Books and Research Materials

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
No I might as well take opportunity to get this all out, its my decision...I came close to not answering but I wanted to see how it came out of me, because sometimes its different when you need to put words to something

Sure however frankly its a topic that really brings nothing to the table but bitterness. No pakistani wants to be part of India. Pakistan and India are a reality and as years go by, the federation is actually getting stronger. the parition generation is dying and those that met the 1947 generation are also dying. The new generation is only interested in making Pakistan work and the right of Pakistan to exist only depends on the people of Pakistan. Not to Indians, Not to Indian Muslims, Not to bengalis.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,450
Reactions
107 19,156
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
You give examples of Indian muslims but why ignore all the people of Pakistan who chose Pakistan. Do their choice not count.

That's like saying everyone that goes along to get along....were given a proper choice....anywhere and everywhere in history. Everything that exists is therefore accepted by all living under them downstream having been gaslit and reinfornced on whatever idea (and accepted as some huge "always truth" as long as they don't go all the way to some other intense revolution or mass violence to change that at the requisite scale again)

Crux of the issue lies on those forming and then selling them the "choices".

These are not the same set of people fundamentally...driven by the same goals and thoughts as those under them. Only some are true leaders and statesmen and revolutionaries of their time....the others just are politicians like the rest after....seeing a sub-issue out of whatever compulsion they originally had or developed. Humans are imperfect beings, so its just matter of scale....and that which I do not know, I simply try not to judge.

That's the Always has been, always is, always will be.

...and it is evidenced crystal clear by 1971 in the end in Pakistan's case.

That it was the idea-sellers rather than the idea itself that oriented and propelled the first setup....and that those idea-sellers remain in control with whatever level of inertia that has now developed aligned with a population (long born into it now) simply being downstream.

Pakistan are mentioned in history and rich history and to ignore that is a criminal act to the people of Pakistan. Do names mean that identity lies forgotten? who decided that? are we to only pick historical names to gain any sense of history? So that means that when people chose to become Pakistani, an acronym of their states, their history was taken from them? Absolutely not.

If it was formed in that guise (historical context of always existing)...it would make sense.

But it wasn't...and it was made abundantly clear on many episodes after it....1971 is just the largest one.

Nothing of that historical context precludes a larger national setup either... given the number of muslims in Bengal (which actually again joined original effort), UP and Bihar and many other places.

The muslims of subcontinent now are approximately 1/3rd in each (Pakistan, India and Bangladesh).

Where do you think @VCheng origins are originally?

You are telling me that would need no translocation if it was 1st principles "history and rich history" based equivalently all around with the right political dispensation to harness that?

The britsh shared no part of our great history, they were ripe to be ejected. I don't see any other political expression of enough intensity to say this or that have greater precedence in the greater hindustan nation.

I mean why pick religion and not language? Why not pick geography or some other criteria?

Why has India remained united at its current great size and diversity if its simply a Jinnah-equation at every level of identity needing majoritarianism to exist and feel secure?

What made this exactly only need to happen in the indus area and ganges delta specifically and only and with religion specifically and only........ until it needed to devolve some other way suddenly and overnight again with the ganges delta?

Why didn't Pakistan's leaders if they are so aligned to the concept at root, allow the further expression of majoritarianism to happen and be achieved peacefully in the Bengal region?

Or is the non-peaceful way it happened a reflection of the people of Pakistan at large?

I always argue in that case, its the politicians, regime, leadership propelling that whole distateful set of events.

So why would that suddenly change for partition earlier? We are then to make the argument it was the people's desires being genuinely voiced then?

Anyway rationally to me, first principles would have to be as expansive and inclusive as possible given everyone's basically a local...with ancestors all from same area of soil.

Then you build a system to have sub regional and sub identity expressions expressed (the whole idea of decentralised federal power with whatever optimisations needed), politically if needed and there are ways to set this up when a country has matured enough....but its highly irrational to conflate that stuff at that time with sub-identities when people were in such state of exploit and oppression and tumult (political liberation and genesis) given what it will inevitably discolour and leave bitter taste and blood.

Doesn't mean politicians and the way they sell ideas to people within earshot are rational. In fact the opposite, because fear comes easy. Bad things that come easy being extended to every human endeavour, well you can imagine that. But we make an exception for politics...and that is the big doom and folly.

A proper political evolvement during the freedom stuggle (as Jinnah originally was in) from start to end....is the largest factor on the best political set up at freedom itself...to then be worked upon.

It's not much to do with whatever concoction of identities there are to exploit by the same politicians. Those that do, become lesser people...and the areas that succumb to it (or are affected by it), become lesser than they could have been too...because of what needs to come downstream to prop up and shield the mistakes.

Downstream popularity and identity is forged (some contrary deadweight to it like East Bengal ejected I suppose)....that does not bear equivalence to upstream thoughts on the matter that politicians simply worked upon.

Otherwise if it were so extreme as being suggested, every Muslim would have migrated to Pakistan and there would be far far more severe pogroms occuring all the time non-stop through the centuries (where muslims were not 90% majoritarian)....if the assertion a nationhood to that severe degree among them always existed like Jinnah postulated. Effectively less people would have died in partition than without it (and all the ideas needed to sell it beforehand) in more brutal terms. I doubt that.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,450
Reactions
107 19,156
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Sure however frankly its a topic that really brings nothing to the table but bitterness. No pakistani wants to be part of India. Pakistan and India are a reality and as years go by, the federation is actually getting stronger. the parition generation is dying and those that met the 1947 generation are also dying. The new generation is only interested in making Pakistan work and the right of Pakistan to exist only depends on the people of Pakistan. Not to Indians, Not to Indian Muslims, Not to bengalis.

I never said this is reversible process.

An irreversible process does not mean initial conditions are to be assumed same as the downstream ones.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,450
Reactions
107 19,156
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
the fact that the moment an alternative was given

How was the alternative given and by whom?

All kind of alternatives have been "given" and "accepted" or "rejected" when analysed in a cursory way.

All throughout time.

Doesn't mean it was given properly, reasonably and with the logical scope needed.

Stoking fear, misunderstanding, sub-identity differences, and then saying hey look we rejected an alternative appropriately... Nah.

Somehow Bacha Khan got the pathans voting INC anyway despite that. Respect to that fellow...

But what's done is done. I recognise that. Well has been poisoned but it tastes sweet now and the poison doesn't really do anything immediate and drastic anymore...so its potable and fine. Human beings can convince themselves of a great many things, especially if they are born into it with the references of history that no longer exist among them to compare with. Slow boil frogs and all that.
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
an Urdu Summary of the report. Reports and judgments orders are difficult to explain to the people so such summaries are a good read however its in Urdu. The Hamdur Report.


You guys can download it here.
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
How was the alternative given and by whom?

All kind of alternatives have been "given" and "accepted" or "rejected" when analysed in a cursory way.

All throughout time.

Doesn't mean it was given properly, reasonably and with the logical scope needed.

Stoking fear, misunderstanding, sub-identity differences, and then saying hey look we rejected an alternative appropriately... Nah.

Somehow Bacha Khan got the pathans voting INC anyway despite that. Respect to that fellow...

But what's done is done. I recognise that. Well has been poisoned but it tastes sweet now and the poison doesn't really do anything immediate and drastic anymore...so its potable and fine. Human beings can convince themselves of a great many things, especially if they are born into it with the references of history that no longer exist among them to compare with. Slow boil frogs and all that.

hmmmm whats done is done. well maybe in this downstream, alot more downstream, we might have a good relationship.

:unsure::unsure:

Waisay your posts are fine and you can make more of them. I am reading then with great interest. These things will always be upfor debate and disagreements nut i am enjoying it.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
You can use either of history of pakistan or books and research material thread. Infact I think thread has slowly drifted away from naval engagement.
You see human beings reify the world around them. That process is not scientific and is open to so many points of view. Often and mostly those are informed by our own outlook.
I
ndia and Pakistan came into existence on August 1947. This is incontrevertible fact. That day Indian and Pakistan flags went up and the UNION JACK went down. The entity that was dissolved was called British India which was a crown colony. Both Pakistan and India are successor states of British India. The fact that they adopted the style 'India' means nothing. If I name myself Mohammed Ali I can't delude myself into thinking I am Mohammed Ali the boxer. The name was British India, the prefix 'British' is to be noted as much as the prefix 'West' is to be noted in West Indians.

I have no idea about you but my father, my grandfather existed before 1947 who were crown subjects. It was not like they were Republic of India subjects. The infographic below helps to make my thinking clear -

Myanmar, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are successor states of the British colony called British India.


1609087675941.png


The Hindutwa and their followers live in the delusion that this happened -
 

Attachments

  • process.png
    process.png
    7.4 KB · Views: 148
Last edited by a moderator:

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
When in reality this happened -

1609088058392.png


Pakistan did not come after or from Indian Republic. Pakistan and India came after BRITISH INDIA was dissoloved.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,450
Reactions
107 19,156
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
hmmmm whats done is done. well maybe in this downstream, alot more downstream, we might have a good relationship.

:unsure::unsure:

Waisay your posts are fine and you can make more of them. I am reading then with great interest. These things will always be upfor debate and disagreements nut i am enjoying it.

Right, its just about airing some thoughts out on the matter...I did say I am obviously biased on it, not much to be done on that....but I feel when we remove ourselves as far as can be from being "vested", there is a whole lot that ought to have gone differently, even if the area was to separate eventually into new countries.

Given how things went after politically, I also feel the initial asserted principles (for political formation) were not valid or sufficient by themselves....rather it is the insufficient things that ought to have been addressed far more strenuously over time, as they have been found sorely lacking and they are of far larger consequence to far more people.

Nationhood, identity or otherwise lives very much within those greater principles and ambitions, rather than being the 1st fountainhead from which they emanate from. A nation can always be molded on this if done properly and with due diligence. It has both been done and not done in many examples throughout history....how it happens is most sensitive to criteria quite different to genuine popular expression/intent in my analysis....people have both been kept as part of systems they didnt want to be and also forced to leave systems they wanted to remain in (or the vast majority were simply not given a proper choice or were in position to really be given adequate expression of both points and perspectives and express their educated reasoned choice on it).

I would like to clarify I have no further insinuation against the identity per se w.r.t when I said the name is new etc...rather it was to illustrate the speed/haste of this process relative to both the liberation struggle and the formation+development time of all the identities/realities etc that mark up the region (and larger nation as I see it).

I after all know too many good respectable Pakistanis like yourself (or love reading good ones like Mr. Agha Amin here or Mr. Hoodbhoy etc) to pass judgement (esp downstream now) what some quality or rank w.r.t national identity itself is and how it is carried and held in hearts...that is left to the public at large to do the best they can.

I would similarly not hold it against the Belgians, though their country also came about in the most peculiar hasty way (and has a most peculiar situation as a result if you look at it, in many respects mirroring the region of Canada I call home now)...as the Belgians and Canadians have long since developed their layers of downstream identity/nationhood with lingering sentiments of the peculiar haste....but that is not a judgement on that national identity being lesser to any other in the world (as this ultimately resides in the hearts of people which I cannot access objectively...much like the realm of faith). It simply exists as it does (the way I see it) and I comment on what I see....and that is why I started the whole convo some posts ago recognising I am just one, I am flawed and I have bias on everything.
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
536
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
But where is the name Pakistan in this world history, and why did it have to be invented in such a short time frame? That in itself speaks to what is natural, unnatural and what can be construed as "inevitable" simply because it happened.

I asbolute disagree when people pick Pakistan and say where it is in history. Pakistan is a federation of these states that have existed and will always exist. Their own history and their own culture existed and will exist.

This is an almost never-ending discussion, but it should start with the definition of the Indian sub-continent. If one defines it as the land mass bounded by the Indus in the West and Irrawaddy in the East, the Himalayas to the North and the Indian Ocean to the South, the proving the "historical" existence of Pakistan becomes a futile exercise in revisionism, being undertaken only to craft yet another forced entity after the failure of its previously manufactured Islamic roots. This will fail as well, as most contrived identities do.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Pakistan in this world history
So your building your entire edifice on a name? For sake of argumant if Pakistan decided to restytle itself as -

  • Asiastan
  • Sindstan
would Pakistan become 'halal' for you. A name means nothing. So according to you mistake we made was we should have found a name from antiquity - say Gandhara and it would be all okay? United Kingdom has no history either, neither does such a manufactured name like USA. These are just names. As a people, as a land we have a heritage that goes further back then most of the world including you guys.

And thatr darned thing that was dissolved in 1947 was a British, imperial, colonial project. Made by British bullets and bayonets. Ruled by British officials. With a British flag fluterring. The only thing my ancestor and your ancestor share is for a short while [98 years] both were prisoners. Nothing more. Nothing less. And we broke from that prison in 1947.

1609174448921.png
 
N

Null/Void

Guest
So your building your entire edifice on a name? For sake of argumant if Pakistan decided to restytle itself as -

  • Asiastan
  • Sindstan
would Pakistan become 'halal' for you. A name means nothing. So according to you mistake we made was we should have found a name from antiquity - say Gandhara and it would be all okay? United Kingdom has no history either, neither does such a manufactured name like USA. These are just names. As a people, as a land we have a heritage that goes further back then most of the world including you guys.

And thatr darned thing that was dissolved in 1947 was a British, imperial, colonial project. Made by British bullets and bayonets. Ruled by British officials. With a British flag fluterring. The only thing my ancestor and your ancestor share is for a short while [98 years] both were prisoners. Nothing more. Nothing less. And we broke from that prison in 1947.

View attachment 9933
I think Italy is a better example I mean the modern Italian state is only in existence since the 1860s and 1870s thanks to folks like Garibaldi before what was Italy a bunch of city states hell Italy despite fully United wasn't really unified culturally until Mussolini came along as the cultural gap between Southern Italians and Northerners were huge then
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,450
Reactions
107 19,156
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Again, anyone can ressearch where and when the name "Italy" actually came from...vis-a-vis names like Rome. If that name has ever meant anything in the past.

If people want to conflate what a nation, country and nation-state is....but strangely not conflate it the same way for selective others....it just speaks to their understanding and credibility in the end
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
I disagree, it wasn't given a proper chance with due reference to the inertia behind it...political expedience is what coloured and corrupted it...and in just a few short years. Rest was just "an idea who's time has come" by playing on people's fears....rather than anything else far more positive (but more difficult).

You live in the downstream, so you cannot insert easily in the upstream. Where were the referenda of an educated people cognisant of their rights to express what the "natural state" was, and in a suitable position to express this.....over what politicians saw?...especially given developing the former naturally diminishes what a politician can exist in and exploit?

At an extreme, this can be expanded grossly to almost any situation that exists today or any event that happened in the past....simply for it transpiring.

That it was inevitable this and that happened in China, Europe, Americas, Persia, Africa...you name it. That Israel was an idea who's time had come clearly, simply by existing now, even though it had not existed for nearly 2 millenia as a political entity of any kind.

But I guess the word Israel, Jacob's own other name....has existed longer than those 2 millenia...you can find it in the good book itself.

But where is the name Pakistan in this world history, and why did it have to be invented in such a short time frame? That in itself speaks to what is natural, unnatural and what can be construed as "inevitable" simply because it happened.

I mean how far do we really want to go? That it was "inevitable" the NSDAP did what they did with the reins of political power and downward thinking.....merely because the existence of a foreign ethnicity within their country (and Europe in larger sense as it would become plainly clear) was an "unnatural" state?...as expressed by some politicians, elitists and leaders of the time...(that the population then fell behind lock step?)

W.r.t that population that did that and now hold culpability....where were the severe pogroms in Germany before that episode? List and names please of such happening in the unnatural 1000+ years existence there at the same intensity in periods...to clearly foretell what would come by "natural" expression at THAT magnitude?

The overall analysis (And conventional wisdom) at the time (early 20th century) preceding it was that anti-semitism turning into something bigger was likely to happen in two countries: Russia and France....given a number of factors (and actual mass scale sustained pogroms in the former)....but NEVER on that scale we saw.

So if we have no evidence of what happened during the partition itself happening regularly between salt-of-earth and sons-of-soil neighbours spread in often 50/50 way (when split by some sub-identity of many sub-identities in existence) in the border areas and interiors...given they shared so much and still share so much in what they do day to day that forms identities in first place.

Why is it the INC won elections in parts of pakistan barely a clock tick before the partition (even after Jinnah and ML did what they did in the final hours of the ball game)?

Why did the vast majority of muslims on the Indian side stay put?

Why is it I have been called a "P**i" by Goray a number of times, if this unnatural state was so complete and would extend surely to any removed eye for something like the bloodshed at partition to happen.

India holds together despite far greater heterogeneity on religion and just about any other metric and social friction potential than Pakistan. Pakistan notably didn't.

....even with the muslim-majoritarianism it achieved (and now inevitably needs some further definition or clarification from original claim and repackaging till the next stark political-salivating fissure pops up relative to status-quo ease or building toughness)

So there is nothing to illustrate that Hindustan would have fissured with the right set of political movements with the appropriate recognition of what the revolution of the time actually was and what the system needing to be built was to LATER harness from the public at large (any sentiments of further sub-nationhood) when they were actually in a state to do so (education, condition, knowledge of rights and issues) and had proper references to compare with how it was going under Hindustani polity and unity. There are multiple rational and intelligent ways to do this.

There is thus a final reality the wedge being identified and driven (at the time), was not what it genuinely claimed to be in some rational way from a 1st principle....but rather that it was merely big enough, easily accessible enough and saw an expedient fissure to get to work on....so that one set of politicians/elitists would always have their unchallenged, unrivalled scope on what most naturally comes to them...and other politicians/elitists downstream inevitably augmented or responded to this over time too...since its the reality they were born in shaped already.

Does not mean any of it was natural or inevitable with proper context and reference to the region and the history of the world at large on the exact same issues succeeding and failing with different realms of intensities and consequences.




No I might as well take opportunity to get this all out, its my decision...I came close to not answering but I wanted to see how it came out of me, because sometimes its different when you need to put words to something

....I am most interested to see what @VCheng and @Joe Shearer have to say as well.
Completely agree with you. I have been holding forth on this precise exact same theme not even fifteen minutes ago on another forum. @Saiyan0321 would have seen it there.
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
@Saiyan0321 when you are back I think it might be best to move replies from #55 onwards to some new history debate thread about IVC etc.. if you feel it proper of course as I feel this might go off topic from what you intended in this one.

It might also be useful to put "Pakistan" in (this) thread's title so when it appears in shoutbox, ppl know the country the thread refers to etc.

My thoughts exactly
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
I downloaded a book which has been getting some acclaim. Looks a good read.

Its titled Our Hindu Rashtra by Akar patel and it is about the rising right and theocratic nature of India
 

Attachments

  • Our Hindu Rashtra What It Is. How We Got Here by Aakar Patel (z-lib.org).pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 148

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan


The great speech of alexander on the opis mutiny


he Mutiny at Opis​

[7.8.1] On arriving at Opis,note Alexander called together the Macedonians and declared that he was discharging from the campaign and sending back to their country those who were unfit for service because of age or wounds suffered. The presents he would give would make them an object of even greater envy at home and would encourage the other Macedonians to take part in the same dangers and hardships.

[7.8.2] Alexander spoke these words with the clear intention of pleasing the Macedonians, but they felt Alexander now despised them and regarded them as completely unfit for service. It was not unreasonable for them to take exception to Alexander's words, and they had had many grievances throughout the expedition. There was the recurring annoyance of Alexander's Persian dress which pointed in the same direction, and the training of the barbarian "Successors" in the Macedonian style of warfare,note and the introduction of foreign cavalry into the squadrons of the Companions.

[7.8.3] They could not keep quiet any longer, but all shouted to Alexander to discharge them from service and take his father on the expedition (by this insult they meant Ammon).note

When Alexander heard this - he was now rather more quick-tempered and eastern flattery had made him become arrogant towards the Macedonians - he leaped from the platform with the leaders around him and ordered the arrest of the most conspicuous troublemakers, indicating to the hypaspists the men for arrest, thirteen in all. He ordered them to be led off for execution, and when a terrified silence had fallen on the others he ascended the platform again and spoke as follows.

[7.9.1] "Macedonians, my speech will not be aimed at stopping your urge to return home; as far as I am concerned you may go where you like. But I want you to realize on departing what I have done for you, and what you have done for me.

[7.9.2] Let me begin, as is right, with my father Philip. He found you wandering about without resources, many of you clothed in sheepskins and pasturing small flocks in the mountains, defending them with difficulty against the Illyrians, Triballians and neighboring Thracians. He gave you cloaks to wear instead of sheepskins, brought you down from the mountains to the plains, and made you a match in war for the neighboring barbarians, owing your safety to your own bravery and no longer to reliance on your mountain strongholds. He made you city dwellers and civilized you with good laws and customs.

[7.9.3] Those barbarians who used to harrass you and plunder your property, he made you their leaders instead of their slaves and subjects. He annexed much of Thrace to Macedonia, seized the most favorable coastal towns and opened up the country to commerce, and enabled you to exploit your mines undisturbed.

[7.9.4] He made you governors of the Thessalians, before whom you used to die of fright, humbled the Phocians and so opened a broad and easy path into Greece in place of a narrow and difficult one. The Athenians and Thebans, who were permanently poised to attack Macedonia, he so humbled (and I was now helping him in this tasknote) that instead of you paying tribute to the Athenians and being under the sway of the Thebans, they now in turn had to seek their safety from us.

[7.9.5] He marched into the Peloponnese and settled matters there too. He was appointed commander-in-chief of all Greece for the campaign against the Persians, but preferred to assign the credit to all the Macedonians rather than just to himself.note

[7.9.6] Such were the achievements of my father on your behalf; as you can see for yourselves, they are great, and yet small in comparison with my own. I inherited from my father a few gold and silver cups, and less than 60 talents in the treasury; Philip had debts amounting to 500 talents, and I raised a loan of a further 800. I started from a country that could barely sustain you and immediately opened up the Hellespont for you, although the Persians then held the mastery of the sea.

[7.9.7] I defeated in a cavalry engagement the satraps of Dariusnote and annexed to your rule the whole of Ionia and Aeolis, both Phrygias and Lydia, and took Miletus by storm.

All the rest came over to our side spontaneously, and I made them yours for you to enjoy.

[7.9.8] All the wealth of Egypt and Cyrene, which I won without a fight, are now yours, Coele Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia are your possession, Babylonia and Bactria and Elam belong to you, you own the wealth of Lydia, the treasures of Persia, the riches of India, and the outer ocean. You are satraps, you are generals, you are captains. As for me, what do I have left from all these labors? Merely this purple cloak and a diadem."

[....]

[7.11.1] When he had finished Alexander quickly leaped down from the platform, retired to the royal tent and neglected his bodily needs. For that day and the day after he would not let any of his Companions see him. On the third day he invited inside the élite of the Persians, appointed them to the command of all the squadrons, and only allowed those who received the title of "kinsmen" from him to kiss him.

[7.11.2] As for the Macedonians, they were at first struck dumb by his speech and waited for him near the platform. No one followed the departing king, apart from the Companions around him and the bodyguards, but the majority were unable to decide what to do or say or to make up their minds to go away.

[7.11.3] When they were told what was happening with the Persians and Medes, that the command was being given to Persians and the oriental army was being divided into companies, that Macedonian names were being given to them, and there was a Persian squadron and Persian foot-companions and other infantry and a Persian regiment of Silver Shields, and a Companion cavalry together with another royal squadron, they could not endure it any longer.

[7.11.4] They ran in a body to the royal tent, cast their weapons down in front of the doors as a sign of supplication to the king, and standing before the doors shouted to the king to come out. They were prepared to hand over those responsible for the present disturbance and those who had raised the outcry. They would not move from the doors by day or night until Alexander took pity on them.

[7.11.5] When this was reported to Alexander, he quickly came out and saw their humble disposition; he heard the majority crying and lamenting, and was moved to tears. He came forward to speak, but they remained there imploring him.

[7.11.6] One of them, whose age and command of the Companion cavalry made him preeminent (he was called Callines) spoke as follows. "Sire, what grieves the Macedonians is that you have already made some Persians your 'kinsmen', and the Persians are called 'kinsmen' of Alexander and are allowed to kiss you, while not one of the Macedonians has been granted this honor."

[7.11.7] Alexander then interrupted him and said "I make you all my 'kinsmen' and henceforward that shall be your title." At this Callines stepped forward and kissed him, and so did everyone else who wished. And thus they picked up their arms again and returned to the camp amid shouts and songs of triumph.

[7.11.8] Alexander celebrated the occasion by sacrificing to the gods he normally sacrificed to, and offering a public banquet. He sat down and so did everyone else, the Macedonians around him, the Persians next to them, then any of the other peoples who enjoyed precedence for their reputation or some other quality. Then he and those around him drew wine from the same bowl and poured the same libations, beginning with the Greek seers and the Magians.

[7.11.9] He prayed for other blessings and for harmony and partnership in rule between Macedonians and Persians. It is said that there were 9,000 guests at the banquet, who all poured the same libation and then sang the song of victory.

 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Its been a while since i uploaded a book. This book here is a classic and one of the most indepth study on the caliph system in Islam. It looks to study the rise and fall of each caliph within Islam and how the concept of Caliph was mainstreamed in Islam and what it meant to earliest companions, the ummayyads and the traditions set by them and the abbasids and how the muslim world witnessed multiple caliphs at a time.

This is extremely important because amongst the most romanticized concepts in Islam, Caliphate is second only to the Riyasaat e Medina and through this book, we can see that the concept was completely different that what is preached today and was home to basic reality of its time. In the modern world, the word caliph not only has romanticized undertones but is home to the romantic fantasies of each individual that looks to speak about the Caliph. Just like Riyasaat E Medina, the Caliph can take many shapes. He can be a messiah, a democrat, an autocrat, a sufi, a religious monarch, a holder of the bloodline, capitalist to make all rich, or a socialist to help the poor, a communist to break the classes, or an theocrat to establish religion. He could be a reformer, a revolutionary, a soldier, a politician, he can be many things, in accordance to the perspective view of the speaker. Through this book, we see what the concept of Caliph was.
 

Attachments

  • The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates The Islamic Near East from the 6th to the 11th Centu...pdf
    3.3 MB · Views: 156

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Since there is alot of talk going on President Rule in Bengal, my take on the subject which i wrote elsewhere

Do these guys even understand what president rule is? what are the conditions for the imposition of such emergency and whether the center even has the power to impose president rule on extremely weak grounds? For this we must peruse the Indian Constitution however before we peruse, we must understand one thing and that is that Constitutions are read in a flow with preceding articles providing meaning to the successive article. There is no greater dishonesty than to take an article out of context and simply start brandishing it. This is true for all legislations for example in the justice qazi faez isa judgment, the superior court used various articles preceding article 209(5) to define said article and the powers conferred within it and the same principle was applied in Income Tax Ordinance section 116. Another example would be the calls for the imposition of Article 145 In Karachi, which I highlighted could not be done due to the preceding articles defining it different. No sentence nor article can be taken out of context within the constitution.



Let us reproduce Article 356



356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State

(1) If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with he provisions of this Constitution, the President may be Proclamation

(a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;

(b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;

(c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the president to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this constitution relating to any body or authority in the State Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts

(2) Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation

(3) Every Proclamation issued under this article except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation Shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People

(4) A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of issue of the Proclamation: Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a Proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to operating, but no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years: Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of six months and a resolution approving the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the continuance in force of the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause ( 4 ), a resolution with respect to the continuance in force of a Proclamation approved under clause ( 3 ) for any period beyond the expiration of one year from the date of issue of such proclamation shall not be passed by either House of Parliament unless

(a) a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, in the whole of India or, as the case may be, in the whole or any part of the State, at the time of the passing of such resolution, and

(b) the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under clause ( 3 ) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned: Provided that in the case of the Proclamation issued under clause ( 1 ) on the 6 th day of October, 1985 with respect to the State of Punjab, the reference in this clause to any period beyond the expiration of two years



With the above let us peruse two more articles



355. Duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution



352. Proclamation of Emergency

(1) If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression or armed rebellion, he may, by Proclamation, made a declaration to that effect in respect of the whole of India or of such part of the territory thereof as may be specified in the Proclamation Explanation A Proclamation of Emergency declaring that the security of India or any part of the territory thereof is threatened by war or by external aggression or by armed rebellion may be made before the actual occurrence of war or of any such aggression or rebellion, if the President is satisfied that there is imminent danger thereof

(2) A Proclamation issued under clause (I) may be or revoked by a subsequent proclamation

(3) The President shall not issue a Proclamation under clause (I) or a Proclamation varying such Proclamation unless the decision of the Union Cabinet (that is to say, the Council consisting of the Prime Minister and other Ministers of Cabinet rank under Article 75) that such a Proclamation may be issued has been communicated to him in writing

(4) Every Proclamation issued under this article shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall, except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of one month unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People has been dissolved, or place during the period of one month referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution, unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People

(5) A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the passing of the second of the resolutions approving the proclamation under clause ( 4 ); Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a Proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament the Proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which it would otherwise have ceased of operate under this clause Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of six months an a resolution approving the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days, a resolution approving the continuance in force of the proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People

(6) For the purpose of clause ( 4 ) and ( 5 ), a resolution may be passed by either House of Parliament only by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of that House present and voting

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing clauses, the President shall revoke a Proclamation issued under clause (l) or a Proclamation varying such Proclamation if the House of the People passes a resolution disapproving, or, as the case may be, disapproving the continuance in force of, such Proclamation

(8) Where a notice in writing signed by not less than one tenth of the total number of members of the House of the People has been given of, their intention to move a resolution for disapproving, or, as the case may be, for disapproving the continuance in force of, a Proclamation issued under clause (l) or a Proclamation varying such Proclamation,

(a) to the Speaker, if the House is in session; or

(b) to the President, if the House is not in session, a special sitting of the House shall be held within fourteen days from the date on which such notice is received by the Speaker, or as the case may be, by the President, for the purpose of considering such resolution

(9) The power conferred on the President by this article shall include the power to issue different Proclamations on different grounds, being war or external aggression or armed rebellion or imminent danger of war or external aggression or armed rebellion, whether or not here is a Proclamation already issued by the President under clause (l) and such Proclamation is in operation



The above two are the preceding articles to Article 356. India has a long and painful history of Center dissolving state assemblies and proclaiming emergencies in various states. It was due to this that the Courts were forced to define the powers of Article 356 since it was abused to the whims of the center.

Before we enter there let us look into Article 352, the First Article in the Chapter of emergency provisions. It sets into three main conditions for the proclamation of emergency. It can only happen when there is a grave security situation within the state and the state is engulfed in chaos and this situation happens due to the following;

Armed Rebellion

External Aggression

This is extremely important to understand that Article 352 speaks solely of external aggression or armed rebellion. Now in this article the constitution equated both armed rebellion and external aggression to be of the same severity. What does that mean? It means that the severity of the armed rebellion must be of such a nature that is equivalent of an external aggression aka in a manner that breaks down the constitutional structure of the state. Where the Center feels that the State is helpless and must be provided aid and here we come to Article 355 which contains the thread that connects 365(1) and 352 and 360 and this thread is reproduced above and it contains two major words. The duty of the state is to protect each state against

External Aggression

Internal disturbance



I am sure you have noticed that Armed rebellion has changed to internal disturbance. Did the constitution impede itself and the framers fall flat? That is not so. It may look like the constitution just impeded its own Articles like Article 239 (5) and 239(6) impeded Article 184(3) within the Pakistani Constitution 1973. The Article did exactly what a constitutions Article is supposed to do and built on the previous Article. Here it took the route of Internal disturbance to empower 365 (1) which contains emergency based on the fall out of the constitutional setup.

The first thing was that armed rebellion solely would empower the Center to dissolve opposition governments on any small matter by declaring it a state emergency and secondly not all incidents that require the Center to interfere relate solely with Invasions or Rebellion. There are incidents where the State legislature simply ceases to work. What happens when a coalition breaks down and the CM is from a minority party? What happens if a no confidence motion is passed? What happens if the CM loses control of the parliament? Where the state machinery ceases to function? Remember the Center is supposed to protect the state and not the state government. Its interference is mandated in the above situations but these are not armed rebellions nor external aggressions. Thus We have Article 355 which contains the term “Internal Disturbance” but that opens its own interpretation after all if armed rebellion could be interpreted by the state to mean any group of thieves rebelling against the state and taking control of some village as “Armed Rebellion” to remove an opposition government then so can Internal disturbance which can include the group of thieves or the state opposition protesting. It can enter many scenarios and this was the question that the Indian Supreme Court had to undertake in the landmark judgment “S.R.Bommai vs Union of India”.

If I went to explain the judgment itself then this will be too long so here we will take inspiration and the meanings of the judges and what they adjudged.

The provisions of Emergency relate to Center-State relations and here we must wonder what form of structure does India have? Does it have Central structure, Semi-Federal or Federal. The Counsels argued that the Indian Federal structure was more In line with the US federal structure which allows for vast state powers and autonomy. The Indian Court disagreed. I took inspiration from the Madras High Court judgment

M. Karunnanidhi v. Union of India where the court held

“[T]here may be a federation of independent States, as it is in the case of United States of America. As the name itself denotes, it is a Union of States, either by treaty or by legislation by the concerned 4 (1977) 4 SCC 608: AIR 1978 SC 68: (1978) 2 SCR 1 5 AIR 1977 Mad 192: (1977) 1 MLJ 182 States. In those cases, the federating units gave certain powers to the federal Government and retained some. To apply the meaning to the word 'federation' or 'autonomy' used in the context of the American Constitution, to our Constitution will be totally misleading.

The feature of the Indian Constitution is the establishment of a Government for governing the entire country. In doing so, the Constitution prescribes the powers of the Central Government and the powers of the State Governments and the relations between the two. In a sense, if the word 'federation' can be used at all, it is a federation of various States which were designated under the Constitution for the purpose of efficient administration and governance of the country. The powers of the Centre and States are demarcated under the Constitution. It is futile to suggest that the States are independent, sovereign or autonomous units which had joined the federation under certain conditions. No such State ever existed or acceded to the Union."



Here the courts pointed out that the power of the Center to make new states is a power not allowed in the US Federal structure and the center, along with other powers, is empowered a lot more than the US structure and thus must not be compared to the US Federal Structure and the courts held the opinion of various jurists which question whether India can be described as fully and strictly Federal. The Court held that India was “Quasi-Federal”.
This is important to understand since we need to grasp exactly what governs the relationship between Center and State.

With this we once again come back to Internal Disturbance. The first thing we must notice, again is the pairing. The Word “Internal Disturbance” was paired with External Aggression. This means that the term “Internal Disturbance” Cannot be treated lightly and must of such intensity that the state structure has completely broken down and the Center has no other option but to intervene. The courts defined “Internal Disturbance” to hold a larger connotation than mere Armed Rebellion and spoke of what I held that the Successive Article built on the Preceding Article but held that the emergency provisions cannot be utilized on any matter not specifically mentioned within the said Articles and the Court pointed out that the “Internal disturbance” must be a consequence of the “Armed Rebellion” aka the state machinery has broken down and the state cannot continue with its constitutional duty. This must be the consequence of the Armed Rebellion thus adjoining the thread between Armed Rebellion, External Aggression and Internal Disturbance. The courts pointed that the center cannot interfere in the state simply on any small instances of Disturbances and cannot make that the excuse to violate its constitutional authority. The evidence of this was seen in the Karnataka Emergency Proclamation whose reason was given that S.R. Bommai did not command the majority of the parliament and the president dissolved the state assembly without even providing a proper reason. This was in 1989. The Center resisted the plea against the proclamation by stating that no government could form majority government anymore and thus the constitutional state structure could not function. The Superior Court declared that the proclamation was malafide and illegal since the governor had taken no steps to ascertain the situation nor launched any investigation on allegations of horse trading nor did he contact the MLA that switched party nor formed a proper committee and simply wrote the report to the President. The Court here used this reasoning and we can see that the court is severely against any easing of the emergency procedure and here we see that the court asked the governor why he hadn’t left no stone unturned in solving the problem? The court held that the proclamation cannot be made arbitrarily and is the last resort to be undertaken when there exist no other option.




@Kaptaan @Nilgiri @Joe Shearer @Waz @Yankeestani @T-123456
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
The courts have held repeatedly that this should not be done without taking due care and due process and the courts here equated Internal Disturbance to relating with Armed Rebellion and that only when the entire constitutional setup has fallen down.



The Courts then looked to define whether they have power over the Emergency? The courts held that yes Emergencies are under the purview of Judicial Review and the courts declared that while the opinion of the president cannot be brought under judicial scrutiny however the malafide and reason of that opinion is very much under judicial scrutiny and should be adjudged. The court that this is the nuances of law that must be looked into and properly considered and if the courts find malafide in the process or in the opinion then the courts can strike down the proclamation.



The courts also held that the emergency cannot break down the assembly but suspend it and it can only be done when the emergency gets approved by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. Infact the courts held that the Assembly cannot be dissolved even then and can only be done if the Assembly ceases to function and only then will suspension become dissolution. This is an important distinction because here we see that a suspended assembly will return with its constitutional structure after the expiration of the proclamation.



Lastly the courts also held important steps that must be taken before the implementation of the emergency and that is that the Center must help the State in resolution of the disturbance and provide guidance and ask the state to solve the situation. Emergency is the last step and not the first and dissolution of the assembly is the last step of that emergency.



An important distinction has to be made is that these articles were inspired from the
Constitution of India 1935 and these were the tools of a foreign power to control the structure of its conquest and they cannot be implemented as arbitrarily as the British had done and must be home to limitations that should not be ignored. The same sentiments were echoed by Ambedkar



“"In fact I share the sentiments expressed ...

that the proper thing we ought to expect is that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter. If at all, they are brought into operation, I hope the President, who is endowed with all these powers, will take proper precautions before actually Suspending the administration of the provinces. I hope the first thing he 'will do would be to issue a mere warning to a province that has erred, that things were not happening in the way in which they were intended to happen in the Constitution."

Because when he had brought these articles in the draft constitution (Article 277 and 277A of the Draft) then he had to pacify the widespread opposition that these articles faced and when defining the constitution, the mindset of the framers is very important, irrespective of whether you believe in original constitutionalism or not, mindset of the framers is important for the interpretation especially liberal interpretation of clauses, especially those clauses that are concerning to the power of the center. Here we see ambedkar placed limitations.

"Some people might think that Article 277-A is merely a pious declaration, that it ought not to be there. The Drafting Committee has taken a different view and I would therefore like to explain why it is that the Drafting Committee feels that Article 277-A ought to be there. I think it is agreed that our Constitution, notwithstanding the many provisions which are contained in it whereby the Centre has been given powers to override the Provinces, nonetheless is a Federal Constitution and when we say that Constitution is a Federal Constitution, it means this, that the Provinces are as sovereign in their field which is left to them by the Constitution as the Centre is in the field which is assigned to it. In other words, barring the provisions which permit the Centre to override any legislation that may be passed by the Provinces, the Provinces have a plenary authority to make any law for the peace, order and good government of that Province. Now, when once the Constitution makes the provinces sovereign and gives them plenary powers to make any law for the peace, order and good government of the province, really speaking, the intervention of the Centre or any other authority must be deemed to be barred, because that would be an invasion of the sovereign authority of the province. That is a fundamental proposition which, I think, we must accept by reason of the fact that we have a Federal Constitution. That being so, if the Centre is to interfere in the administration of provincial affairs, as we propose to authorise the Centre by virtue of Articles 278 and 278-A, it must be by and under some obligation which the Constitution imposes upon the Centre. The invasion must not be an invasion which is wanton, arbitrary and unauthorised by law. Therefore, in order to make it quite clear that Articles 278 and 278- A are not to be deemed as a wanton invasion by the Centre upon the authority of the province, we propose to introduce Article 277-A. As Members will see, Article 277-A says that it shall be the duty of the Union to protect every unit, and also to maintain the Constitution. So far as such obligation is concerned, it will be found that it is not our Constitution alone which is going to create this duty and this obligation. Similar clauses appear in the American Constitution.

They also occur in the Australian Constitution, where the constitution, in express terms, provides that it shall be the duty of the Central Government to protect the units or the States from external aggression or internal commotion. All that we propose to do is to add one more clause to the principle enunciated in the American and Australian Constitutions, namely, that it shall also be the duty of the Union to maintain the Constitution in the provinces as enacted by this law. There is nothing new in this and as I said, in view of the fact that we are endowing the provinces with plenary powers and making them sovereign within their own field, it is necessary to provide that if any invasion of the provincial field is done by the Centre it is in virtue of this obligation. It will be an act in fulfillment of the duty and the obligation and it cannot be treated, so far as the Constitution is concerned, as a wanton, arbitrary, unauthorised act. That is the reason, why we have introduced Article 277A."



Here we once again see the mindset of the framer and how defines the relationship between center and state and he points to the limitations of the center in this regard and most importantly how he mentions the act as an “Invasion”.

Amkbedkar was the drafter of the constitution and was a learned man. He knew the importance of words and their meaning which means that his usage of the term “Invasion” was deliberate to describe the action taken by Center is an Invasion of right and thus must be justified to be credible, legal, and in good faith to the utmost and if it falls of such then this is the invasion of a tyrant. Words are very important here.



Now with the above we look to see the situation in Bengal and whether the situation has warranted such an action? True that there are incidents and loss of life is most unfortunate however to demand the implementation of such an invasive article is nothing short of short-sighted and reveals the bitterness of a defeat that is not being swallowed. This open call is dangerous as it will weaken the federal structure and will be nothing short of spiting on the words of the founding fathers and framers. Th8is is double for BJP since in Karnataka, in 1989, they were at the receiving end and thus must understand the importance of the judgment of 1993 and the constitutional validity of such an action.

This demand must be opposed and the center reminded of its responsibilities and those that are on the internet demanding such must be told of the seriousness of the situation and to not turn their defeat into a constitutional crisis that will engulf the country.

The supporters utilize terms like Hindu and how BJP supporters are being targeted and Hindus are being targeted is to create an environment that the only way Hindus can survive in India is through BJP and BJP is the only party that looks out for them and where they fail, they are targeted. The audience here is not just Bengal but the entirety of India and the states where BJP support is waning and is strong. The message is clearly

“If you wish to not see marauding gangs of Muslims and communists and Seculars destroy the Hindu then you must support BJP.”

This will not only weaken the unity amongst the Indians but also create a sense of victimization amongst the Hindus who will look to target the heterogeneous state of India as Others and look to either assimilate them or remove them entirely, bringing more chaos to India and with India already as it is, this is the last thing that should be followed and this Hindu nationalism needs to stop.



and as for the PIL Filed


Whoever filed this PIL needs to understand the law. Section 356 indeed contains the word 'otherwise' however otherwise cannot mean that forces outside the executive can inside emergency. The otherwise enters the section when we look at the process of emergency aka
"If the president, on receipt of the report from governor of he state or otherwise..."

The precedent here is that the patna high court interpreted the term 'otherwise' to mean anybody other than the governor and held that the courts and their order comes into the term 'otherwise'. Now as I said before that the constitution should not impede itself nor should its interpretation impede itself. The chapter of emergency holds that the president has the power of the emergency and is not forced into placing an emergency aka the report from the governor cannot force the president to place emergency. It can only satisfy the president and help him formulate that opinion. So here we see that the roles of 'receipt of governor' and 'otherwise' are solely to act as advisory option and this advise is about 'situation arisen in which the government of the state cannot act in accordance with the provisions of this constitution'.

So the advise must contain the body on whether the situation in state is bad or not and I have discussed what the situation must contain for that previously so I won't go there.

I will see into the courts interpretation. The patna court interpreted itself into 'otherwise' however first of all the courts pass judgments and the 'otherwise' contains not ordering power, like the 'report of governor', but informing power. The governor cannot advise but inform of the ground situation and this distinction is very important to understand as interpretation must be followed within the sentence to have the sentence make sense and if we add the ordering power of court into 'otherwise' then do we give the same power to the 'report of governor' as well. Ludicrous. The same cannot be applied and if it can't be applied to the 'report of governor' then it cannot be applied to 'otherwise'. The courts erred in their judgment here and knowingly or unknowingly interfered into the powers of the executive.
Secondly can the courts appraise the government of any ground situation. No. They cannot. Their jurisdiction, to speak of high courts is even more so since they don't have advisory jurisdiction even, is strictly limited to legal or constitutional advisory. This would be overreaching and the courts are not allowed to do that. They can be appraised, aka why such happened, but they can't appraise aka tell the executive of the ground situation.

Lastly while the patna court passed such a judgment, the bommai judgment looked at it differently and highlighted that the courts can't question the opinion of the president however the malafide and reason behind that opinion should be adjudged and scrutinized. The court held that this is the nuance of law that must be looked into and thus we see that the supreme court took a very different view.

This PIL should be thrown outside the court with extra costs.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom