dickie bird ismail sheikh firozuddin

Dickie bird ismay and plan balkan

Dickie Bird Plan 1947 October 30, 2011No comments Mountbatten prepared a “Dickie Bird Plan” for India’s independence.  This plan was prepared by a committee of General Sir Hastings Ismay, Sir George Abell and Lord Mountbatten himself.  The Plan Balkan was completed and presented on 15-16 April 1947 by Hastings Ismay to assembly of provincial governors in Delhi.  Due to this, this plan was also called “Ismay Plan“. The main proposal of this plan was to that provinces should become first independent successor states rather than an Indian Union or the two dominions of India & Pakistan. As per this plan all the provinces viz. Madras, Bombay, United Provinces of Bengal, Punjab & North West Frontier etc. were proposed to be declared Independent. The states later would decide whether to join constituent assembly or not. This plan was not discussed in details with leaders of India and Mountbatten discussed just informally. He gave the plan a final touch and sent to London. Later when he moved to Shimla, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru joined him as a guest. Here the details of the plan were put by Mountbatten before Nehru. Nehru rejected the plan right away and told him that this plan would invite Balkanization of India and would provoke conflict and violence. Consequently, Mountbatten cabled to England that this plan was cancelled. So it was also called as plan balkan.

The difference between this and mt batten plan is that the latter gave independence to princely states only...while this one was giving sovereignty to british provinces ie the very constituent elements of india itself.

Later sardar would integrate the princely states by offer of privy purses and later madam indira gandhi under the wave of socialism that nationalised banks did garibi hatao would also mean removing privy purses of princes. What nehru giveth daughter taketh away

The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli’s Defence Minister.

The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956 Suez Crisis, the United Nationshad established a presence in the Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region. Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way – that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.

The U.N. Security Council called for a withdrawal from all the occupied regions, but Israel declined, permanently annexing East Jerusalem and setting up military administrations in the occupied territories. Israel let it be known that Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai would be returned in exchange for Arab recognition of the right of Israel to exist and guarantees against future attack. Arab leaders, stinging from their defeat, met in August to discuss the future of the Middle East. They decided upon a policy of no peace, no negotiations, and no recognition of Israel, and made plans to zealously defend the rights of Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories.

Egypt, however, would eventually negotiate and make peace with Israel, and in 1982 the Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt in exchange for full diplomatic recognition of Israel. Egypt and Jordan later gave up their respective claims to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to the Palestinians, who beginning in the 1990s opened “land for peace” talks with Israel. The East Bank territory has since been returned to Jordan. In 2005, Israel left the Gaza Strip. Still, a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement remains elusive, as does an agreement with Syria to return the Golan Heights
The Palestine Authority has welcomed the initiative as a “flicker of hope”. But the Israeli government has slammed it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position is that Israel will hold direct talks with “a demilitarised Palestinian state that recognises Israel as a Jewish state and a national homeland for the Jewish people”. This appears more like a delaying tactic than a genuine demand for resuming talks for various reasons.

First, the Jewishness of the state of Israel is a matter of contention at least till the fate of the Palestinian refugees is settled. Second, there’s no level playing field between Israel and Palestine. One is the mightiest military power in West A

The problem in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict is that there’s a pro-Israel bias among the Western powers which stops them from putting real pressure on Tel Aviv to deliver. Israel knows that it can get away with anything. It’s the only nuclear armed nation in West Asia, though it hasn’t officially declared that. It faced allegations of war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza. It continues occupation of the West Bank in violation of the UNSC resolutions. Despite criticisms even from its allies in the West, Israel’s settlement policy remains intact. Still, were there any meaningful international efforts to hold Israel accountable for its actions or to put pressure on its leaders to change their policies?

The international community could actually take a lesson out of the Iran example. World powers were on the same page in putting pressure on Iran, through a mix of international sanctions and threats of isolation, over its nuclear programme. Even Iran’s allies such as Russia and China joined hands with the U.S. and Britain to build a global pressure regime which eventually worked in forcing Tehran to compromise. What was one of the most contentious global issues till a few years ago was settled amicably in a rare case of the triumph of public diplomacy. Why can’t a similar method be adopted in dealing with Israel, which is also a violator of accepted global norms? This is unlikely to happen immediately. But unless the Israeli exceptionalism is broken, there won’t be peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict. To break that, there has to be both carrots and sticks. Right now, there are only carrots in the kitty, plenty of them.

Why was the nation partitioned

Nhru in discovery of india says that although  it was our fault to start with but the british had it in their interest to keep the nation divided post independence. Same has been reiterated by maulana azad.  MIND BLOWING ANALYSIS.

1. The ncert says that it was wrong on part of congress to indulge in too much negotiation with jinnah.. they should have nipped the problem in the bud by making an all out ideological war against communalism.

2. Cripps mission which it is said created the blue print for partition was then a creation of both British as well as congress. But more of congress as they wouldn't have had this problem if they hadnt made jinnah a negotiating partner.

3. The cabinet mission and even cripps never talked of partition. It is even said that britisg through a sense of justice wanted to see their former possession intact rather than brittled. Jinnah agreed to the solution but nehru left himm no choice but to seek partition.

4. Forces of communalism were without doubt were nt in the hands of british but they had given birth to it by their policy of divide and rule...

5. Congress did little to disassociate itself from hindu mahajan sabha

Therefore no one is at fault and everyone ia at fault.