Quote:
Originally Posted by Jalaluddin
not necessarily. There is no indication that it was loose or tight. The emperors were interested in two things: acknlowdgement of superiority by the vassals and payment of tributes (money). And they got both.
In some cases adminsitrative convenience with two flavors - one the emperor appointed / crowned a close servant or friend as the king of the vassal state. In other cases the local leader/king was so crowned.
Whether majority of states accept or not, in those days there was were no trains cars and planes.Even small distances by today';s standards were very long journeys. In that scenario, control is only possible by presence. There was no choice. That is why ever civilized empire had to so organize - I gave you the exampel of Romans.
Originally agreed upon by both parties, the deal was nose dived on the part of Nehru.
sure that could have been. Nehru and Jinnah did not get along and both made mistakes
I don't know what you mean by 'traditional form of governance in India'. DO you mean they should have taken us back to emperor and vassal states with kings? No thank you.
Patel did a yeoman job in pulling the states together; the constitution defined very clear center/state/concurrent lists (of authority & responsibilty).
By the way did you know that the archietct of Indian constitution was Babasaheb Ambedkar was a dalit?
The point I am trying to make is that there always was India, it was not a hodgepodge of states
|
As for the relation between the emperor and the states he ruled, however tenuously or otherwise, the bottom line is that there was degree of autonomy.
The finer details of this system I suppose are irellevant.
But as you yourself said, these states were given a degree of Autonomy.
So when I say the traditional form of rule in India, I mean this system of vassal states with a degree of autonomy which you have been talking about.
Now as for Pakistan. Many members in the Congress itself blame Nehru for this HUGE blunder. Infact, for all intents and purposes, one could even say that had it not been for Nehru, India would still be united as a hodgepodge of states that you mentioned. Lets acknowledge this fact.
Now if your argument is that a degree of Autnomy has been the traditional form of governance in India, by that I mean, the historical relation between the center and the states, then the Mission plan was very much in line with this form of governance. Infact, it was even better as it allowed an equitable relation between the center and the autonomous states, contrary to the relation between the emperor and the states.
Again, its you guys who mentioned this traditional relationship in India between the states and the emperor. The Emperor is not relevant. Whats relevant is the fact that traditionally, the form of governance in India has been characterized by a degree of autonomy.
This is what the Authors of Pakistan had agreed upon, and thats exactly what was denied to them.
Whats ironic is that for some odd reason, India has allowed a considerable amount of autonomy to her states since partition, yet still torpedoed the autonomy package that would have avoided the partition! Classic case of cutting of your nose to spite your face.
My point once again, the borders of India have been constantly changing.
Some claim Pakistan falls with these traditional borders, thus, its always been a part of the Indian that "always was."
So I have to ask, why dont Indian also feel the same of Afghanistan or even Nepal? Both these states were once within the borders of the India that "always was" and yet people like A1 Fishcurry dont seem to bothered by the fact these countries are independant!
So why is Pakistan, which was once within the traditional borders of India, considered some how a lost territory of the India that "always was," yet others states that were also part of this traditional India with its hodgepodge of states, are not accorded such high honors?
Linear Mode
gupshup
unplugged
society
arts & cul
features
services
