tatwas the five elements and the 'LINGA' the male
specie as the regenerative 'SHAKTI" without which progeniture of any kind
would be impossible of conception and/or procreation. ,
The 'HINDU' way of worship prescribes
no temple going, praying in Mosques and/or churches nor any fixed format for
the worship of these 'SHAKTIES' or natural phenomenon’s as the Muslims
prescribe a fixed 'MECCA' alone and exclusively being the focal point for
worship on the globe (how the followers of Islam on the exactly opposite side
of the Globe can strictly follow this rule, is a perplexing question). Islam
dictates 'JUMMA' or Friday being the only auspicious day 'of the week, as the
Christians infact insist upon church going only on Sundays taking it to be the
auspicious most day in the week, when the 'SUN' determines the days and nights
on earth.
Against this the 'HINDUS' (so
called) consider every day of the week to be auspicious, naming them after the
Planetary bodies nearest influencing the life on this Globe, without deriding
the importance of the other heavenly bodies making up the Universe.
The 'HINDU' way of thought, action,
philosophy and belief insists on the 'worship' of all these 'natural'
'Shakties' (phenomenon’s) in crudest of their forms, prescribing no pre-fixed
'idol forms' or temples of any kind for prayers neither does it recognize any
human as being the 'PAIGAMBAR' or 'MASIHA' as son or embodiment of 'GOD' as
Islam and Christianity preach nor any person, however exulted, being termed and
called the’ SON OF GOD' 'MESSENGER' OR THE ONLY IMMACULATE ONE against other
'GODLY' and/or 'SAINTLY' persons deserving to be worshipped or revered which
the other beliefs do not permit.
HINDUISM PREACHES NATURE WORSHIP
Under the Hindu faith and belief,
these sources of power or 'Shakties' are worshipped in the forms of 'AGNI',
(fire) 'VAYU' (Wind) 'SURYA' (the Sun) 'VARUNA' (Rain) 'SOM' (the moon) 'GRI
HAS' (the planets and the heavenly bodies) 'DHARATI' (the mother Earth) and the
'PANCH TATWAS' all matter, in its gaseous, liquid and solid forms. The Hindu
faith equally preaches the worship of the animal Dom in its various forms such
as, the 'VARAH' (the pig.), the Elephant, the Mouse, the Serpent, the
'CROCODILE', the 'COW', the 'BUFFALO', The TIGER, the 'BIRDS' 'MATSYA' (the
fish) etc. as also vegetation symbolised in the 'TULSI' the 'BUNYAN' tree, the
lotus, etc. being manifestations of nature itself.
The Hindu faith puts no restrictions
on it's followers in worshipping peers, saints and/or godly persons and/or
manifestations of other faiths, without ceasing to be Hindus, which is not
allowed under any other faith and/or belief. The Hindu way of thought and
belief does not entertain meaningless dogmas such as the doing of Namaz only in
the direction of Mecca, alone or calling people believing in other faiths to be
'KAFIRS', neither in any kind of forcible conversions of other people to the
Hindu way of belief.
VASUDHAIVA KUTUMBAKAM OR WORLD BROTHERHOOD
The Hindu faith on the contrary
preaches a universal brother-hood of mankind believing in a 'one world' concept
embodied in its MANAV DHARMA and VASUDHAIVA KUTUMBAKAM concept, which no other
religious order has preached or propagated till date.
The Hindu way of thought alone
permits it's followers, even to deny the very existence of any 'GOD' as
understood in common parlance which is embodied in it's NASTIK PANTH, which no
other religious thought or belief permits, or even comprehends being permissible
under it's teachings.
The mythical concepts of 'MAYA',
'MITHYA', 'AATMA' 'REBIRTH' 'SAAKAR', 'NIRANKAR' 'DWAIT', 'ADWAIT' 'PAAP' and
'PUNYA' 'YONI' Etc. distinguish the Hindu way of thought from that of the other
religions. Though the Hindu holds all days of the week to be as auspicious, it
lays a special emphasis on the 'TIMING' that is the 'MUHURT', basing it on
astrological calculations to perfection.
The Hindu does not recognize any
religious. POPE OR KHALIFA. The 'SHANKARACHARYAS' are mere 'DHARMA GURUS'
'religious teachers' without any religious 'halo' of any kind elevating them
from the rest, except to the extent of their academic excellence in religious
thoughts and learning, compared to their following.
HINDUISM NEAREST NATURE
The Hindu way of thought, belief and
action is as, a concept nearest 'NATURE', comparable to a 'fountain of liberal
thought and action', from which several other religious concepts have emerged
and taken shape as philosophised by many a thinkers such as Mahavir, Gautam
Buddha, Guru Nanak, Kabir giving birth to Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism,
Mahanubhav, Nirankari, Kabir and the Nastik Panths or concepts of prayer and
worship of nature in its various forms and manifestations. Hinduism, it may be
noted, is thus not at all a 'religion' in the ordinary sense of the term. What
is generally called and wrongly supposed to be the Hindu religion today, is, In
fact, a distorted form of 'SANATAN' Dharma prevalent in it's ancient most
primitive version in the form of customs and rituals practiced by ignorant
masses, based on ancient most dogmas and beliefs preceding it's refinement.
In short, there is no religion by
name HINDU in the strict sense of the term. Hence the knowledgeable amongst the
Hindus talk of MANAV Dharma, a code of conduct prescribed for the entire
humanity in general, without any distinction about caste, creed, race or
religion, a 'VASUDHEIVA KUTUMBAKAM', humanity being a single human family on
the planet earth as preached by lord Krishna in Geeta, or for that matter Saint
Gnyaneshwar In his Gnyaneshwari or even Vinoba Bhave In propounding the concept
behind his 'Jal Jagat'.
EVERY HUMAN 15 BORN A HINDU
To put it bluntly and sum it up in short 'every human is born and continues
to be a 'HINDU' till he or she knowingly or otherwise chooses to accept the
preachings say of Paigambar to become a Muslim or Christ to become a believer
in Christianity or for that matter Moses to become a Jew, so on and so forth.
Only Hinduism permits him or her to be a 'SWAYAMBHU' or a 'self ordained' one
and thereafter 'AHAM BRAMHA' that is 'GOD' by him or her self and/or even to
'deny' the very existence of any 'God' as commonly known, if he chooses the
NASTIK PANTH.
If this fact of there being no
'Hindu' religion had been taken into account or
consideration, by the British at the
time of the 1947 partition, (so called) the basing of the 'two nation' theory
of Muslims and Hindus of British India being 'TWO' nations could not at all
have stood to scrutiny by itself, or even otherwise.
1947 'PARTITION' - - 'VALIDITY' & NOTABLE ASPECTS
It will be noted that the then Indian Muslim league, claiming to speak
for and represent the entire Muslim population in British India, en block, was
most unfortunately taken to be such a representative body, which fact remained
undisputed except by a handful of Muslims like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and
Sheikh Abdulla, though for varying reasons and motivations. Persons so
disputing were countable on finger tips. The claim of the I.M.League was
otherwise untenable and overstretched.
It is also material to note that the
Muslims seeking Pakistan, as represented by the I.M.L. were claiming themselves
to be an altogether 'separate nation' and of a different stock from the Hindus,
even though mostly 'converts' and/or born out of progenies of converted Hindus.
The Muslims were yet asking for a share in the ancestral land of the Hindus
that too on the basis of a mere 'prescriptive right' (also so called) defined
no where in the world (till today even) allegedly having been acquired by the
Muslims because of having 'conquered and ruled' over some insignificant pockets
of the land in question, cumulatively for about half a dozen centuries at the
most, that too with centuries long gaps in between and no continuity of any
sort either lineal or otherwise, except in the case of the Mughals who can
claim to have established a dynastic rule of over 300 years till the 1858
Proclamation by the British. Half of this period was, in fact, spent and
accounted for under Mahratta supremacy for which a protection fee called
'chauthai' was continuously extracted by the Mahrattas from the Mughal emperors
as well as other chieftains of India.
It is also a fact of history that
all the Muslims claiming it to be so had initially come as 'invading
trespassers' as were the British, who most graciously chose, on their own, to
'QUIT' their acquisitions voluntarily in 1947. The Muslims ought also, in
fitness of things, to have emulated and likewise 'quit' the ancient land of the
Hindus, as gracefully, as the British had done at the mere asking, instead of
asking for a 'share' or 'partitioning' of the land in question, which the Muslims
were claiming by conquest, and/or for Muslims being a 'separate nation' simply
because their religion was 'different' from that of the rest of the
inhabitants.
HINDUS COULD CLAIM A PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT AGAINST AFGANISTAN
As against such a prescriptive right, so called, the Hindus, it must be
noted, could themselves lay a claim to Afganistan even for it, in fact, having
been within the Hindu fold and an outlying province under the Gupta Empire as
also ever since Mahabharat times, till it was annexed by Alexander. Afganistan
was also later given in dowry to Chandra Gupta Maurya by Selucus the Greek
governor of Alexander. As against this there was no continuity and/or common
lineage of any sort, whatsoever, neither relationship of any kind amongst any of
the several Muslim invading hordes that had invaded the land, most of whom went
back, lot, stock and barrel and for ever to their places of origin, excepting
the Mughals and a handful of the others who stayed over. There was nothing in
common between the invading hordes except their religion being Islam, nor were
they related, even remotely, to each other.
It is pertinent to note that
Muhammad Bin Kasim, Qutubuddin Aibak, the Khaijies, the Slaves, the Lodhies,
the Suries, including the Mughals ruled over a few Northern pockets of the
land, when Nizamulmulk and Hyder All etc. ruled over some southern pockets only
and that too for a very short duration excepting the Mughals, who could alone,
be said to have ruled for quite a long time, though not unchallenged.
MUSLIM RULE ACCOUNTED FOR ONLY HALF A DOZEN CENTURIES.
It must also be noted that the
entire period of Muslim rule as above altogether accounted for hardly half a
dozen centuries at the most cumulatively altogether which is too insignificant
and microscopic a period to be counted in history, except as a passing phase
only, and not at all sufficing to establish any kind of a prescriptive or any
other right, whatsoever, against the people inhabiting the land since time
immemorial.
It is also
pertinent to note that after the death of the most powerful Mughal Emperor
Au'rangjeb (in 1707), who had ceaselessly to fight the Mahrattas on their soil
for over three decades till his death and that of his queen, both lying buried
in the Mahratta soil itself, it was the Mahrattas that ruled supreme over the
imperial throne and capital at Delhi, for a period of over one and a half
century till 1857 extracting a 'protection' fee called 'CHOUTH' not only from
all the emperors at Delhi but also from various other principalities In the
land in acknowledgement of Mahratta supremacy till the British took over by the
1858 proclamation and ruled absolutely over the entire sub continent till 1947 that
is for over a century at a stretch under a single dynasty.
In comparison the land stretching from 'AA SETU
HIMACHAL that is KASHMIR to KANYA KUMARI and SINDH - BALUCHISTAN to KAMROOP
(Assam) the Hindus have
been inhabiting there upon since known
history. It is also noteworthy that none of the original inhabitants of the
land of the Hindus including the 'Aadiwasies' and/or the aboriginals, or the
'Tribal', the 'DRAVIDIANS', depressed classes or even the immigrating settlers
such as the Parsees, the Jews, The Syrean and Armenian Christians or the
Anglo-Indians, Franco- Indians, Portuguese-Indians have neither asked for a
division of the land or chosen to seek any 'part' of the ancestral land of the
Hindus, or asked for it being partitioned, as was carried out in 1947.
EVEN THE BRITISH COULD SIMILARY CLAIM A HOMELAND FOR THE CHRISTIANS.
It will further be noted that even
the British could themselves have sought and obtained, on this very basis, a
'separate nation' within the land for themselves and their Christian
co-religionists on the strength of a 'similar' 'prescriptive right' for, in
fact, having ruled the land absolutely and unchallenged over the length and
breadth of the land and at a stretch for over a one and half a century under a
single dynasty, if Pakistan is permitted to be carved out on the basis of
religion alone, as was done in 1947.
The British rule was absolute and unchallenged, besides over the entire land, including Shri Lanka and Burma as well. As against this the Muslim rulers were constantly opposed and challenged by the Mahrattas in particular on each and every battle field, through out the length and breadth of the land virtually from ATTOK, in the North to JINJI in the South and GUJRAT in the West to BENGAL in the East. As a matter of fact, it was a Muslim woman by name Chand Bibi from Ahmadnagar in Maharashtra itself that had in fact also fought against 'Akbar the Great', another illustrious Mughal Emperor at Agra, U.P,
The Dravidian and Hindu association
and habitation in the land, from AA SETU HIMACHAL, KASHMIR TO KANYAKUMARI and
SINDHU TO KAAMROOP, (Assam) ran thousands and thousand years of known history
at a stretch. It is also noteworthy that none of the aforementioned original
inhabitants of the land, including the Tribal and the Aodiwasies, had at all
sought 'their ancestral land' being 'partitioned' in any manner, nor has
consented, thereto, even till today. Neither have they approved of, or
consented to any part, thereof, being given over in perpetuity by the British,
to another INVADER, here the Muslims, however prior in time, they might claim
themselves to have come.
IMPOSING PARTITION ARBITRARY
This lapse on the part of the British was all the more objectionable and
reprehensive, when the all powerful British, were themselves being compelled to
'QUIT' and relinquish the territory, without even being permitted to hold a
single inch of the land, in spite of their absolute sway over the country
stretching over one and a half century. As a matter of fact the British could
also not claim even a moral or legal right either to 'partition' the land nor
to hand over or transfer, in any manner, even a part of it, arbitrarily or to
give it over in perpetuity to any particular community that too in preference to
or against the claims and rights of the original inhabitants of the land.
Such an arbitrary handing or rather 'gifting' over of a part of the sub-continent to the Muslims alone, to the exclusion of the rest of the people of the land, under the name of the 'partitioning' (so called), that too which could not at all be accomplished under Law, customary or conventional, as brought out, hereinbefore, was thus totally baseless, unprincipled, unjust, inequitable, unfair as well as unwarranted, 'ab initio' and VOID ABLE as such, as also brought out in this presentation.
The kind of 'partitioning', (so
called) brought about by the British was besides beyond the competent
jurisdiction, both legal and moral, as also unjustified on the part of the
British, who were, in fact, on the point of 'QUITTING' their 'sovereignty' over
the territory and can at the most be said to amount only to an 'unauthorised,
undeserved charity, or a 'gift" or a mischievous surrender and/or disposal,
abandonment, unlawful transfer and/or wrongful entrustment by one 'invader
trespasser' in favour of a preceding 'trespasser invader', that too of property
belonging to 'another', which is NULL and VOID, AB - INITIO.
This was all the more objectionable
and untenable, when the Muslims of both Pakistan and Bangladesh, till date,
refuse even to call themselves to be of Indian origin or stock, which could be
said to have entitled them to obtain, occupy and/ or seek a part of the land by
right. More so when no other ethnic group living in the land since time
immemorial stands treated on par or considered entitled or even for being
allotted a 'part' thereof, by way of the 'partitioning' so called.
PARTITIONING UNLAWFUL AB-INITIO
It is also to be noted that a 'partition' as known and taken to be in
Law and common parlance as well, presupposes a common heredities, ancestry,
and/or a coparcener blood relationship' of some sort or the other amongst the
co-sharers, who can be permitted even to seek a 'partition' of any kind, which
has besides to be in accordance with custom, convention and law, applicable to
the people besides by leaps and bounds and based on predetermined yardsticks.
This has not at all been adhered to by
the British in bringing about the so called
1947 'partitioning' of the
sub-continent. The British have besides exceeded their competency and
jurisdiction, both legal and moral in carrying out the exercise that too at the
instance of the Muslims alone, who sought the 'partitioning' against a so
called 'prescriptive' right based on the right of an 'invader trespasser' and
under law of conquest, which was untenable and obnoxious in itself. The 1947
'partition' of the Indian sub continent, as carried out by the British was
neither a 'partition' under custom, convention and/or law, nor a 'valid'
transfer, division, distribution or handing over, disposal or entrustment of
any kind, whatsoever, besides uncalled for, unjust, unlawful, inequitable,
arbitrary and bad in Law. Accordingly it is devoid of any consequence and void
able at the instance of the other inhabitants of the land.
All ENGLAND RETURNED BAR-AT-LAWS.
One cannot but wonder as to how not even a single legal luminary of
India, inclusive of Dr. Ambedkar's eminence or Shri. V.D. Sawarkar, the Saprus,
the Jaykars, and the like, all invariably 'England returned Bar-at laws, as
also Shri. Jawaharial Nehru and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi down to the
innumerable Palkhiwalas and Jethmalanies of the day, never ever happenened to
question either the 1partitioning', so called, as also the validity of this
exercise in illegality till today which has proved tragic indeed for India.
Jawaharlal Nehru may however be
pardoned and permitted to escape the blame for having developed a 'vested
interest' in the undue haste and greed of becoming and/or being installed as
the 'first' Prime Minister of Independent India, as also in fear of the
illustrious Subhosh Chandra Bose happening to come back on the Indian scene and
deprive Nehru of the coveted post. Further more it was possible for Nehru to
achieve it only under the Mount Battens, who were about to quit the country and
must have goaded Nehru to pounce on the opportunity,
Shri. Jawaharlal Nehru was also known
to be under the amorous influence of one of the Mount Batten ladies, who must
also have used her charms to entice Nehru in committing the treachery, with a
view to keep Nehru gratified to the British for ever but for which the 1947
kind of partitioning could never ever have been perpetuated.
DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
It is a patent and tragic failing of our constitutional frame work that
it miserably fails to provide for or lay any emphasis on the 'quality' and
'competency' of our ruling elite, in prescribing no criteria or qualifications,
whatsoever, for their elevation to the highest of the offices under our set up.
Even Dr. Ambedkar, our constitution maker, had not, in fact, drafted a single
other 'constitution' of any other country of the world and is on record to have
talked of 'burning' the 'constitution' he had laboured hard to 'produce' for
India, the day he was relieved of his ministerial job and oath of secrecy.
The 'constitution' he had produced,
has, in fact, had to be 'amended' more than 70 times within the historically
microscopic span of 47 years since it was framed, not to speak of the 1975176
emergency, when all norms of constitutional morality were thrown to the winds,
as never before, that too by a 'woman' 'dictator' who could succeed in
elevating herself and her coterie above Low, as also in snatching away the
right of hebius corpus guaranteed to us under the constitution.
Though it might appear to many a
Indians to be rather too late in the day to undo the situation, under the
present constitutional set up in India, which does not permit 'quality' to
prevail over 'quantity of votes and money', however ill gotten, it is otherwise
never too late in history to set things right, as best as one can, under the circumstance,
as may be possible, feasible and practicable of accomplishment, given
ingenuity, perseverance and tact men of capacity and mettle handling it.
THE 'KASHMIR' TANGLE
The 'Kashmir'
tangle, a man made one, is not at all impossible of solution, handled tactfully
and ingeniously by the 'right' man of 'capacity' and 'tact' as per the saying
in Gujrati. 'JENU KAAM, TENU THAI : BEEJA KAREY GOTA KHAI'... meaning simply
that if a job is entrusted to a wrong person, he is sure to spoil it beyond,
repairs. This dramatised fictional presentation shows a way out of the Kashmir
tangle.
DR. AMBEDKAR & THE 1947 'PARTITION'.
A word of heartfelt gratitude must
go for this to the Late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar for his labourious treatise on
the subject of the 1947 'partition' (so called) (of the Indian sub continent)
and Pakistan, which stands quoted and utilised in preparation of this
presentation.
Dr. Ambedkar, a man of repute and
unquestionable integrity, had, in fact, gone to the extent of 'advocating'
Pakistan being conceded as a permanent solution of the problem facing India,
which unfortunately, it did not 'prove' to be. This author must, therefore,
totally disagree as such, with this recommendation of Dr. Ambedkar, since
conceding Pakistan has not solved the problem at all.
Whatever the motivations Dr.
Ambedkar had, it must be said, that he has miserably failed in grasping the
various perspectives and impracticalities underlying the carving out of such a
'theoretically separate ethnic entity' within the subcontinent based solely on
a single religious complexion that two at the mere asking of a handful of
Muslim fundamentalists without caring for the sentiments of the other ethnic
groups inhabiting the sub continent since time immemorial, or the others.
THE 1947 ARRANGEMENT SELF CONTRADICTORY
Any such division or 'partitioning'
of the land, under the 'two nation' theory, (also so called) solely based on
the faulty premise of the Muslims being a 'separate' nation by themselves
against the rest of the ethnic and religious groups and races clubbed together
and cumulatively held and treated as 'HINDUS' as being the 2nd nation' of the
two, was itself self contradictory, fallacious be sides absurd.
The carving out and creation of
Pakistan as an exclusive 'HOME LAND' for the Muslims alone, was again totally
meaningless and also absurd in itself without providing for a systematic
exchange of populations and transfer of all the Muslims to the Muslim 'home
land' which resulted in crores and crores of Muslims being left over in the
Indian 'DAR-UL-HERAB', the part marked out for the 'HINDUS' as the 2nd nation.
This ought to have been meticulously provided for in advance by the British,
for being given effect to by the succeeding nations, which is still to be
accomplished, in the sequence.
NO PROVISION FOR TRANSFER OF All MUSLIMS TO THEIR HOMELAND
In the
absence of any specific provision for such a 'transfer' of all the Muslims of
the sub continent to the Muslim home land, carved out exclusively for the
Muslims, the homeland concept cannot at all be said to have been fully
accomplished until and unless it is so brought about and the sequence enacted
as a 'condition precedent', for the creation of Pakistan in the true sense of
the term 'homeland which has to be gone through and accomplished
first before any aspect of the 1947 'partitioning' is permitted to be
'reopened' as an 'un, finished business' or otherwise, irrespective of what
ever consequences that may follow it.
Pakistan inclusive of Bangladesh
will have to be ready and legally bound to fulfil this precondition before
Pakistan is permitted to lay a fresh claim against India on the pretext of the 1947
exercise being an unfinished business.
It must also be noted that Pakistan
inclusive of Bangladesh was created at the sole instance of the Indian Muslim
league representing all the Muslims of the sub continent and that the Muslims
had accepted the partitioning, (so called), as carried out by the British in
1947 without any reserve and/or protest of any kind, whatsoever, which must
accordingly be held binding on the Muslims for all purposes.
It must also be kept in mind and
noted that 'partitions' or 'partitioning' is NOT TO BE CARRIED OUT OR EVEN
ENTERTAINED IN INSTALMENTS, The demand over 'KASHMIR', that too being put up by
Pakistan after nearly half a century calling it an 'unfinished business of the
1947 partition' will besides be amounting to a virtual reopening of the 1947'
'partition' (so called) in it's entirely and for all purposes also be reviving
all options for India as well as the intervener.
THE REOPENING OF KASHMIR ISSUE PRELUDE TO A 2nd PARTITION
The reopening of the Kashmir issue
may also, in all probability, be a prelude to or amounting to a 2nd
'partitioning' of the land as well as a precursor to many more demands of the
kind that may follow, thereafter, or be on the agenda of the Muslims as was
very casually referred to by Mohammad Sait, the present day Muslim League
leader in India recently in Nagpur on 12-12-1994 (Hitwad dated 13-12-1994)
which must also be taken note of by all concerned, especially the Hindus.
It may also be noted that the demand
against Jammu & Kashmir is again specifically being based on the 'infamous'
'two nation' concept and religion, for it's being a Muslim majority State, a
replay of the 'Two Nation' theory in action.
FAILINGS OF DR. AMBEDKAR.
What Dr. Ambedkar had in mind in
recommending Pakistan being conceded is left only to conjecture by now, though
not difficult to guess as well as known to many. Yet his recommendation having
proven to be of no consequence at all in solving the problem, stands clearly established
to be totally off the mark and proves Dr. Ambedkar, as is obvious, has erred in
his judgement, which lacks conviction to' the extent. The irritant still
persists and has, in fact, assumed the shape of a chronic national headache,
defying cure.
In this connection it is also
noteworthy that Dr. Ambedkar had, in fact, also then failed as on record to
provide for sufficient funds for the defence of the country against a mistaken
belief that Pakistan will never be in a position to wage a war against India,
which also proved wrong. Pakistan is again threatening India with a 4th war and
a nuclear one this time.
AMBEDKAR A BAR-AT-LAW FAILED IN NOT INTERPRETING PARTITION
Dr. Ambedkar's failing to interpret
the very word 'PARTITION' under the Law as to it's legal meaning and
connotations was also most unpardonable for an 'England U.S.A. returned
Bar-at-Law', besides an authority on constitutional low, it must be very
regretfully put on record. ALL THIS HAS TO BE REMEDIED FORTH WITH
THE
AUTHOR
Nagpur, Maharashtra THAKUR V.K.
dated 15 1 8 1 1995 (Vasant Krishna Thakur)
(PROCEEDINGS)
'K A S H M I R'
BEFORE
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
PRESIDING JUSTICES
MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER
(J 1) (Pr./J) (J/2)
(ARJENTINIAN) (JAPANESE) (AFRICAN)
IN THE MATTER OF
PAKISTAN (PLAINTIFFS) VIS INDIA
(DEFENDANTS)
BY INTERVE.NER,
(VASANT KRISHNA THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
(A 'MAHRATTA' INDIAN NATIONAL)
SUBJECT AT ISSUE :- FUTURE OF THE INDIAN STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
INVOLVED :-
CITIZENS OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
2.
THOSE FOR MERGER WITH PAKISTAN (MOSTLY MUSLIMS)
3. THOSE FOR STATUS QUO AND/OR REMAINING WITH INDIA (ALL HINDUS, ALL BUDDHISTS AND A SIZABLE NUMBER OF MUSLIMS)
4. FOR STATUS QUO AND/OR FOR AUTONOMY
(MOSTLY ANTI PAKISTAN SHIA LOBBY)
5.
THOSE UNDECIDED/UNCONCERNED...
(NUMBERS UNASCERTAINABLE EASILY)
COMMUNAL ATMOSPHERE: - NO COMMUNAL CONFLICTS Till DATE
OPINION POLL: - IMPRACTICAL AND LIKELY TO PRODUCE A
'HUNG' VERDICT
PARTIES SOUGHT TO BE EXAMINED BY
PAKISTAN
NONE
PARTIES SOUGHT TO BE EXAMINED BY INDIA NONE
PARTIES SOUGHT TO BE EXAMINED BY
INTERVENER ABBREVIATIONS
1 THE ERSTWHILE 'EAST PAKISTAN' NOW
BANGLADESH (B. D.) W. NO.
1
2 GREAT BRITAIN (Gr. Br.) W. NO. 11
3 HIS HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA EX OF
TIBET (HH. D.L.) W. NO. Ill
4 REPUBLIC OF CHINA (CHINA) W. NO. IV
5 PAKISTAN (THE PLAINTIFFS) (PAK) W. NO. V
6 INDIA (THE DEFENDANTS) (INDIA) W. NO. VI
7 FOR INDIAN MUSLIMS (INTERESTED
PARTY) (ALLAH RAKKHA) I.P. VII
8 THE U.S.A. (U.S.A.) W. NO. VIII
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
(IN SESSION)
PR./J.:- What
are the facts, the 'issue', the nature of dispute and the parties involved?
COURT OFFICIAL.- My Lords, the gist of the facts is:- PAKISTAN (the plaintiffs) inclusive
of Bangladesh, (W.No. I), roped in as a necessary party, as an erstwhile part
of Pakistan and INDIA (the defendants) came to be carved out from the then
British India as two independent nations in 1947 through an alleged 'partition'
of the sub continent, minus the then princely states, under the last British
Governor General/ Viceroy Lord Louis Mount Batten representing GREAT BRITAIN
(W.No. II), then sovereign over the Indian subcontinent.
The British chose to 'QUIT' and free the subcontinent of
their free will in 1947 after an absolute rule running over more than a century
over the entire sub continent comprising also the said princely states, which
were given the option and choice of acceding to any of the two nations namely
Pakistan and India. Pakistan was carved out at the sole behest of the Muslims
of the subcontinent on the basis of religion, based on the 'two nation' theory
propounded by the protagonists of Pakistan contending the Muslims in British
India being a separate 'nation' by themselves and altogether of a different
'stock' from the 'HINDUS' inhabiting the land since time immemorial.
PAKISTAN A HOME LAND FOR THE MUSLIMS
The
Muslims represented by the then Indian Muslim league, had sought Pakistan as a
'home land' for the Muslims, exclusively and ultimately to be a 'theocratic'
'Muslim nation', comprised of the two wings, then known as East Pakistan
(presently Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (presently Pakistan) with Islam as
it's state religion. The 2nd nation India has continued to be secular, in
character, even thereafter till today.
The two wings, of Pakistan as carved
out by the British and accepted as a 'homeland' by the 1, Muslim League,
happened to be topographically apart and separated by a thousand kilometres of
Indian territory wedged in between with no direct land link in between the two
wings.
EAST PAKISTAN BECOMES BANGLADESH
East Pakistan declared itself
independent from West Pakistan after the 1971 war between the two, renaming
itself as BANGLADESH besides declaring 'BUNGLA' as it's official language
replacing 'URDU'. The war between the two had resulted from the inhuman
atrocities, large-scale rapes and murders perpetuated by the Pakistani military
upon the Bangladeshi population, a well-known fact of history, which has left
lakhs and lakhs of Bihari Muslims still waiting to be repatriated to the
Western wing, since Bangladesh is not willing to accept them as its citizens.
Immediately after the alleged
partitioning of the Indian sub continent into two separate nations as above,
some Muslim outsiders Invaded the then semi autonomous, semi Independent
princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim majority state under a Hindu
Raja. The then Sadr-e-riyasat of J. &. K. State Shri. Sheikh Abdullah
thereupon sought the help of India for driving out the invading hordes. India
agreed to help the State on condition that it lawfully acceded to India, where
after the accession formalities were gone through under Lord Louis
Mountbatten's governor generalship, backed also by a unanimous resolution of
the Jammu & Kashmir Ministry as on record. Pakistan did not in any manner
object to the accession of J. &. K. to India and so did the World,
inclusive of all the Muslim countries as well as the United States of America,
in acknowledging the accession till 1993194 when Mr. Bill Clinton happened to
assume the Presidentship of the U.S.A. and started calling the accession of J.
&. K. to India being a 'disputed' one, giving rise to the emergence of the
issue before these high alters.
PAKISTAN FORCIBLY OCCUPIES 1/3 RD OF J. &. K. STATE
In the
mean while Pakistan (West) had waged three successive wars with India and
allegedly succeeded in forcibly grabbing and occupying nearly 113 rd territory
of the State of J. &. K., hereinafter referred to as the P.O.K., a part of
which it has since leased out, to CHINA (W.No. IV), disregarding India's
protests and objections, as alleged. The leased out part fails on the South of
the Maemohan Line border as also the Askai Chin area of the State of J. &
K., which has also surreptiously, as alleged, been grabbed by CHINA in or about
1958, in spite of India's protests, which ultimately resulted in the 1962 war
between China and India, after thousands and thousands and thousands of years
of 'peaceful coexistence' between the two neighbouring-Countries of Asia.
But for the timely intervention and
threat of the U.S.A. joining the conflict given openly by Mr. John Kennedy, the
then President of the U.S.A., India, totally unprepared militarily under Nehru,
would most probably have been over run by CHINA and subjugated long back.
SMT. BHUTTO CLAIMS KASHMIR AS AN UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF 1947
Only a
hundred or odd miles long stretch of border of the Chinese province of Sikyang
was till then common with that of the State of J. & K. as also between
China and India till China forcibly overran and annexed TIBET around 1950 or
thereabouts driving away and compelling HIS HOLINESS the DALAI LAMA, (W. No.
111) the then head of Tibet to flee to and seek refuge in India ever since. In
1994 Smt. Benazir Bhutto assumed the Prime Minister ship of Pakistan for a 2nd
time and has thereafter been issuing statements asserting 'KASHMIR' to be 'AN
UNFINISHED BUSINESS' of the 1947 'PARTITION' besides claiming it by a
'PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT' (so called) whatever that is supposed to mean, allegedly
no where defined in the World till date or even under or by the British.
SMT. BHUTTO THREATENS A. NUCLEAR WAR OVER KASHMIR.
Smt. Bhutto has also threatened to go in for a
nuclear war to take over Jammu & Kashmir, against which India has time and
again expressed it's willingness to have it talked over in Secretary level
talks and other parleys.
The 'INTERVENER MAHRATTA' has, thereupon,
'so-motto' chosen to refer the entire matter to these High Alters of Justice,
apprehending that his Country's case may be allowed to suffer by default and/or
by callous neglect by India under the Congressite regime and/or not properly defended by the Congressite rulers
of the Country, who are alleged to have developed some vested interets in
perpetuating the issue and/or allowing it to go by lapse. Hence the necessity
for the intervention and reference before these High Alters for justice.
The witnesses
listed, hereinbefore, are to be examined by the ]intervener Mahratta, none of
the other Parties shall be putting up any witnesses of their own. Bangladesh is
besides also being cited by the intervener as a 'necessary Party' for it's
erstwhile role of being EAST Pakistan, even though it has expressly
disassociated itself from any claim over the state of Jammu & Kashmir,
being thousand kilometers away from Bangladesh besides the Kashmiri language
also being unrelated to Bungla.
Tibet's
taking over and annexation by China (W. No. IV), HH Dalai lama's (W.No.111)
taking asylum in India, China's (W. No. IV) taking over and occupation of Askai
Chin area of J. & K. State, In or about 1958, the 1962 China - India war
from Bom De La in Laddakh (J. & K.) and Tezpur in N.E.F.A. (India's North
eastern agency) are facts of history.
It is also a
fact that the border along the McMahan Line between Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan,
about a thousand kilometers in length, failing South of Tibet was never ever
disputed by China (W. No. IV) or even Tibet prior to the taking over of Tibet
by China. In 1950.
The witnesses
stand subpoenaed at the instance of the intervener Mahratta In the anticipation
of the intervening being permitted. The matter is ready to proceed.
Pr./J. :- Any preliminary objections prior to the
matter being taken up
BANGLADESH
CHOOSES TO REMAIN UNINVOLVED
BANGLADESH
:- M'Iords We may kindly be
permitted to bring on record at this very
initial
stage, that Bangladesh is neither concerned nor in any way interested with the
fate of Jammu & Kashmir and/or in claiming any part thereof or in
supporting the claim of Pakistan, thereto and hence sees no reason or
justification in being dragged in these proceedings, in which it does not
wan to be involved in light of the
above as also for it being totally unnecessary. Bangladesh would prefer to be
neutral and left out of the proceedings, as far as possible. Prayed
accordingly.
J./1. - What has the intervener to say to that?
MAHRATTA.-
M' Lords. Bangladesh is a
necessary Party to these proceedings because
it has
benefited directly from the 1947 'partition' (so called), the 'UNFINISHED
BUSINESS' referred to by Smt. Bhutto, P.M. Pakistan which was joint with
Bangladesh in receiving what they obtained from the 1947 partitioning (so
called) and hence Bangladesh will also have to be held accountable jointly for
the 'Unfinished' as well as the 'finished' part of that so called unfinished
'business'. It cannot under the circumstance be permitted to escape the
consequences In wake of the chapter being 'reopened' in it's entirety, by
Pakistan as brought out earlier.
J/2
:- Allowed. Any other Party objecting?
PAKISTAN'S OBJECTIONS AGAINST INTERVENING
PAK :- Our
objections Milord are :-
First that the intervener MAHRATTA, whatever he means by that nomenclature, should not at all be entertained or permitted to raise the matter suo motu, when India the defendants have not at all chosen to bring the matter before these alters, besides having shown their readiness to talk it over. This means that the Issue is still to take a final shape and ripen.
Secondly the defendants cumulatively represent the entire people of India, including the intervener. If individuals are permitted to intervene in international disputes and/or proceedings of the kind, the number may go beyond bearable proportions making the exercise cumbrous and unmanageable, which has to be discouraged.
Thirdly, the defendants, India, are capable of defending their case efficiently and with the best of counsels, besides being accountable and responsible for honoring and/or implementing the awards, the intervener may not at all be capable of.
Fourthly, the intervener’s identity as a MAHRATTA, whatever that is supposed to mean andlor connote, is not only open to question but too vague a term to comprehend.
Fifthly in any eventuality, the intervener does not have any kind of an authority, mandate, empowerment or even consent of the defendants nor to represent any other body, public or private.
The intervener, accordingly, has no 'locus standi' to intervene individually or otherwise, in an International matter, which may result in futility and a waste of the precious time of this learned Court, which has to be avoided, as far as possible.
Pr./J. :- What has the intervener to say against that?
MAHRATTA.- AS regards the first objection raised by Pakistan, it Is submitted M'Lords, that the issue is being raised and agitated suo motu by the intervener in the apprehension, as specifically brought out earlier also by the learned Court Official, of the Interests of India and it's case being permitted to fail by lapse and/or go undefended, eiher callously or otherwise by sufferance by the Congressite ruling party In control of the affairs, which has developed a vested interest in allowing it so to fail, to cover up it's past misdeeds, failings and acts of treachery, necessitating the Intervention.
As regards the 2nd objection, it is submitted that this is a public interest litigation involving the welfare of each and every citizen of India as also of the subcontinent. The issue has by now assumed the character of a chronic national irritant involving the country in three consecutively wars, not of it's asking and the problem does not brook any further delay in being solved forthwith, which the Congressite ruling group is not at all interested in. The congressite government, on the contrary, wants to keep the Issue festering to perpetuate it's own hold over the country all along taking advantage of the national emergencies promulgated in the wake of the conflicts to consolidate a dynastic rule over the country from time to time. There will be no scope for this kind of a mischief once the problem is solved satisfactorily.
THE PROPHECY
As regards the intervener being
accountable and responsible for honouring of the award, if any, it is submitted
on it's own, choose to abandon it's entire claim to the State of Jammu &
Kashmir and even voluntarily surrender the part of the territory of J. & K.
grabbed by it forcibly, back to India, in the interests of it's own survival
and that of the Muslims of the sub- continent in general. It is further
confidently asserted that after this presentation is heard and entertained, in
the spirit it is put up, Pakistan as well as Bangladesh may further, on their
own, voluntarily seek to be taken back in the Indian fold, permanently, in some
form of a loosely confederated arrangement, also for their own survival sake
and the situation may change altogether.
As regards the identity of a MAHRATTA and whatever
the nomenclature is supposed to mean and symbolise, in the Indian context, it
is submitted that Muslims, who profess to be well versed with their history of
conquests in the sub-continent, accounting for hardly a thousand years, gone
by, can hardly deny not knowing the 'MAHRATTAS' of all the ethnic groups and
races in India more specially for the Mahrattas alone having in fact, fought
the Muslims on each and every known battle field within the sub-continent
virtually from 'ATTOK' in the North to 'JINJI' in the South and 'KATTAK' and
'BENGAL' in the East to GUJRAT in the West. The Muslims cannot plead ignorance
about their own history in India.
PESHWA BAJIRAO KNEW NO DEFEAT IN WAR
The
MAHRATTAS under Peshwo Bajirao knew no defeat against the Muslims or any one else
for that sake. It was the MAHRATTAS that had compelled Aurangzeb, the
illustrious most amongst the Mughai Emperors, to wage a three decade long
ceaseless war on the soil of the Mahrattas, till his death, wherein he lies
buried along with his Queen.
III rd
BATTLE OF PANIPAT
It was the
Mahrattas alone, who had by themselves fought the combined armies of Ahmad Shah
Abdali, Najib Khan Rohilia and Nawab Shujauddaula of Awadh in the 3rd Battle of
Panipat (India) (1 76 1) sacrificing a lakh of their kith and kin besides
having come from over a distance of 800 miles from their home ground to fight,
that too for safeguarding the interests of the Mughal emperor at Delhi. The
Mahrattas used to extract from the Mughal emperors at Delhi a 'protection' fee
of supremacy called 'CHOUTH' from the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 onwards till
1857 as also from various other principalities in the sub-continent.
THE 1857 MUTINY
The 1857 Indian
mutiny leading to the banishment of the last Mughal Emperor at Delhi, was led
by and fought mainly under Mahratta Generals Nanasaheb Peshwa, Tatya Tope and
Rani Laxmi of Jhansi, it has to be noted.
MAHRATTAS DID NOT RECOGNIZE ANY'BAAD SHAHI'
The Mahrattas had defeated the Nizam
and neither had Hyder All nor Tipu Sultan dared to fight the Mahrattas.
As regards the 4th objection by
Pakistan, it is submitted that the Mahrattas in traditionally acting as the
'self ordained' sentinels of 'Hindavi Swarajya' did not recognize any 'BAAD
SHAHI' having founded their own 'HINDU PAT PAAT SHAHI' and '@AARATHA SHAHI',
the Muslims of the subcontinent in the least can ill afford to deny or ignore.
Famous also for their 'EKANDI
SHILEDARI' (lone sentinel's role), the Mahrattas needed no authorisation or
mandate of any kind to speak and/or act for and on behalf of the sub continent
as a whole 'AA SETU HIMACHAL from 'KASHMIR TO KANYA KUTAARI' and from 'SINDH TO
KAAMROOP', (as the famous adage goes) for 'Hindavi' Swarajya,.
MARATHA SHAHI KNEW NO KINGSHIP EVEN
In this
connection it will not be out of place to bring out further that the Mahrattas
of all the ethnic groups in India never even accepted the Muslim rulers at
Delhi, namely the Mughals even, as their emperors, in any form whatsoever. As a
matter of fact the MARATHA CONFEDERACY did not recognize any kingship amongst
themselves even. The head of their MARATHA SHAHI was known as 'CHATRA PATI' as
was the case with Shivaji even till after a few Brahmin priests from Uttar
Pradesh later tried, in vain, to 'crown' Shivaji as a king. It will however be
pertinent to note that the 'crowning' so called was without a 'crown' and
Shivaji as also his heirs continued to be called 'CHATRA PATI', thereafter, as
well.
MAHRATTAS DID NOT RECOGNIZE 'ALAM GIRI' EVEN
The
MAHRATTAS accordingly also did not recognize any 'Alamgiri' or 'Baad Shahi'
against their own 'Hindu Pat Paat Shahi'. oweing allegiance only to 'MARATHA
SHAHI' and acted all the time as the self ordained sentinels of 'HINDAVI
SWARAJ', and not that of Mahrashtra only.
MAHRATTAS EXTRACTED 'CHOUTH' FROM EMPERORS AT DELHI
'HIND' in
'HINDAVI' meant and included entire India. Thus of all the ethnic groups in
India the Mahrattas can never be said to have ever accepted the governorship of
any person over the land including that of Mughals, whom they fought till the
last besides, in fact, exercising supremacy over the rulers at Delhi for over
one and a half century from 1707 onwards till 1857 all along extracting a
protection fee called CHOUTH from all the rulers at Delhi as also from other
principalities, through out the subcontinent, wherever their 'horses' could
reach.
M' Lords, it is humbly submitted
that the Muslims of the sub continent of all persons, cannot be permitted to
plead ignorance of all this history or about what the word 'MAHRATTA' denotes
and/or signifies.
J/1 :- What
has the spokesman for Pakistan to say to that?
OBJECTIONS WAIVED BY PAKISTAN
PAK :- The
facts and assertions of the intervener cannot be denied. We waive
all our objections in all fairness
to the participation and intervening by the Intervener Mahratta.
J/2 - This attitude
is highly appreciated. It makes our task easier, besides saving time. Has
India, the defendants any objections against the intervener being permitted to
intervene?
INDIA No M' lords.
PAK:- Objections overruled. How far is
Bangladesh sought to be involved in this matter'? Will it have any interest or
say if ultimately a part or whole of Jammu & Kashmir happens to go to the
share of Pakistan, if We choose to decide it in it's favour, for Bangladesh
was, infact, a 'co sharer' beneficiary with Pakistan initially in the alleged
1947 'partitioning"?
B.D. :- M'
Lords, Bangladesh does not and cannot wish to join Pakistan in laying any claim
to Jammu & Kashmir, first since Bangladesh is nearly a thousand Kilometres
away from Kashmir, neither has it any thing in common with the Kashmiries
except religious affinity. The Kashmiries however are mostly shias. Bungla is
also totally different from the Kashmiri language. Bangladeshies are mostly
Sunnies.
BANGLADESH A NECESSARY PARTY
MAHRATTA :- M'
Lords Even though Bangladesh is not interested in J. & K. for whatever
reasons, it shall have formally to be joined and made a party to the
proceedings, as being an erstwhile 'co sharer' in 1947 'partitioning', besides
also being jointly accountable for some aspects of the 1947 'unfinished
business', which had fallen to. it’s lot, then. Bangladesh will, in the natural
sequence, also have to be held accountable for some aspects of the 'unfinished
business' of 1947 partitioning which has been 'reopened' in it's entirety by
Pakistan, it's erstwhile co sharer and joint beneficiary.
J/2 :- The
points raised by The intervener in respect of Bangladesh shall be noted and
taken into account. The intervener is now asked to justify his intervening in
bringing the matter 'suo motu' before these alters, when, in fact, talks are
actually being mooted by the defendants themselves and the issue is still to
take a final shape, as may emerge out of those parleys ultimately.
PAKISTAN HAS NO RIGHT AT All
MAHRATTA :- M'Lords,
according to the intervener, the issue does not brook any further delay not
only because Pakistan is openly talking of a war, a nuclear one to be more
specific, when according to the intervener the protagonists of Pakistan, even
initially, had no right at all of any kind even to demand a part of the
ancestral of the land of the Hindus not to speak of getting any share therein
by right, as has arbitrarily and unlawfully, been bestowed upon them by the
British. That exercise/ arrangement/partitioning (so called) was and is
avoidable, ab initio, at the option and choice of the original inhabitants of
the sub-continent. No talks or parleys of any kind, whatsoever, with Pakistan
on the subject or even over the Jammu & Kashmir issue, if any, are at all
called for or necessary.
The matter has suo motu been brought
before these high alters by the intervener to see the national irritant,
decided once for ever by this International Court of Justice in the interests
of world peace, which stands indiscriminately threatened with a nuclear war.
Pakistan's Lady Prime Minister, Smt. Bhutto being a 'woman' is in no position
to fathom the agonies and implications of any such conflict and it's
repercussions and consequences worldwide.
Secondly
India usually conducts all these talks and parleys in undue secrecy behind the
back of it's people, which has resulted in the most foolish, indiscriminate, unprincipled,
irresponsible and unwarranted kind of a 'partition', so called, ever carried
out anywhere else in the World, by any government worth the name and salt,
which stands foisted and perpetuated upon the Country in it's foetal state of
infancy and emergence as a nation in it's own rights.
Thirdly M'
lords, the Mahrattas alone, of all the ethnic races inhabiting the
subcontinent, have traditionally been playing the role of 'self ordained'
'sentinels' of 'Hindavi Swarajya' since historical times. The Mahrattas alone
have exercised un
challenged 'supremacy' over the Muslim emperors at Delhi as also others
chieftains in the sub continent for over a century and a half at a stretch, on
the strength of which they alone can rightfully assert even a 'prescriptive
right', of a sort, (to put it in the words of the Pakistanis, themselves) on
moral, ethical, as well as legal grounds to challenge the Muslim protagonists
of 'Pakistan' asking for or claiming to be entitled to any share or part of the
ancestral land of the Hindus, by any right, whatsoever.
MAHRATTAS ALONE STAND CHALLENGED BY THE MUSLIMS
Lastly, it is the Mahratta 'scions'
of Sadashivrao and Vishwasrao, the generals commanding the Mahrattas in the
1761 battle of Panipat, (India) that. in fact, specifically stand challenged by
the then Indian Muslim league leaders Kwaja Husein.Nizami and Maulana Akbar
Shah Khan of' Najibabad, as brought out, hereinbefore (cover page 11), which is
hereby being honoured, answered and reciprocated by this Mahratta intervener in
the from of this fictional dramatisation in reply.
Pr/J - What
exactly Is the nature of the 'dispute', the relevant data and issues!
Court Official :- M'lords Pakistan, then having two wings, Western and Eastern (presently
Bangladesh) and India came to be carved out as two independent nations in 1947
on the basis of the 'two nation' theory propounded by the Muslims of the sub-
continent, represented by the then All India Muslim League on the strength of
the assertion that the Muslims Were a separate nation and of a different stock
from the Hindus, who were allotted the rest of the land as happened to be
carved out under the British, who 'QUIT' the sub continent, for ever, more or
less immediately thereafter.
The princely State of Jammu & Kashmir with a Muslim
majority under a Hindu Raja, the subject matter at issue before this Hon.
Court, acceded to India in 1947 Itself on being invaded by mercenary outsiders,
aided and abetted by Pakistan, as came to be established later.
PAKISTAN RECONCILED TO ACCESSION OF KASHMIR Till 1994
Though Pakistan was resentful about
the accession of Kashmir to India, it chose
to keep quiet and reconciled to it till
1994, when Mr. Bill Clinton assumed the Presidentship of the U.S.A. and openly
started disputing the accession of Kashmir to India. Smt. Benazir Bhutto,
having come to assume the office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan for a 2nd
time, thereupon started openly laying a claim to Jammu & Kashmir, on the
strength of an alleged 'prescriptive' right, again on the basis of the 'two
nation' concept, also allegedly inciting insurgency and terrorism In Kashmir,
with the covert and/or overt support of the Clintons, Robin Raphaels and
Talbots of the U.S.A. besides threatening to take Kashmir by force through a
nuclear war, even.
Pr/J :- What
have the people of Jammu and Kashmir to say about the claim? Has any opinion
poll been taken recourse to?
MAHRATTA:- I may
kindly be permitted to bring out here that J. & K. State population
consists of three main ethnic groups namely the Muslim majority region
encompassing the Valley besides the Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir, the
Jammu division inhabited mostly by Hindus and Laddakh, by Buddhists. If an
opinion poll or referendum of any sort is taken Jammu and Laddakh will surely
be opting for being with India in any eventuality, whatsoever. The Muslim
majority area in the Valley may most probably give a divided verdict, in spite of the P.O.K. being under Pakistan, if
assured an unhindered 'free' choice. Most of the Muslims of Kashmir would
otherwise, and in fact, prefer an 'independent' or 'autonomous' status, if
feasible and/or possible of achievement.
POSSIBILITY OF A DEVIDED OR HUNG VERDICT
All in all there is every
possibility of a 'hung' verdict, which is sure to make the issue worse
confounded and hence it will have proven 'impractical' of implementation,
unless J. & K. is also like wise partitioned on the above lines which the
Kashmiries may not accept, when confronted with.
The Clintons, Robin Raphaels and
Talbots of the U.S.A. are obviously in favour of an 'independent' Kashmir, with
a view, to have a 'land base' on the Asian main land to be utilised in case of
an ultimate confrontation with China, which is the last hurdle left in the way
of the American 'domination' of the World, now that the mighty U.S.S.R. of
yesterday stands already disintegrated as a 'super' power, India already being
'indebted' heavily and 'virtually pawned to the U.S.A.
It is also because of this that an
'independent' Kashmir is not at all to the liking of China, which Is already
occupying a substantial part of the territory of Kashmir as brought out,
hereinbefore. Neither will India nor Pakistan be amenable to an 'Independent'
Kashmir for their own reasons.
Entertaining the claim of Pakistan to any part of Kashmir is
further sure to entail the 'partitioning' of Jammu & Kashmir State to the
extent of 'Hindu' Jammu and 'Buddhist' Laddakh, which are sure to opt for
remaining with India. This will not at all be palatable for even the Muslims of
Jammu & Kashmir many of whom may not like to see their state divided and/or
'partitioned'. The whole exercise is sure to lead to a political impasse of a
very queer sort, which may itself be not palatable even for those like the
U.S.A. imperialists nor even China, both of whom are out to fish in the
troubled waters of Jammu and Kashmir.
Then again even in case of
Pakistan's claim being considered favourably, In any eventuality, presuming for
the sake of argument, only half of the share that may be allotted to Pakistan
will actually be going to the share of Pakistan, in light of the other half of
the share initially being that of Bangladesh it's erstwhile 'joint' co sharer
beneficiary in the 1947 partitioning, (so called.)
Even in such an eventuality in light
of Bangladesh not at all wishing to be a party to the claim against Kashmir as
also to be involved in it for being 1000 Kilometre away from Kashmir etc. etc.,
the part so going to the share of Bangla Desh will ultimately have to be with
the 'retainer' in legal possession and entrustment of or custody, i.e. India as
per Law so to say, since Pakistan cannot claim to be a successor in interest of
Bangladesh, under any circumstance, whatsoever.
Any such division or 'partitioning'
will also entail and necessitate the 'pooling' of the P.O.K. into the common
pool as a precondition for the 'partitioning' of J. & K. State, which may
not be palatable at all for Pakistan, though inevitably binding upon Pakistan.
SEVERAL PERSPECTIVES OF AN OPINION POLL
M' Lords, all these perspectives
will have to be taken into account and consideration, along with many others,
hereinafter enumerated, prior to talking of
an opinion poll or referendum in Kashmir, it be notd M' Lords, Failing
this, We shall all be surely landing ourselves in a mess of all sorts, from
which it will be too difficult to extricate ourselves unscathed.
The people of Jammu & Kashmir,
more specifically the Muslims, shall, however, to be made aware of all these
intricacies, in advance, before a poll of any sort is contemplated by these
high alters, as also about the probable consequences they will have to face.
Any kind of opinion poll or referendum wills thus only amounts to a mere
exercise in futility, if not impracticality in itself, ultimately.
Further more M' lords, in the
premise of the 'validity' 'ab-initio' of the alleged 1947 'partitioning',
itself being questioned by the intervener and established justifiably, being
null and void the word 'dispute' in respect of J. & K. cannot itself
lawfully survive for any purpose.
REFERENDUM OPINION POLL NOT TENABLE
Secondly
M' Lords, when Pakistan inclusive of Bangladesh itself cannot claim to have
been created through any kind of 'referendum', 'opinion poll' or even a
plebiscite, Pakistan, an illegality in itself, as brought out in this
presentation, cannot at all be permitted to talk about an 'opinion poll',
'referendum' or plebiscite in Kashmir, simply on the strength of it's having
been wrongfully 'gifted' with a share in the ancestral land of the Hindus by
the British who had no authority and/or even a justification so to do.
Thirdly, if this privilege of an
opinion poll or plebiscite is conceded to Pakistan in case of Kashmir, tomorrow
practically all the ethnic or racial groups in the entire subcontinent
including those in Pakistan and Bangladesh, may come forward with similar
demands in each and every corner of the land, which will be too difficult and
impractical of implementation.
Fourthly if this kind of a precedent
is created or allowed to materialise in Kashmir, the Kurdish people spread over
in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq will be the next to demand one in their
territory seeking an 'independent' 'Kurdistan', which is sure to give rise to
many more demands of the kind such as by the Basques spread over in Spain and
France, seeking an 'independent' territory of their own, the French seeking to
be an independent 'French' enclave in Canada.
The Hutus and Tootsies already at each
other's throats seeking to be separated in Rwanda Burundi, the Serbs and
Muslims already killing each other in the erstwhile Yugoslavia, the Armenians
seeking to separate from Kazakhstan, the Chechnyans from the Russian Republic,
not to speak of even the white Afrikaners seeking a 'home land' for themselves
in South Africa and so on and so forth, will be the next to follow suit.
Where will all this lead the World
to, when the Christians in Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia are already fighting
their Muslim counter parts, the Tibetans, rightly opposing the Chinese
annexation of their land by force. Even the Muslims in China may seek a 2nd
'PAKISTAN' in China itself as the East Timoreans are seeking to separate from
Malaysia?
BOXING CHAMPION MUHAMMAD ALI MAY RIGHTFULLY DEMAND A BLACKISTAN IN
U.S.A.
If this is permitted in Kashmir at
the instance of the Clintons, Robin Raphaels and Talbots of the U.S.A. will the
U.S.A. itself be in a position to deny a 'BLAKISTAN' to the Blacks in the U.S.A.
if Mohammad All the boxing champion tomorrow chooses to make a demand for one.
It is for the U.S.A. to think 'twice before supporting Smt. Bhutto's over
ambitious, self destructive demands, since the Pakhtoons, Baluchies and
Sindhies of Pakistan may also choose to follow suit, next.
How far will the World be able to face all such demands, has to be
pondered over by these very alters, since all of them are sure ultimately to
approach this very Court for 'justice', M' Lords.
R./J :- The
merits in these submissions are undeniable. They have to be taken note of and
seriously pondered over?
Will KASHMIRIES BE AGREEABLE FOR A PARTITION OF J. & K.?
MAHRATTA :- M'
Lords, this is not all as far as Kashmir is concerned, which has three distinct
ethnic groups namely Muslims, mostly Shias as against the Sunni majority in
Pakistan, which is known for treating the Shias of Pakistan as 2nd rate
citizens, besides the predominantly Hindu Jammu and Buddhists in Laddakh, who
will always prefer to be with India. This will inevitably have to be solved by
'partitioning' Jammu & Kashmir again on the basis of religion, the concept
propounded by Pakistan itself. Whether the Kashmiri Muslims will be agreeable
to such a 'partitioning' of their State, is another question, best answered by
the Kashmiri Muslims themselves.
Thus even if a 'poll', referendum
and/or plebiscite of any kind is resorted to, there is every possibility of a
'hung' verdict than a clear or decisive one, not to speak of it's
practicability and/or feasibility. The repercussions 'world wide' enumerated
above, are sure to lead the World back to the medieval age of religious and
sectarian 'crusades', 'jehods' and 'holy wars' to a point of no return,' it may
be noted.
OPINION POLL PLEBISCITE REFERENDUM CANNOT BE INSISTED UPON IN KASHMIR
PR.IJ :- These
aspects of the J. & K. problem cannot at all be overlooked. It seems that
neither a poll, referendum, nor any kind of a plebiscite will be workable in J.
& K. Further Pakistan not itself
having been carved out through any such poll, referendum or ‘plebiscite’,
cannot justifiably be permitted to insist on one in J. & K. and more so
because of the world wide repercussions, thereof. The intervener may proceed
further.
MAHRATTA:- Pleased
M' Lords. One more point this intervener would like to emphasize upon is that
the Muslims of the sub-continent, inclusive of those in Pakistan and Bangla
Desh, who refuse to call themselves 'Indians' even, inspite of being, in fact,
mostly progenies of 'converted' 'Hindus', all invading 'pure bred Muslims'
hardly accounting for 5 to 10 Lakhs at the most.
More than 2/3 of the invaders must
be taken to have perished on the battle fields and/or due to other natural
causes, which leaves no justification at all for the Muslims claiming to be of
a different 'stock' or a 'separate' nation of any kind, to justify their being
bestowed with a separate share in the ancestral land of the Hindus.
39
INDIAN MUSLIMS MERE 'CONVERTED' HALF BROTHERS & SISTERS OF HINDUS
Thus in
effect and for all purposes almost all the Muslims in the subcontinent are, in
fact, and must be taken to be mere 'converted' half brothers and sisters of the
Hindus, who stand politically separated or segregated by the 1947 arrangement.
Without prejudice to the rights and
privileges of the Hindus as also the rest of the ethnic groups inhabiting the
sub-continent, it is further submitted that having accepted the 1947
'partitioning', (so called) without any reserve and/or protest of any kind, as
also the accession of J. & K. to India for over nearly half a century the Pakistanis
cannot at all be permitted to ask for a fresh or a 2nd partition of any sort.
'Partitions' are never to be carried out in instalments, and/or at 'intervals'
as is being attempted by the Pakistanis, or else there will be no finality to
any such exercise, ever.
Further more the Mahrattas never
ever recognized any limitations to their 'HINDAVI' concept, which included the
HIMALAYAS including Kashmir, the abode of 'MAHADEO' the deity in their 'war
cry' HAR HAR MAHADEO', then called 'Kailash Parvat'.
NO MAHRATTA A PARTY TO 'PARTITION'.
Again M'Lords, it must also be noted that no MAHRATTA was a party to the 1947 partitioning' so called, which was rather clandestinely brought about by Jawaharlal Nehru in conspiracy with the Mountbatten that too very callously and in a very secretive manner.
NEHRU ACTED IN A CRIMINAL HASTE
Nehru and
his congressite gang is definitely 'guilty' of having acted in a 'criminal'
haste of Nehru being installed as the first Prime Minister of India, simply to
forestall the chances of the late Subhash Chandra Bose staging a come back and
depriving Nehru of the coveted position, which was against the interests of the
British as also that of Nehru and his congressite following. Nehru was besides
known to be intimately infatuated to and influenced by one of the Mount Batten
ladies, who must have played upon Nehru's physical weaknesses, in bringing
about the treacherous partitioning', of the land at the mere asking of the
Muslims. The British wanted to keep the Muslims gratified and faithful to the
British as also to ensure Nehru remaining within the Commonwealth.
It must
also be noted M'Lords, that it was another Mahratta Nathuram Godse, who rather
foolishly went to the extent of assassinating Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, out
of personal anger, for Gandhi having acquiesced with the creation of Pakistan
and the partitioning of the land and in doing so undeservingly and idiotically
bestowed 'martyrdom' on Gandhi.
Though otherwise idiotic, Nathuram,
it must be acknowledged, was acting with a clear conscience in carrying out his
foolish act in broad day light and openly in view of thousands and thousands of
people, honestly believing that he was doing a patriotic duty, for no personal
gain to himself as also his accomplices, who were fully prepared to face the
consequences.
J/1 :- Is it
not rather getting far fetched and irrelevant?
MAHRATTA:- M'
Lords, it is definitely related to the unwarranted creation of 'PAKISTAN' and
the 'partitioning' of the ancestral land of the Hindus besides relevant also
for showing the 'traditional' aversion of the Mahrattas in general against such
absurd claims of the Muslims.
THE CLINTONS OF THE U.S.A. AIMING AT WORLD DOMINATION MAHRATTA :-
It may also be pointed out here that
the Clintons, Robin Raphaels and Talbots of the U.S.A., aiming at dominating
the World, have very cleverly timed their instigating Smt. Bhutto to rake up
the Kashmir issue in quick succession to the economic and political
disintegration of the U.S.S.R. as a super power.
The Soviets were so far succeeding
in upsetting and tilting the balance of power and convenience with the help of
India and frustrating the imperialist designs of the U.S.A. at world
domination.
India as the acknowledged leader of
third world countries, was obviously proving to be a stumbling block for the
U.S.A. and had in the sequence to be effectively weakened in U.S.A's interests,
prior to the ultimate dismembering and disintegration of China as the last
super power adversary in the way of the U.S.A's virtual domination of the
entire World.
ACCESSION OF KASHMIR TO INDIA INDISPUTABLE
M' Lords, this has to be explained
and stated to expose the forces and cliques, at play, behind the resurrection
of the alleged 'dispute' so called, over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, after
a lapse of half a century, since it's lawful accession to India, under the
governor generalship of Lord Mount Batten, an undisputable fact of history.
These machinations assume a serious
perspective, all the more, when Smt. Bhutto, the Pakistani Prime Minister, goes
to the extent of talking of a nuclear war and the Clintons, Robin Raphaels and
Talbots of America go out of way in furnishing. Pakistan with a nuclear
capability and hardware to deliver the warheads.
If immature and short-sighted
leaders of Smt. Bhutto kind, happening to head 'BORN YESTERDAY' nations like
Pakistan, are knowingly and indiscriminately permitted to play with a nuclear
arsenal, that too by successors of illustrious, farsighted, statesmen like
Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson, one cannot help smelling a 'decomposed
rat' underneath, what Clintons, Robin Raphaels and Talbots of America are
aiming at.
INDIA SURE TO SURVIVE TO SEE THE END OF PAKISTAN
The nuclear threat if enacted
against India, even by chance or a mistake, has the potential of leading to a
world wide conflict, if retaliated. Such a conflict will not only destroy India
and Pakistan, but also affect several countries in the immediate vicinity being
harmed by the inevitable fall out. Pakistan stands to be destroyed completely
compared to India, seven times it's size, both in geographical expanse and
military capability. India is sure to survive to see the end of Pakistan, even
if the Bill Clintons, Robin Raphaels and Talbots of America choose to come to
Pakistan's aid.
Even if the Clintons, Robin Raphaels
and Talbots hope to succeed on the strength of their superiority in armaments,
there is every possibility of their facing a second 'Vietnam' in India in
confronting it's 85 crores population The rest of the World may also not remain
a mute spectator.
M'Lords, now that the Middle Eastern
Gulf war theatre has reached it's point of exhaustion and battle fatigue,
besides shattering the economies of the combatants, including that of Israel,
the armament manufacturing lobby of the U.S.A. and that of it's Nato allies,
which were so far minting the internecine gulf conflicts, through a profitable
disposal of their out dated armament stocks, simultaneously using the gulf
people, mainly Muslims, as guinea pigs, for the testing of their new weaponry
under actual battle conditions, are now out to develop a new theatre of war
this time nearer to China, their main adversary left, after U.S.S.R's
disintegration. This very U.S.A. led armament manufacturing lobby is, now
seeking and out to open a new theatre for the disposal of their armaments, this
time in Kashmir, with more or less similar motivations.
Then again Kashmir happens to be in
the immediate vicinity of China and Tibet touching it's boundaries, the next
and the only hurdle that has been left in the way of the U.S.A's complete
domination of the World, now that the Soviet Union already stands liquidated,
beyond redemption, having 'crumbled', under the weight of it's own 'iron
curtain'.
CHINA & NORTH KOREA ONLY HURDLES LEFT FOR U.S.A. TO WORLD DOMINATION
China is thus next in the line of
U.S.A's targetry, in addition to North Korea, which is too small a fry to be
counted against America's might.
This lengthy explanation was
necessary to explain Mr. Bill Clinton's disputing Kashmir's accession to India,
which none of his predecessors in office ever chose to doubt. The Kashmir issue
is born out of these motivations of the American imperialists.
Pr/J :- Looking
at the exceptional nature of the Kashmir issue, a note may be taken of all
these submissions of the Intervener. The Matter may proceed further.
'INDIAN PEGOTTY' ALWAYS 'WILLING', 'ITCHING', & 'SOLICITING' TO
PROSTRATE
MAHRATTA: - M'
Lords, already three wars have been fought between the two nations within the
last 47 years, none of the two having become wiser about it. The most offending
part of it all, for us Indians, is that it is the 'INDIAN PEGOTTY' in this
'David Copperfield' episode, that has all along been 'willing', or rather
'itching' and, soliciting’ to prostrate under an intransient and aggressive
Pakistan, openly using it's religious influence with the Islamic World and
American connections to force unpalatable demands down the throat of India with
the covert and/or overt backing of the Bill Clintons, Robin Raphaels and
Talbots of America, out to gain their own ends. This is sure to harm the
interests of India, not to speak of the terrorism and insurgency the Muslim
world is directly and/or indirectly unleashing in Jammu and Kashmir as well as
in the rest of India to paralyse the economy of the States to the detriment of
India, which the incompetent leadership of India is conniving at, necessitating
this intervention.
VALIDITY OF 1947 'PARTITION' &'TWO NATION' THEORY QUESTIONED
Pr/J: - Even
if these submissions of the Intervener are entertained, what exactly is going
to be the nature of the case and pleadings of the Intervener?
MAHRATTA: - The Intervener having sufficiently established his locus standi and the necessity for the intervening, shall be striking at the very 'validity' of he 1947 'partition' (so called), ab initio, as also
question the 'two nation' theory
(also so called) nowhere applied, propounded and/or implemented anywhere else
in the World till date.
Secondly, as to whether the 'two
nation' theory has at all been applied in it's true sense in the Indian
context? An examination of this aspect is necessary to begin with as also to
put the alleged 'Kashmir issue' in it's correct perspectives. This aspect has
not at all been gone into ever before by Jawaharlal Nehru and his Congressite
gang, which has besides not even bothered to interpret the legal term
'partition' under law, written, conventional or customary. All this has to be
set right afresh, now that the issue stands 'reopened' in its entirety by
Pakistan.
A 'DE NOVO' REVIEW IS SURE TO LEAD TO MANY COMPLICATIONS.
PAK:- M'
lords, the Intervener as well as the defendants India must be stopped from
going into these aspects, they having never raised them before and slept over
them for nearly half a century. If a 'de novo' review of the sort is permitted
now, it is sure to lead to many a complication making things worse. We object
to this being permitted at this late stage. The Intervener be ordered to limit
his pleadings to the present day state of affairs, it is requested.
MAHRATTA: - The
intervener, in the least, cannot at all be 'stopped' from going to the
root of the entire issue and exercise now that Pakistan itself has chosen to reopen
the issue of the 1947 'partition' (so called), as an 'unfinished business'
besides laying 'fresh' claims against India in respect of J. & K. State.
This will by itself also entitle India as well as the Intervener to go into the
matter afresh, reviving all it's options, that were open to it in 1947 and
which may or may not have been availed of by them, in the least and without
prejudice to the rights and privileges of the Intervener.
As regards the point raised by
Pakistan about the probable complications arising from this kind of a
reopening, it is submitted that the complications, if any, are and will have to
be dealt with later, as and when they arise. The Hindu mind is ingenious enough
and capable of meeting and providing for them subject to the limitations of
practicability and feasibility, the case may be. Pakistan however cannot be
allowed now to escape the consequences of it's own doings. To the contrary,
this intervener shall now be insisting upon, the issue being pursued in it's
entirety and to it's logical conclusions, in the interests not only of India,
but also that of the Muslims of the entire subcontinent, including those in
Pakistan and Bangladesh. The demands of peace and tranquillity in the
subcontinent also necessitate all these points being raised and agitated
afresh, 'do novo' on an academic plain at least to begin with, which need not
at all be objected to by all concerned.
THE 'PROPHESY'
If this is permitted to be discussed in a cool atmosphere, a situation
may arise, it will be no surprise, 1 may be permitted to prophesise, wherein
Pakistan may on it's own and voluntarily choose to drop and abandon not only
it's entire claim against the State of Jammu & Kashmir, but even go to the
extent of voluntarily surrendering the P.O.K. area back to India, without India
even asking for it. Not only this but Pakistan as well as Bangladesh, both, may
of their own also, most probably, seek to merge back in India in some form or
the other of a loose confederation in the interests of their own survival, as
also that of the Muslims of India in general, if wiser counsels are allowed to
prevail.
Pr/J: - If
such a thing ever materialises, it will not only be a unique achievement in
itself for all of us, but also a matter of prestige and honour for this court,
as well, to have had the pleasure of having presided over such an achievement,
unless it proves to be a mere wishful dreaming on the part of the Intervener.
Even humanity in general will be
thankful to the Intervener for having spared the World from a nuclear
holocaust.
The ominous possibilities and
forebodings entailing such a confrontation need not be emphasized. We wish and
pray that the intervener succeeds in bringing about such a happy end to the
dispute, which will be an ideal one to be emulated by others. He is now asked
to begin his proceedings.
BANGLA DESH (W.NO. I) EXAMINED
MAHRATTA - 1 would
now request the spokesman for Bangladesh (W. No. 1) kindly to be examined.
Court Official: - Spokesman for Bangladesh please.
MAHRATTA: - (to
B.D.) Is it not true that Bangladesh, initially the erstwhile East Pakistan,
came into existence as an independent nation jointly as the co sharer and joint
beneficiary of the then West Pakistan through the 1947 exercise/arrangement/partition'
(so called) of British India?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
MAHRATTA:- Is
it also not true that the 'partitioning' (so called) was sought, demanded and
carried out by the British at the sole behest of the then All India Muslim
League representing the entire Muslim population of the 'sub-continent' and in
accordance with the 'two nation' theory propounded by the A.I.M.L., alleging
the Muslims being a separate 'nation' and of an altogether different 'stock'
from the Hindus which was not at all questioned by the Muslims except people
such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and/or Shri. Sheikh Abdulla of Jammu &
Kashmir, who opted for being with India '?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it also not true that the British conceded the demand of the A.I.M.L. and
carved out the independent Islamic 'nation' of Pakistan consisting of East
Pakistan (presently Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (present Pakistan) separated
topographically by a 1000 Kilometre wide territory of India wedged in between,
the 2nd nation, Pakistan thereafter choosing to declare itself an Islamic
nation with Islam as the only recognized state religion where after Bangladesh
also continued to be an Islamic nation till date even after it became
independent and separate from Pakistan in 1971 '?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
FOR THE MUSLIMS OF BRITISH INDIA PAKISTAN WAS TO BE THE 'HOME LAND'
MAHRATTA: - Is
it also not true that Pakistan consisting of the two wings so carved out by the
British in 1947 and declared a theocratic Islamic nation was also to be the
'home land' for the Muslims of the then British India, as a whole and the
balance of the land area of the subcontinent was allotted to the share of the
Hindus (so called) to be the 2nd nation under the arrangement?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it also not true that there was a large scale 'transmigration' and influx and
exodus of Muslims as well as Hindus in the direction of both the nations which
had, in fact, resulted in large scale rapes, murders, carnage and genocide
engulfing both the 'wings' of Pakistan in 'bloody' holocausts, not at all
foreseen, benumbing both the nations in failing to provide for the cross
migrations, more so because the British Government, in charge, had itself
failed to provide for it in advance, or otherwise?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that the rapes, genocide and carnages mostly took place and/or were
confined to the PUNJAB, (West) and the Noakhali area of the then East Pakistan
now Bangladesh, wherein M.K. Gandhi, the Indian leader, had to carry out a
peace march on foot, a 'PAD YATRA' to pacify the masses?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
'HOME LAND' ACCEPTED BY MUSLIMS WITHOUT RESERVATION
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not also true that 'Pakistan' as carved out in 1947 by the British to
provide a 'home land' for the Muslims, exclusively, in the subcontinent, was
‘accepted’ as such by the A.I.M.L. and the Muslims, in general without any
reservation and/or protest of any kind, whatsoever, and was also, in fact,
declared a theocratic state with Islam as the sole State religion for both the
wings of Pakistan, which continues to be the pattern till today even after the
separation of Bangladesh in 1971 from West Pakistan ?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it also not true that the erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh was and
happens to be an 'Islamic' nation state, exclusively ever since 1947 till date,
even though the entire Chittagong district of the then East Pakistan inhabited
by Chakma Tribals, happened to be Buddhist, all in all, nearly a lakh of whom
have since been driven out and compelled to take refuge in the neighbouring
Tripura and Assam States of India, due to repression by the Bangladesh Army?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true, except the alleged repression, which is denied.
CHAKMA BUDDHISTS FORCED TO SEEK REFUGE IN TRIPURA (INDIA).
MAHRATTA:- If
the charge of repression is not true how come over a lakh of people inhabiting
a land since time immemorial all of a sudden choose to abandon their ancestral
abode, that too en block, to seek refuge in a neighbouring country, uninvited,
except for having been forced out of their ancestral habitat? How else is it to
be explained by Bangladesh?
B.D.: - No
comment.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that Buddhism has nothing in common with Islam as also is of a
different 'stock' from the Muslims as were the Hindus and, if so, how come the
Chakma Buddhists were or come to be included initially in an Islamic East
Pakistan or even for that sake being retained in Bangladesh, an exclusively
Islamic nation, when the rest of the Buddhists of the subcontinent happen, in
fact, to form part of the 2nd nation namely India, of the Hindus one of whom
has besides, in fact, given birth to Buddhism?
INDIA OUGHT TO HAVE OBJECTED TO BUDDHISTS BEING INCLUDED IN EAST
PAKISTAN
B.D. :- The
Chakma tribal area came to be included in the erstwhile East Pakistan, now
Bangladesh as per the Radcliff award. We had nothing to do with the Chakmas
being included in East Pakistan. If was for the Buddhists in the subcontinent
to have seen to the Chakmas being retained amongst their coreligionists. India
too has not taken any exception or objection to the inclusion of the Chakma district
in the then East Pakistan, for which we cannot be blamed at all. India is
stopped from raising the question now, it having become a fait accompli for all
purposes, we submit.
MAHRATTA - Yes
rightly so as far as India is concerned, but the Intervener cannot at all be
stopped since he was not at all a party to or responsible for the arrangement
of the 'unfinished business' of 1947, which besides stands 'reopened' In it's
entirety by your erstwhile co sharer cum joint beneficiary Pakistan opening all
options afresh to the offended parties. Is it not true?
B.D.: - No
comment.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that in the carrying out of the 1947
exercise/arrangement/‘partition’ (so called) specifically for providing a 'home
land' within the subcontinent, exclusively for the Muslims the British ought
also to have anticipated and provided for the large scale interchange of the
two ethnic groups, from one part to the other and 'vice versa, more
particularly the Muslims of the sub continent being shifted, enblock, to the
Muslim home land carved out for Muslims exclusively?
B.D.: - Only
the British can vouchsafe for this failing.
LARGE SCALE RAPES, MURDERS AND CARNAGE
MAHRATTA: - Is
it also not true that large scale rapes, murders and carnage was mostly
committed against the Hindus fleeing from West Pakistan to India resulting in
an unprecedented genocide, never ever witnessed before, except during Nadir
Shah's invasion of Delhi, as was also perpetuated against the Bangladeshis by
the Pakistani Army on the eve of the Bangladesh-Pakistan conflict in 1971,
forcing Bangladesh to become independent of Pakistan?
B.D. :- Yes it is true.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that comparatively there have been no atrocities, or human right
violations of any kind ever committed by the Hindus, against the Muslims either
in India or even in Jammu & Kashmir as is being alleged by Pakistan against
India in international forums?
B.D.: - Yes it is true.
PAK:- M'Lords,
the Intervener is unnecessarily going into a controversial past, which is not
at all related remotely even to the Kashmir issue. Besides there is no sense or
purpose in raking up post incidents, which are not at all relevant to the issue
under discussion.
MAHRATTA: - As
far as the objection regarding mention of the large scale, rapes, murders and
genocide committed by the Pakistan Army in Bangladesh and it's relevancy to the
happenings in Kashmir or the Kashmir issue is concerned, it may be pointed out
that the terrorists and insurgents let loose by Pakistan in Kashmir are in fact
committing atrocities, rapes and murders similar to those committed by the
Pakistani Army in Bangladesh, towards which the Clintons and Robin Raphaels of
America are knowingly turning a blind eye baselessly blaming India of human
rights violations.
It must also be pointed out that
Jammu is predominantly a Hindu pocket and so is Laddakh Buddhist within the
state of Jammu and Kashmir which will have to be partitioned out of Jammu and
Kashmir in case the State is to be dealt with in accordance with the 'two
nation' theory propounded by Muslims themselves. In addition to the above the
redeeming of the Buddhist Chakma Tribal Hill District from the 'Islamic '
clutches of Bangladesh, also being a part of the 'unfinished' business of the
1947 partition, will also have to be accomplished without prejudice to the
several other contentions hereby being raised in wake of the 'reopening' of the
unfinished business' of the 1947 partition.
M'Lords, once the 'unfinished
business' of 1947 is so reopened in it's entirety, equity, fair play and
justice will have to be permitted to prevail, besides Law, till the lacunas are
weeded out and remedied.
THIS TIME, HOWEVER, IT Will BE A ONE WAY EXODUS OF MUSLIMS TO THEIR
'HOME LAND'
The mention of the large scale,
rapes, murders and genocide associated with the Pakistani Muslims in
particular, becomes all the more necessary, however unpalatable it might be for
the Pakistanis to digest, to bring to the knowledge of this learned Court, the
kind of happenings that are sure to follow in case the Jammu & Kashmir
issue is also to be 'reopened' to favour Pakistan. This time, however, it will
be a 'one way' exodus, mostly of Muslims In the direction of their home land,
and most probably on a sub-continental scale which may also not prove to be a
permanent cure, of the malady as is brought out in this presentation.
NOW THE MATTER STANDS
REOPENED IN IT'S ENTIRETY
Now that the matter stands reopened
in its entirety, the parties will have to be ready and prepared to face all the
possibilities and consequences of 'History' being even made to repeat itself,
as is being witnessed in 'BOSNIA' in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Rwanda Burundi
and CHECHNYA, it is apprehended.
It will besides be in the interests
of mutual goodwill and good neighbourly relations being maintained between the
involved parties, that the probabilities and possibilities are talked of openly
and in advance before they actually take place or come about.
J/2: - The
proceedings may go on.
PAKISTAN'S ATROCITIES AGAINST EAST PAKISTANIS.
MAHRATTA: - (to
B.D.) Is it not true that the then
Pakistan Army consisting mainly of 'West Pakistanis' had subjected the then
'East Pakistan' (presently Bangladesh) citizenry to a similar kind of a
genocide, rapes and murders of it's intellectuals and others on a very large
scale, besides other atrocities leading to the 1970 uprising and East Pakistan
declaring itself Independent 'Bangladesh' after the 1971 conflict, besides
doing away with 'URDU' for Bungla as the official language of Bangladesh?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true and a historical fact.
PAK: - Objection,
M' Lords. The intervener is unnecessarily raking up past happenings only to
confuse and prejudice the mind of this Learned Court, besides their being
irrelevant to the Kashmir issue. .
INBORN TENDENCIES PECULIAR TO PAKISTANIS
MAHRATTA: - M'
Lords, these details are necessary not only to show the inborn tendencies of
the Pakistanis in treating their own kith and kin not to speak of people of
other ethnic groups and faiths besides also to show the kind of happenings that
are sure to follow if the State of Jammu and Kashmir is also exposed to any
such ‘partitioning’ as an 'unfinished business of 1947', since Jammu is
predominantly Hindu and Laddakh Buddhist.
It is also to show the record of the
Pakistani Muslims, in particular being itself barbaric, full of savagery and
recklessness, when the Pakistanis, to the contrary keep on falsely complaining
about atrocities and human rights violations allegedly committed by the Indian
Army in Kashmir, Pakistan charges India with.
This is in addition to the treatment
the Sunny majority in Pakistan meets out to it's 'Shia' minority as also the
'Ahmadias' whom they refuse even to recognize as Muslims, inspite of many a
Jaferullah Khans having faithfully served the cause for which Pakistan
allegedly stands. These facts are all the more relevant which the people of the
Kashmir valley mostly 'Shias' should not loose sight of.
J/1: - Objection
overruled. Proceed.
MAHRATTA :- (to
B.D.) Is it not true that inspite of
the aforementioned, Pakistan has been baselessly charging India about alleged
atrocities and human rights violations in international forums, without any
rhyme or reason?
B.D.: - Yes it is true.
PAK:- M'Lords, the defendants India have
never mentioned or complained about any such atrocities in their replies before
any of the forums, as the intervener is alleging to have been committed by
Pakistan.
INDIA UNDER A 'THUMB' 'RULE' DEMOCRACY: CONSTITUTION WORTH BEING BURNT
MAHRATTA :- Unfortunately
it is true and tragic indeed for India wherein incompetence and a 'thumb' rule
'democracy rules the day under a 'constitutional framework' which the
constitution 'maker' Dr. Ambedkar himself had 'advocated' as worth being
'burnt', as on record. Dr. Ambedkar had also most callously failed even to
'interpret' the legal meaning of the term 'partition' under Law, custom or
convention in recommending the 'partitioning' of the ancestral land of the
Hindus to provide for an 'exclusive' 'homeland' for the Muslims, alone. Against
this the other ethnic inhabitants of the land, were indiscriminately, herded
and clubbed together to form 'India. Dr. Ambedkar did not utter a single word
of protest or object thereto in any manner, in fairness and equity.
From this it will be gathered that
India under the ruling groups in power had rather lecherously as also
treacherously failed to do justice to India's case, not only before the
international forums but even at the time of the 1947 'partitioning' so called,
for which the Nehru dynasty was mainly to blame.
Even Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi,
also a Bar at Law, England and South Africa 'returned', as they used proudly to
style themselves then, also did not at all bother to interpret the legal term
'partition' as known in common parlance. Nehru happening to be in a 'criminal'
haste and greed to become the first Prime Minister of India has to be excused
and pardoned to the extent, though reluctantly.
PAK: - How
can the intervener be permitted to raise 'fresh' issues in respect of the 1947
'partition', an accomplished 'fait accompli, by now, that too after a 47 years'
lapse and total acqueisance on the part of the defendants India, who should be
held to be stopped from raising the Issues afresh?
1947 'PARTITIONING VALIDITY STANDS CHALLENGED AB-INITIO
MAHRATTA: - M'
Lords, even if it is taken for granted that there is some substance in the
assertions of the Pakistani Spokesman, the 'stopped', if any, can at the most
apply against the defendants India, but not at all against the Intervener, who
has never been even remotely associated with or a party to the previous
happenings, nor to the 1947 exercise or the parleys. Further more now that the
matter stands ‘reopened’ in its entirely by Pakistan itself, on its own, and
even the 'validity' itself of the 1947' partitioning' (so called) stands
challenged, ab-initio, by this Intervener, Pakistan cannot now be permitted to
escape the consequences of it's foolish acts.
If at all Pakistan wants to blame
any body, it, must blame the Bill Clintons, Robin Raphaels and Talbots of
America, that have instigated Pakistan in raking up an otherwise dead issue
from it's grave and/or for goading it into seeking a 2nd partitioning' of the
land of the Hindus over Kashmir, that too as an 'unfinished business of the
1947 partition' (so called). Pakistan will have to blame it's own stars for all
the wild oats, it may have to reap, from it's own sowings in the past.
Pakistan, M' Lords, has to be
restrained from putting in such flimsy objections any further, because the
Intervener, of all the persons, cannot at all be stopped from raising each and
every issue even afresh, which he had no opportunity to raise, ever, or to
challenge the unwarranted and unlawful partitioning of his country, in it's foetal
infancy, that too carried out in undue secrecy.
A 'DE NOVO' REOPENING OF 1947' PARTITIONING: OPENING 'PANDORA'S BOX'
Pr/J.. - As
far as our understanding goes, we are supposed only to mediate between the Parties
to the extent of the Kashmir issue. As against this we find that what the
intervener is seeking, in effect, is practically a 'de novo' reopening of the
entire 1947 exercise, ab initio, which may amount to an opening of the
proverbial 'Pandora's box' leading to many a new complications, far beyond the
gambit of our powers and jurisdiction to mend. How far can this be permissible
and advisable? Will the intervener enlighten us on this aspect of his case?
MAHRATTA: - M'
Lords, as regards competency and jurisdiction, these high alters command, it is
submitted that being the 'highest' court of Justice, on this Earth, the
competency and jurisdiction must also be taken to be well within it's privilege
and discretion inherent in it as an ultimate Court of Justice. Any limitation
thereon or it's gambit is totally uncalled for under the circumstances.
DRAMATISED FICTION MERELY ACADEMIC AND CONJECTURAL
As regards
the proverbial 'opening' of a 'Pandora's box', it is submitted that these
deliberations being in the form of a 'dramatised fiction' will ultimately turn
out and amount only to a mere 'academic' exercise, more or less 'conjectural'
in nature, which by itself may or may not invite any verdict or judgement order
as in ordinary cases, though the 'findings' will definitely go a long way in
solving the issue.
J/l: - Granting the wishful thinking on the part of the
Intervener how is it to be given effect to ultimately? How can a mere academic discussion or deliberation
ever solve an issue of the Kashmir kind? Is it not likely to result in an
exercise in futility, however optimistic the Intervener may be? Will it at all
be worth it?
POSSIBILITIES FORECAST
MAHRATTA: - M'Iords,
if this presentation is fully heard, and entertained seriously, it will not at
all be surprising, as asserted earlier by this Intervener, confidently, that
Pakistan most probably may choose to abandon all its claims against the State
of Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistan may besides even return back to India the Pak
held territory of the State, of J & K and may even seek to merge back in
the Indian fold on it's own. Bangladesh may also likewise choose to come back
along with in the fold in some kind of a loosely confederated arrangement,
which is sure to lead to all problems of the kind between the three being
solved across the table without bickering of any kind in an atmosphere of
goodwill and understanding, if things turn out as predicted by the Intervener.
PAK :- M'
Lords, We on our part see no prospects of our ever seeking a merger back in
India in any kind of an arrangement as envisaged by the intervener and consider
his assertions to be 'utopian', if not senseless. Our objections are to the
extent of only the historical fait accomplis, which cannot at all be permitted
to be disturbed in any way, as it will surely be amounting to the proverbial
opening of a 'Pandora's box' as correctly described by Your Lordship. The fait
accomplis must be accepted as final and should under no circumstance be permitted
to be disputed and/or reopened afresh or otherwise, as is being attempted by
the Intervener. We question the propriety of it all.
Pr/J :- Even
if the assertions of the Intervener are taken for the time being to be
utopian', looking to the points the intervener is raising, We see that the
Intervener has definitely some tricks up his sleeves, to back it up with
looking at the confidence with which the Intervener is proceeding. It will not
only be Interesting but also advisable to bear with the exposition of the
Intervener till the last. We rule out the objections by Pakistan. as untenable.
The Intervener may proceed further.
CHAKMA BUDDISTS FORCED TO FLEE FROM ANCESTRAL LAND
MAHRATTA.- (to
B.D.) Is it also not true that very
recently there was a very large scale exodus of the Chakma Budhists from
Chittagong tribal district to the neighbouring Tripura State in India as a
result of the Chakma tribals being forced to flee from their ancestral habitat
due to the atrocities committed by the Bangladeshi Muslims against the Buddhist
Chakmas with the covert or overt support of the Bangladesh Armed forces?
B.D.: - (No
comment).
MAHRATTA: - Was
it not proper and in fitness of things that the Chakama Buddhists and their tribal
district ought also to have been included in and mode a part of India, where in
majority of the Buddhist population of the subcontinent stands included as per
the 1947 arrangement or partition, so called?
BANGLADESH CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR CHAKMA'S INCLUSION IN EAST PAKISTAN
B.D.: - (pause
- no comment) It was as per the Radcliff award, for which we cannot at all be
blamed or held responsible.
MAHRATTA: - If
this mistake is not to be repeated in the case of the State of Jammu and
Kashmir, in any part of J. and K. by any chance being awarded to Pakistan by
this learned Court, under any circumstance, will it not in fitness of things
necessitate a 'partitioning' of the State of J & K. to ensure that the
predominantly Hindu Jammu and Buddhist Laddakh is allotted and goes to the
share of India, also in accordance with the 'two nation' theory itself as
propounded by the protagonists of Pakistan?
KASHMIR WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE PARTITIONED IN FITNESS OF THINGS
B. D. : - Yes it has to be so in fitness of
things, as also in accordance with the 'two nation' theory Pakistan is wedded
to. We would however not like to be involved in the controversy either way.
MAHRATTA: - Thanks
for the frank opinion expressed. Further in case of such a 'part' and/or
'whole' of Jammu & Kashmir State going or being allotted to Pakistan, as
the case may be, will not Bangladesh as an ex 'co sharer cum joint beneficiary'
with the erstwhile West Pakistan' at all be claiming half of or a proportionate
part of the territory so going to the share of or allotted to 'Pakistan' as
also being the rightful share of Bangladesh there in, in the capacity of the
joint ex-beneficiary '?
B.D.: - We
have already clarified our position in this respect as it is not at all
practical even otherwise for Bangladesh to have any kind of an involvement in J
& K State. Having clarified our stand sufficiently, hereinbefore, we see no
purpose in repeating it.
J/1: - What
is the purpose of the intervener behind such a hypothetical question being put
up to the witness, who consistently refuses to be involved in any way with the
Kashmir Issue? The Intervener will explain.
PURPOSE BEHIND INVOLVING BUNGLE DESH.
MAHRATTA: - M'
lords, the purpose behind this query being put up to the witness was not only
to get a commitment to the extent from Bangladesh, but also indirectly to point
out to Pakistan, the plaintiffs, herein, that even in the event of any part of
J. & K. State being awarded to it by this learned Court or going to it's
share, by chance even the present-day Pakistan shall be entitled only to a half
or a proportionate share of the land that would be so awarded or allotted, the
other half or proportionate part inherently being treated as that of
Bangladesh, shall have to be left over and/or retained by the lawful retainer
in possession, namely India, which happens to be in actual as well as
constructive custody of the J & K state as on today. Since Bangladesh does
not want to have anything to do with it, besides Pakistan also not being any
kind of a 'successor' to the assets that would have gone to Bangladesh, an
altogether separate nation, that part or share of Bangladesh will have to be
with India, till Bangladesh comes forward to claim it by chance even later,
which will be a separate matter and issue to be decided afresh, in short, which
need not be explained any further at this stage. Bangladesh will be in no
position to avail of it in any manner till it is furnished with an approach
corridor to reach J & K, as it happens to be totally cut off from J. &
K. by a thousand kilometres of Indian territory, it will be the case of the
intervener that India can retain that share being the rightful retainer in
constructive possession and custody thereof against Pakistan even.
J/2: - We get
what the intervener is aiming at, the logic behind which has to be conceded in
favour of the Intervener. What will be the position, we may ask of the
intervener, in case Bangladesh chooses to revise it's stand hereafter, which
will also have to be conceded to it since a right to amend one's stand has to
be conceded to every party seeking it.
MAHARATTA:- M'
Lords, that possibility, of course, has also to be taken into account by all
and We shall also have to be granted the privilege of amending our ‘counter
claims' to accommodate such a revision of it's stand by Bangladesh, if any. It
will be met with a 'fitting' reply, as and when the situation so develops. For
the time being we will be reserving our right to have our say when the occasion
arises.
J/1 What has Bangladesh to say to that?
B.D. (After a pause ... No comment).
INTERVENER OVERSTRETCHING LAW OF SUCCESSION
PAK: - We
emphatically protest and hereby put in our objection to this kind of an overstretching
of the purport and meaning of the law of succession being twisted by the
Intervener to deprive us of the privilege of succeeding to the share failing to
the lot of our ex co sharer/beneficiary simply because it now happens to be an
independent nation by itself. Against this We have to submit that had the
'unfinished business of 1947 partitioning' been completed in 1947 itself, the
part that was to fall to the share of Pakistan, then, would automatically have
been attached to the erstwhile 'West Pakistan' being contiguous to it and not
to the erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh.
Such an alignment of the said
territory of J. & K. would have been the natural most, besides the only
possible recourse open then, had the 'unfinished business of the 1947'
partition' been duly completed in respect of J. & K. as well in 1947
itself, instead of as on today.
J/2: - What
has the intervener to say to that? This is getting to be a very interesting
discussion, so to say.
MAHRATTA: - M'
Lords, against this it is submitted that the question as to where Jammu &
Kashmir would have been had it also been partitioned in 1947 is and must be
taken to be merely a conjectural one depending on whatever 'would' have taken
place in 1947, which in fact did no take place at all. We reserve our right to
have our say at this at length against this, later, and as and when the
contingency arises, which will never materialise, as per our case. It may be
noted M' Lords, that the intervener is challenging the very entitlement of
Pakistan both erstwhile and present, to ask for or claim rightfully or
otherwise even an inch of the ancestral land of the Hindus, ab initio, even in
1947 itself more so when the Pakistani Muslims disown their Indian ancestry and
claim to be of a different stock, altogether, besides refusing to call
themselves Indians even.
'PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT' BY'CONQUEST REDUCES MUSLIMS INTO INVADING
TRESPASSERS
The 'prescriptive' right, so called,
claimed by Pakistan on the basis of a few centuries' rule over some pockets of
the subcontinent, that too based on 'conquest' and law of the 'invader' in the
above background reduces all the Muslims of the subcontinent into being mere
'trespassing invaders' who can rightfully be 'driven out' and made to vacate
their aggression any time depending on the convenience and readiness of the
'aggressed' that too by any means, fair or foul, including force, unless there
is the desired change in their general outlook towards the subcontinent and its
people.
According to the intervener the
Muslims of the subcontinent inspite of their having obtained or been bestowed
with a part of the ancestral land of the Hindus, or gifted with it by the
British, still continue to be 'invading trespassers' for all purposes. Thus, in
effect and in law the protagonists of Pakistan continue to stay in the land
only at the 'sufferance' of the original inhabitants of the subcontinent till
they are also made to 'quit' the land, as was the case with the British, unless
wiser counsels prevail and the Muslims in general see the light of the day,
which will besides have to be conditional on many other terms of atonement
being fulfilled by the Muslims as brought out in this presentation later.
ASSERTIONS OF THE INTERVENER NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY
PAK: - M'
Lord, the intervener is obviously going beyond his limits in talking of an
1open threat or confrontation' instead of proceeding in a 'civil' manner, which
cannot be taken lightly.
MAHRATTA: - M'
Lords, the assertions of the intervener are not at all to be taken lightly, by
any of the parties. Even the 'fictional dramatisation' is being presented with
all the seriousness at the command of the Intervener, though in all humility.
B.D. - M'
Lord, the poser put up by the Intervener about J. & K. or that of rights
and position of Bangladesh in the eventuality of a part or whole of Jammu and
Kashmir being given or allotted to Pakistan by this Court, on second thoughts,
is tricky indeed to be answered by us at this stage besides hypothetical though
relevant. We would for the present like to reserve our right to have our say,
there on later if need be, which may kindly be permitted in the interests of
justice and equity,
J/2: - It be noted for future reference.
PAK: - We on our part object to this kind of overstretching of the retainer’s
claim to hold on to or retain such a share, either half and/or proportionate,
as may eventually be held to go to the share of our ex co-sharer/joint
beneficiary Bangladesh, the erstwhile East Pakistan or its so being retained
and/or held over by the retainer in custody or possession constructive or in
law, or in trust thereof, as the intervener is mischievously propounding. This
will not at all be acceptable to us. Under this kind of an inference, it is
submitted that a substantial part of 'Muslim' Kashmir will still be left over
in the hands of the Hindu defendants, India, which will be contrary to the 'two
nation' theory, itself, Pakistan stands wedded to and on which the 1947
‘partitioning', itself stands based, in case Bangladesh does not come forward
to claim it, for any reason, whatsoever.
BANGLADESH HAS NO MORAL RIGHT EVEN TO CWM ANY PART OF KASHMIR
Besides
this, it is also submitted that Bangladesh, being 1000 kilometres away from J.
& K. cannot even justifiably claim any right or entitlement or even on
grounds of proximity of any kind to any part of Kashmir. The 'unfinished
business of the 1947 ‘partitioning’
could have been duly accomplished in respect of J. K. State In 1947 itself,
which unfortunately remained unfinished due to J & K acceding to India, in
the meanwhile as a result of the treachery and betrayal by the late Sheikh
Abdullah.
Any part of J & K. failing or
held to go to the share of Bangladesh, against Pakistan's unabridged and
exclusive entitlement, thereto, as explained above, must invariably go to and
remain with Pakistan exclusively as a whole in any eventuality, whatsoever,
Irrespective of whether Bangladesh chooses to claim it or not. Bangladesh
cannot, even morally be entitled to any part of J & K., it is submitted.
Pr. /J: - The
poser by the intervener raises a very tricky point in law, which will have to
be seriously gone through and examined at length later on, as and when it is
agitated. The point is noted and put off for the time being. Proceed.
MAHRATTA: - To
(B. D.), How far does Bangladesh
agree with the contentions raised by Pakistan as regards the entitlement of
Bangladesh as an ex-joint 'co- sharer' beneficiary' in the 1947 partitioning,
(so called)?
B.D.: - Being
an outthought of development and Bangladesh initially having decided against
any kind of involvement and/or participation in the J & K issue, we reserve
our say in the matter for want of instructions. We would, however, put on
record our strong objections to the contentions raised by Pakistan against the
entitlements of Bangladesh as not at all being acceptable to us as also being
against our interests. Even though Bangladesh has chosen not to press it's
claim for the present in the J. & K. matter for reasons explained earlier,
Bangladesh disapproves the contentions raised by Pakistan against the
entitlements of Bangladesh under the 1947 exercise as being totally
unacceptable and not at all binding on Bangladesh. We hereby reserve our say
thereon, which may kindly be permitted.
J/1: - Noted.
Proceed.
MAHRATTA: - Is
Bangladesh aware that it's refraining from participation and/or involvement in
this matter is not going to absolve it from and/or mitigate it's
responsibilities and/or liabilities that may befall it under the '1947' episode
in case the intervener's case is upheld and comes to be burdened jointly upon
the Plaintiffs Pakistan as also Bangladesh, it's ex joint co sharer/beneficiary?
B.D.: - (after
a pause, no comments)
CHAKMA BUDDHISTS' PROBLEM UNRESOLVED TILL TODAY
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not further true that the problem of the Chakma Buddhists of' Bangladesh, is
unresolved till today inspite of several years having elapsed?
B.D.: - Yes
it is, unfortunately, true.
MAHRATTA - Is
it not, true that Gautam, the birth giver of Buddhism was a 'Hindu' and
'Buddhism' nearer 'Hinduism' than Islam, which has nothing in common with
Buddhism, even remotely'?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it also not true that the inclusion of the Chakma Buddhists and their tribal
district of Chittagong within the erstwhile Islamic East Pakistan, presently Bangladesh,
was not only totally unjustifiable but also against equity, fair play, natural
justice as also in contravention of the 'two nation' theory, on the basis of
which the then Pakistan, including Bangladesh was carved out by the British,
more specifically when the majority of the Buddhist population of the
subcontinent was included in India?
CHAKMA INCLUSION AS PER RADCLIFF AWARD
B. D.: - Yes
it is true but it was as per the Radcliff award.
MAHRATTA: - Will
it not also imply that in accordance with the 'two nation' concept on the basis
of which Pakistan was carved out Buddhist Laddakh and Hindu Jammu will
logically have to be 'partitioned' out from J. & K. State for being
included within India, in case the 'two nation' concept is also to be applied
to Jammu & Kashmir in effect amounting to a second partitioning of the sub
continent?
B.D.: - Yes
it will lead to that, inevitably, no doubt.
'PAKISTAN' ACCEPTED THE PARTITIONING WITHOUT RESERVATION AND/OR PROTEST
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that the erstwhile government and people of Pakistan, both East and
West, ungrudgingly acquiesced with and accepted the 1947 'partition' (so
called) without any reservation and/or protest of any kind, as was carved out
by the British to provide the Muslims of the sub-continent with a 'home land'
where in Islam was to be the sole State religion, thereafter?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that Islam continues to be the recognized State religion in present
day Pakistan as well as Bangladesh even after it's separation from it's
erstwhile western wing?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
SHIFTING OF MUSLIMS TO THE 'HOME LAND' EXPECTED AND ANTICIPATED
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that after the carving out of an exclusive 'home land' for the
Muslims of the sub continent it was expected and anticipated that all the
Muslims would be or were to be 'shifted' to and accommodated within the 'home
land' so specially carved out for the Muslims, exclusively? Does it not further
true that the ethnic and/or other religious groups of the subcontinent, were
not at all provided with separate ‘home lands’ as the Muslims were furnished
with to the exclusion of all others including those inhabit the sub continent
since time immemorial?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true, but the 'shifting’ was neither compulsory nor mandatory.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that even though there was no compulsion there was, in fact, a
large scale 'trans migration' of people belonging exclusively to the two
specific groups namely the Hindus and the Muslims only, in fact, fleeing or
migrating from the then Pakistan, both East and West to India and vice versa
from India to Pakistan, that too in the form of a bloody exodus accompanied by
large scale rapes, murders, arson, lootings and genocide, as witnessed never
before?
B.D.: - Yes
it is, unfortunately, true.
HINDUS REDUCED BELOW 5% IN EAST AND 1% IN WEST PAKISTAN AFTER 1947
MAHRATTA: - Is
it nor true that as a result of the trans migration limited only to the two
religious groups in particular, which assumed the proportions of a holocaust,
the Hindus, who accounted for nearly 113 rd of the population both in the
Eastern and Western wings of the erstwhile Pakistan and accounting for nearly
60 percent in places such as Sindh province of West Pakistan, were reduced to
below one percent of the total population in West Pakistan and approximately 5
percent in the Eastern wing thereafter named Bangladesh against which nearly
over 5 to 6 crores Muslims continued to live in India and have been living ever
since in a 'DAR-UL-HERAB', so to say, ruled and dominated mostly by Hindus,
that is under a 'KAFIR REGEME' as Islam defines it?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true to a great extent one has to admit.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it also not true that the Muslim population in India of the day, proudly being
hailed and acclaimed as being the 3rd Country with the largest 'Muslim'
population in the World, the ruling Congressite leadership of India takes pride
in bragging about, in fact, today accounts nearly for over 15 to 20 percent of
the total Muslim population of the sub-continent? Is it not further true that
these Muslims are still continuing to live in the Indian, 'Dar ul Herab', when
the then I.M.L. had specifically strived hard and indulged in large scale
ropes, murders, arson, loot and genocide to carve out a 'pak' or pure' 'DAR UL
ISLAM' in the shape of Pakistan for them within the subcontinent?
B.D.: - Though
the aforementioned is substantially true, the charge of the I.M.L. indulging in
genocide, murders, rapes and arson is denied, it having taken place
spontaneously, not pre-planned at all.
THE INSULTING CHALLENGE
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that Khwaja Hasan Nizami and Akbor Shah Khan of Najibabad, had, in
fact, on their own and without cause 'insultingly' challenged 'the scions of
Sadashivrao and Vishwasrao (the Mahratta generals in the 3rd battle of Panipat
1761) through the then Hindu leader Madan Mohan Malviya to come forward to
fight a 4th battle of Panipat etc. etc. on the issue of Pakistan, for which
they were not castigated by even a single Muslim of the sub-continent till
date'?
B.D.: - Yes
it is unfortunately true.
BRITISH FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR AN ORDERLY INTERCHANGE OF POPULATIONS
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that the British, while partitioning the sub-continent for the
carving out of a Muslims home land, within the sub-continent, miserably failed to
provide for the modalities for effecting and/or ensuring an orderly interchange
of the two religious groups, more particularly the shifting of the Muslim
population to their prescribed 'home land' namely 'Pakistan', carved out
exclusively for the Muslims alone and at their sole behest and asking? Did this
not amount to a criminal lapse on the part of the British who are known for
their meticulousness in formalities and planning, but for which there would not
have been any atrocities of the kind accompanying the transmigration?
B.D.: - Yes
it is unfortunately true.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not also true that there is, in fact, still a large influx of Bangladeshi
Muslims going on in the direction of India even today in search of better
living conditions and/or prospects which is totally devoid of violence,
genocide, rapes, arson and loot accompanying it?
B.D.: - Yes
it is also unfortunately true.
CARVING OUT OF A 'DAR-UL-ISLAM' FUTILE.
MAHRATTA: - Does
it not by itself suffice to prove and establish that the carving out of a
separate 'home land' or 'Dar ul Islam' of the kind for the Muslims of the
subcontinent was initially wrong and unnatural In itself and/or totally of very
little avail, in it's purpose being defeated in this manner of an exodus, that
too in the direction of a 'Kafir ruled' 'Dar ul Herab' 2
B.D.: - (No
comments).
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that the British in providing for or carving out a 'home land' for
the Muslims, exclusively, in India, also failed to prescribe the modalities of
the transfer of the Muslims to the prescribed 'home land' and most callously
left the working out or enacting of the 'transfer of populations' to be sorted
out and handled by the succeeding governments of Pakistan and India without
specifying any procedure, mode or time limit therefore, as is a must, which, in
fact has resulted in the unnecessary, bloodshed, arson, loot, rapes, creation
of ill will and a permanent divide between the two communities?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
IS NOT ETHNIC CLEANSING SURE TO
FOLLOW?
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that these communities, will have per force to live together in the
subcontinent, most probably, for all times to come, excepting when History will
be dictating it, otherwise, as in Bosnia and Rwanda, wherein one ethnic or
religious group has succeeded in forcing out the other ethnic or religious
entity, mercilessly ruining the lives of millions and millions, leaving the
field wide open for imperialists like Bill Clintons to fish in the troubled 'lands'
and exploit them unscrupulously for ever '?
B.D.: - Yes, it is undeniably true.
J/1: - Isn’t the Intervener driving off the mark. Is it necessary to bring in all
this here?
MAHARATTA: - It
is not so M'Lords. The role of the other nations out to fish in the 'troubled
waters' of Kashmir and their motivations have to be exposed to explain the
motivating forces behind the mischievous machinations of Robin Raphaels,
Talbots and Kissingers all of a sudden showing so much interest in and visiting
India and Pakistan every now and then. It is people of the aforementioned kind
that ultimately stand to reap many a rich harvests, from such conflicts at the
expense of the conflicting parties, who are meticulously incited and instigated
to cut each other's throats with a weaponry the 'imperialists' are too eager to
provide and equip the warring groups with to earn rich dividends from a
profitable disposal of their obsolete weaponry besides gaining other ends from
the inevitable economic bankruptcy the contesting parties will surely be
inviting upon themselves.
THE 50 CRORE EPISODE LEADING TO THE ASSASSINATION OF GANDHI
MAHRATTA: - (to
B.D.) Is it not true that erstwhile
Pakistan inclusive of present day Bangladesh, jointly received fifty crore
rupees from India, against the wishes of the Hindus, one of whom, another
'Mahratta' by name Nathuram Godse, rather foolishly avenged it by assassinating
Mohandas Gandhi, in broad day light before a gathering of thousands for Gandhi
having permitted the carving out of Pakistan in spite of Gandhi's having vowed
not to permit the formation of Pakistan except over his dead body, besides also
for having insisted upon the payment of the fifty crores to Pakistan, inspite
of Vallabh Bhai, the then home Minister, India opposing it, first, but later
relenting under insistence by Gandhi
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
MAHRATTA: - Was
not M. K. Gandhi, undeservingly made a 'martyr' by the foolish act of Nathuram Godse,
and thereafter came to be addressed as a Mahatma and also for having enacted a
'pad yatra' or 'pilgrimage on foot' throughout the Noakhali district of the
erstwhile East Pakistan to pacify the rapists, murderers, arsonists, looters,
killers in Noakhali in the wake of the 'partition' in 1947, which abated
thereafter?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true.
ATROCITIES AGAINST HINDUS BY MUSLIMS OF NOAKHALI
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that the atrocities in Noakhali were wrought mostly by the East
Pakistani Muslims against the Hindus of East Pakistan, who had to flee to India
en block?
B. D.: - Yes
it is unfortunately true.
MAHRATTA: - Is
it not true that the Hindus of East Pakistan traditionally non-violent and
timid by nature did not retaliate against the atrocities, rapes, murders and
bloodshed, under the Pakistani administration and meekly fled from East
Pakistan to the neighbouring states of India?
B.D.: - Yes
it is true, to some extent.
MAHRATTA: - In
case of the award of this Honourable Court going in favour of the intervener's
case, will it in any way be wrong and or unjustifiable, if the present day
Bangladesh is made proportionally accountable for the recompensing of the said
amount of forty-five crores, (with interest) which Bangladesh had received
jointly with erstwhile West Pakistan as also atone for the other wrongs
committed against India by Pakistan in the wake of the 1947 'partition' (so
called)?
B.D. No comment.
J/2: - The intervener is aiming too far. Let Plaintiffs Pakistan and Bangladesh be
forewarned and take note of it.
(AN ASIDE)
PAK: - M'Lords,
as if the intervener is sure of succeeding!
Court: - Who
can say? Looking to the manner and self confidence with which the intervener is
proceeding and conducting his case, the Intervener does seem to be sure about
it all. The Intervener definitely seems to have some trump cards up his
sleeves, to be so sure. If he has some tricks of the Kind he is sure to
succeed. Pakistan better be beware.
BOUNDARIES OF PAKISTAN CARVED OUT AT RANDOM
MAHRATTA: - (to B.D.): - Is it not true that
the boundaries of Pakistan as carved out
in 1947, were, in fact, not at all
determined or demarcated in accordance with any known principles and/or by
leaps and bounds even, but were, in fact, arrived at, 'at random', according to
the fancies of Sir Radcliff, who is known and on record to have drawn them on
the basis of maps provided to him, fixing the boundaries of the two nations within
hardly a fortnight's time, which has left many a faults and discrepancies in
the kind of partitioning taken recourse to besides lacking in authenticity'?
B.D.: - Obviously
it seems to be so and true.
MAHARTTA: - Is
it also not true that the parts, that thus fell to the respective shares of the
two nations (so called) namely Pakistan and Bangladesh were never, ever
disputed or questioned but accepted by Pakistan and Bangladesh without any
protest or objection thereto as carved out by the British without any protest,
reservation or objection of any kind even till today?
B.D.: - This
is true no doubt but it might have been, perhaps, because of Pakistan’s infancy
as a new born nation and not being versed in matters of the kind, Even India remained
silent about it all, you shall have to admit, in all fairness.
'PARTITIONING' CARRIED OUT ARBITRARILY AND NEVER CONSENTED TO