@revgirlisha Non of you lefties even address his support of the 2 nation theory and love for Jinnah.
Maybe you agree with him and it is inconvenient to admit it?
@AMCA_gremlin@InfiniteTutan Are you not aware that indigenous weapons have to go through excruciating trials and procedures and wait a few more years before getting piecemeal orders?
Only phoren maal gets preferential treatment in vishwagorilla
@Veera_Bobbili my personal opinion is that treason should be enough ground to jail someone, whatever it's form, thought, words or action.
he should not be kept as an undertrial for god knows how long.
alas there is no law of the type i would have preferred. i can only find solace in tweeting.
@Veera_Bobbili it is my personal opinion. i don't need a court document for that.
and yes savarkar and rss and hindu mahasabha were traitors too. they allied with the british, attacked their own people, refused to hoist the tricolour, i could go on.
@Veera_Bobbili send him straight to jail. i don't differentiate based on sectarian grounds, treason is treason. it is a travesty that some treason is being excused, but that does not mean others treason should also go unpunished.
@Veera_Bobbili putting the blame entirely on congress and absoving ML of it's sins is bad scholarship. it is driven by sectarian loyalty. it is dishonest.
and more than that, supporting the two nation theory by default is rejection of the idea of india. it is treason.
@Umm_e_Meeran for me, a good muslim is one who rejects jinnah, the muslim league and two nation thoery. you are welcome to any other opinion, about any other issue. but that's just me.
Thanks to the chatter on X, I found my way to Sharjeel’s interview. It is a thoughtful interview, if anyone cares to read it. I do not agree with everything he says, but he raises substantial questions about our postcolonial constitutional culture and the Indian state’s practice of secularism, both of which have histories extending well before Independence.
What struck me particularly was the discussion of decentralisation. Anyone familiar with Indian constitutional history will know that Partition fundamentally altered the negotiations over the distribution of power. Once accommodating the Muslim League ceased to be a consideration, the preference for a powerful Centre became explicit.
I hate to sound like a schoolma’am, but some of today’s constitutional gatekeepers might be startled to discover the United Bengal proposal associated with Suhrawardy, Sarat Chandra Bose and Abul Hashim, including the agreement signed by Bose and Hashim in May 1947. Yes, an undivided, independent Bengal was once a serious political proposition.
The Constitution we know emerged from competing proposals, contested settlements and possibilities that were ultimately abandoned and it does a disservice to critical thinking to be oblivious to that history. Multiple visions of India preceded the Constituent Assembly and contended within it. Reading those arguments does not oblige us to endorse every alternative. It might, however, discourage the rather tedious habit of treating the eventual settlement as the only arrangement anyone could legitimately have imagined.