chharoonahmad
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi
I want to understand the reasons and background for the points. Would you please help me?
1: Having a 'federal' constitution with little powers vested in the provinces was to the benefit of Muslims and other minorities because this way in Hindu majority areas the individual provinces won't have enough power to make laws which can affect minorities badly provided the federal level government has participation from all the minority groups. In other words it was a form of a system of "checks and balances".
3: What does it mean where it says: The majorities should not be reduced to minorities? How can majority be reduced to minority? Perhaps it could be achieved by dividing a province in a certain way. Didn't the British do this with Bengal when they divided it in 1905 which resulted in making the East Bengal a Muslim majority area and Hindu minority area.
5: "...provided that it shall be open to any community, at any time to abandon its separate electorate in form of joint electorates." Separate electorates meant that Muslims could only vote a Muslim candidate and the same went for other minority groups. I think joint electorates meant that even if you are a Muslim you could vote for a Hindu candidate.
6: Were Muslims a minority group in N.W.F.P, Bengal and Punjab? I don't think so.
8: How would it benefit Muslims if Sindh were separated from Bombay Presidency?
10: What does the phrase "involved community" mean in this context?
14: What does the part "except with the concurrence of the states consisting of the Indian federation" mean?
By the way, what was so bad in these 14 points in your view that it was outrightly rejected by the British government.
Please keep your replies to the point and please don't start indulging yourself in non-linear topics, or, Muslims Vs. Hindu topic. Thank you.
I want to understand the reasons and background for the points. Would you please help me?
1: Having a 'federal' constitution with little powers vested in the provinces was to the benefit of Muslims and other minorities because this way in Hindu majority areas the individual provinces won't have enough power to make laws which can affect minorities badly provided the federal level government has participation from all the minority groups. In other words it was a form of a system of "checks and balances".
3: What does it mean where it says: The majorities should not be reduced to minorities? How can majority be reduced to minority? Perhaps it could be achieved by dividing a province in a certain way. Didn't the British do this with Bengal when they divided it in 1905 which resulted in making the East Bengal a Muslim majority area and Hindu minority area.
5: "...provided that it shall be open to any community, at any time to abandon its separate electorate in form of joint electorates." Separate electorates meant that Muslims could only vote a Muslim candidate and the same went for other minority groups. I think joint electorates meant that even if you are a Muslim you could vote for a Hindu candidate.
6: Were Muslims a minority group in N.W.F.P, Bengal and Punjab? I don't think so.
8: How would it benefit Muslims if Sindh were separated from Bombay Presidency?
10: What does the phrase "involved community" mean in this context?
14: What does the part "except with the concurrence of the states consisting of the Indian federation" mean?
By the way, what was so bad in these 14 points in your view that it was outrightly rejected by the British government.
Please keep your replies to the point and please don't start indulging yourself in non-linear topics, or, Muslims Vs. Hindu topic. Thank you.
