Articles Comments

Pak Tea House » Jinnah » Jinnah v. Nehru – who was more democratic?

Jinnah v. Nehru – who was more democratic?

It is fashionable amongst Pakistanis to point out how “autocratic” Jinnah was as opposed to Jawaharlal Nehru and somehow it was this autocratic behavior on the part of the father of the nation that is the reason why Pakistan is a dysfunctional democracy at best.

The truth of course is that Jinnah’s conduct as His Majesty’s Governor General of Pakistan was far more democratic than that of Nehru as his Majesty’s Prime Minister of India and here is why:

1. Section 93/Article 356:  The power to dismiss provincial assemblies. This was omitted by Jinnah in GOIA 1935′s Pakistani adaptation but was retained by Nehru.  This is significant. Jinnah did not send provincial assemblies packing.  His so called dismissal of Khan Sahib’s ministry was necessitated by the fact that Khan sb had lost his majority in the assembly. It was in fact an inhouse change. Compare this to Nehru’s treatment of Shaikh Abdullah (who he jailed for many years) in Kashmir and Nehru’s dismissal of Kerala’s first elected government by using Article 356 of the Indian Constitution and that was not the first one. 

2. Nepotism:  Jinnah did not engage in promotion of his family members in political posts. Fatima Jinnah was not elected as the President of the Muslim League.  In India, Nehru oversaw his daughter Indira’s election to Congress’ presidency thereby laying the foundations of the longest running dynasty in South Asian politics.

3. Annexation of Princely States:  A lot of Jinnah’s detractors claim that his alleged arm twisting to get Khan of Kalat to  sign the document of accession was somehow undemocratic. Let us assume that there was indeed arm twisting, was any princely state in India allowed to go its own way?  For one Kalat there are no less than 20 examples of the Indian government under Nehru twisting, coercing and threatening states into submission.

Now on the issue of Jinnah’s choice to become the Governor General instead of the Prime Minister-  Jinnah’s decision followed what was norm rather than exception in Dominion Constitutional governments – with a strong national leader taking up the mantle of GG to raise himself above party lines.  Nehru was not to Congress or India what Jinnah was to the Muslim League or Pakistan.  In any event, after the creation of Pakistan, Jinnah saw himself as more than just the leader of a minority community party of India. He was now the father of the nation. This is precisely why he resigned as the Muslim League president as well.  It was a tragedy that while the Congress had an array of leaders ranging from Gandhi, Nehru , Patel, Azad and C R Gopalachari, Jinnah was the only one of the same national renown and ability.

Jinnah and Nehru were both democrats, albeit flawed ones.  However if there has to be a comparison, Jinnah as Governor General was far more timid than Nehru as Prime Minister.

 

Written by

Filed under: Jinnah · Tags:

35 Responses to "Jinnah v. Nehru – who was more democratic?"

  1. Kamath. Canada Safari iPad says:

    Who ever wrote this column seems to possess only a juvenile understanding of Modern Indian history.

  2. jamai United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Kamath, whoever wrote this article, and I suspect it is YLH( who may ban this nick too) DID NOT READ history. You give him too much credit by saying “juvenile”.

  3. manish India Safari  Android 4.0.4 GT-B5330 Build/IMM76D says:

    What?
    Were you trying to fill your quota of submitting articles for
    Pakteahouse?
    This was, indeed, a very shallow analysis of two enigmatic personalities of this subcontinent.
    And you finished it in such a hurry, that I am still undecided what to make out of this article.
    However, the moment you dubbed Jinnah as timid during his GGship, I knew you were high on something.

  4. kazan United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    a weirdly weird article!

  5. babushka Ukraine Google Chrome Windows says:

    “juvenile” is probably the most suitable adjective to describe this write up.

  6. Majumdar India Internet Explorer Windows says:

    By and large the author (YLH???) seems to be correct. Pakistans subsequent difficulties with transitioning into a smooth democracy seems to be more of a function of the weakness of Muslim middle classes, the shallow base of AIML, its geographical incongruty and mischief by KSA, USA and other mischievous outsiders including Indian imports like Murdoodi.

    Regards

  7. Rahul Ghosh India Google Chrome Windows says:

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. YLH must be given the title of “Delusional King of the Sub-continent”. Perhaps it is the result of some hallucinogenic drugs! For sure he must have read some other history. Look at Jinnah’s Urdu only speech in Dhaka, look at Nehru’s handling of Hindi as national language. Jinnah dismissed the Khan Saheb government, also dismissed the Punjab government later. Jinnah was a megalomaniac, he thought he was like Napoleon and could take the crown and put it on his head himself and he did exactly that. Primarily he was a liberal, upper-class toff, who cynically and clinically used religion to prise out a “Mamlikat e Khudadad”. Perhaps he had Zill-e-ilahi dreams. Nehru was a Fabian socialist, a person who had no real understanding of how religious sentiment works in India, he was and idealist who did make some mistakes. He was a visionary had a 20th-21st century mindset. He was also elitist in a different manner. Shaw and Einstein were his close friends. He laid the foundation of modern India as a democratic, secular and scientific republic. Jinnah had a 19th-early 20th century mindset. In some ways he was a grand liberal but owned a mind which was about 75-100 years behind Nehru’s. Even if he had lived longer Pakistan would not have been any different. Jinnah sold the soul of “liberal” Pakistan to the Muslim lanlords (deliberate pun) in order to get his Shylockian pound of flesh! And the rest as the cliche says is “history”.

  8. dhruva India Google Chrome Windows says:

    This Hamdani has got his head stuck up in Jinnah’s ass and he is perpetually living his life as if it is still 1947….Pakistan is caving in and he is on a personal mission to prove that Jinnah was God’s gift to this world and mankind…. Can Jinnah be a game-changer to Pakistan of today even if we believe hamdani’s views on Jinnah?….Will he matter to Qadri, Taliban, CJ of Pakistan or COAS of Pakistani Army?….I guess rather than shadow boxing with Nehru or Gandhi as a proxy for Jinnah, Hamdani will be better off trying to matter as much as he can in preventing Pakistan from going over the precipice in the latest crisis that it is facing

  9. ha ha Germany Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    “Pakistan is caving in and he is on a personal mission to prove that Jinnah was God’s gift to this world and mankind”

    Why do you think it is caving in?

  10. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    dhruva,

    it is a drowning man clutching at straws!!!!

  11. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Rahul
    .
    “Look at Jinnah’s Urdu only speech in Dhaka, look at Nehru’s handling of Hindi as national language.”
    .
    Rahul, on the language issue Jinnah and Nehru were in the same boat. Like Pakistan India too would have adopted Hindi (or Hindustani) as the sole national language had not the Madras riots, in which hundreds died, broken out in time. Not unlike Jinnah Nehru too sacked the first Punjab Chief Minister for purported insubordination, imposed President’s rule in Kerala multiple times, got the rulers of Manipur, Nagaland, and many other places sign accession at gunpoint (sometimes literally), and initiated a cancerous dynastic rule by electing his daughter as the INC President. After Nehru’s death Shastri went on record saying that he had a dynastic ambition and badly wanted his daughter to succeed him. As for “close friendship” with Shaw and Einstein, you only have to look at his fulsome praise for Joseph Stalin on his death on the floor of the Indian Parliament, no less, giving almost an official sanction to the millions of purges and executions committed by the communist dictator.

  12. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    No, this is not going to happen, the way Dr. Qadri wants, nor his ‘dharna’ on Quaid-e-Azam Avenue, is going to be the “Tipping Point”, as some analysts have opined. In fact Dr. Qadri, now is on the back foot and would soon be booted-out. The government has, so far treated him with political decency but no more. In fact, Rahman Malik has put Dr. Qadri under siege, behind a tight security cordon, restricting his space for maneuver. Dr. Qadri landed in Pakistan with one point agenda – ‘Restrain Nawaz Sharif.’ He held a mammoth gathering at Lahore and it was there that he lost his bearing.

    Dr. Qadri’s Agenda in 1999 was “Hatao Nawaz Sharif”. He was then part of the Grand Democratic Alliance (GDA), led by PPP, ANP, MQM and Imran Khan. They succeeded in installing General Musharraf and waited to be rewarded. He supported Musharraf through the referendum and the elections 2002, and was expecting a big reward for the services rendered, but got only a seat in the National Assembly. Out of frustration, he left the country and acquired the citizenship of Canada. For over seven years he preached and propagated “the concept of liberal and political Islam” and gained acceptability by the West, and returned to Pakistan, armed with a mission: “Get the elections postponed and restrain Nawaz Sharif, coming to power” because he was not considered a friend of USA as Washington Times then lamented after the 2008 elections, when Zardari formed the government:

    “Washington’s Pakistan kibitzers will soon rue the day, they squeezed President Pervez Musharraf to restore democracy. “Democracy” is what has now emerged, or an unholy alliance of long-time America haters. Acting as behind-the-scenes catalyst are the prominent America-haters. The new behind-the-scene god-father of this broad-based, anti-US coalition is Nawaz Sharif, chief of the Pakistan Muslim League. This also puts Kiyani in a quandary, Musharraf has handed over his military powers, along with a Rubik’s Cube.”

    The response, which Dr. Qadri received at Lahore on 23 December 2012 turned his head and he lost his bearing. He fell like humpty dumpty, breaking into parts:

    One. His demands were genuine, but to say that the cleansing must be done within five weeks of all the ills and ailments of the last five decades, was ridiculous, unless he were “to call the angles to perform the tasks.” He also didn’t spell-out the mechanism for this mundane task.

    Two. As his march started on 13h January, for Islamabad, he had a new brain-wave to demand dissolution of the Election Commission which sounded the alarm bells in Islamabad.

    Three. On reaching Islamabad on night 14th/15th January, he demanded dissolution of the Assembly, termination of government and take-over by peoples parliament by 11 AM, otherwise he will storm and take over the government (As I write these lines he has crossed the barrier and is addressing the public opposite the Assembly Building).

    Four. Because of lack of response and the restricted space, he has not been able to muster more than 25-30000 persons, mostly his Minhajul Quran School students and teachers, thus shattering the myth of “the critical mass” of millions of the Al-Tahreer Square of Egypt.

    Five. Some political parties and persons, initially supported him, but have kept a distance from him now. Only Musharraf’s All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) and Sheikh Rashid, seem to be betting on him. He is isolated.

    Six. Dr. Qadri has lost the support of the PPP government, who soon may decide to deport him and put a ban on the movement. The judiciary has warned him not to interfere with the ongoing process of elections. The Army stands by its promise to uphold the Constitution, which embodies the will of the people. The media by and large has rejected his buffoonery.

    Seven. Dr. Qadri’s unbridled ambitions and his unconstitutional demands have caused his self-destruct within a short period of a few days, whereas Tahreer Square Revolution needed a larger time span of weeks for the materialization of its aim, and remained firm and constant throughout the period of the struggle.

    However, “Dr. Qadri’s surge” has left a strong message for the political parties in power and those who are likely to form the next government that “the burden of change now falls on their shoulders.” The change must come through a very conscious and deliberate reckoning of the failings and weaknesses of the democratic order and the means and methods to bring about the change.

    Tahirul Qadri seems to be at the wrong end of history, in his demand to “save the country and not politics”. Pakistan came into being as a result of the political movement launched by Quaid-e-Azam. In 1971, Pakistan used the military power to correct the political split, but failed. Now there is no other option, than to follow the path, the nation has set for itself i.e., fair and free elections, on schedule, so that the new democratic order takes its corrective course to remove the scars of the present order.

    As for Dr. Qadri and his likes, they must remember the words of Allah:

    “They consider themselves the greatest in the earth and maneuver evil schemes. And the evil schemes encompass only the schemers.” (Surah Fatir)

  13. Rahul Ghosh India Google Chrome Windows says:

    Thanks a lot non-communal for your erudite and measured comments. The Punjab imbroglio of 1951 was a result of factionalism within Congress. One group was pro-Patel (Gopi Chand Bhargava (also a corrupt politician)) and Bhimsen Sachar (famed to be incorruptible)). Patel thru a series of manipulations managed to dethrone Sachar from the PM(before 1952 states had Premiers not CMs) post during Nehru’s absence. Once Patel died the Bhimsen Sachar and Pratap Sing Kairon group also came out in open revolt. The administration due to this faction fighting became very inefficient. There were many challenges to be faced, foremost being the refugee situation. Unlike Patel, Nehru did not simply replace Bhargava with Sachar, but decided to impose President’s rule till the factions got their act together. This was done for the people in the interests of “real” democracy. In my opinion he should be commended for it. Please see this interesting link for details – http://books.google.co.in/books?id=41HYYdO21KQC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Presidents+rule+punjab+1951&source=bl&ots=bp2JkggdxP&sig=PY4WURdHMZvOymvT5YUEpUfSgtQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=31n2UJzkF8HNrQfT6IGgDQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Presidents%20rule%20punjab%201951&f=false. I agree about Nehru’s blind spots like his praise of Stalin and his silence on the 1956 Hungarian uprising. Intellectually he had aligned himself to some extent with the Soviet bloc. Also realpolitik did play a part. Please remember John Foster Dulles (with us or against us mindset) and Pakistan being a member of various US military pacts. In the Naga case Nehru did behave in an autocratic manner. However, the Naga leadership was not democratic in the true sense. Nagas were afraid of the Phizo goons carrying guns.However the operations by conducted by the Indian army to crush Naga insurgency were very brutal. Nagas did precipitate matters by the massaccre of Non Naga tribals in Assam. In Kerala of course, some Communist excesses and the ratcheting up of anti-government protests by some Hindu religious right-wing groups led to a state of anarchy. Still Nehru should not have dismissed this government. (BTW I am a Delhi member of the CPI). Nehru did not want Morarji Desai or any other right-wing person to succeed him, in fact he kind of ensured that Lal Bahadur Shastri did succeed him. We are being uncharitable to Nehru when we say that he wanted Indira to succeed, Congress was a different party then with many tall leaders and the question of dynastic succession then would simply not have arisen. On the other hand it is Indira Gandhi who ensured dynastic succession. It is very wrong to blame Nehru for what happened later.

  14. Rahul Ghosh India Google Chrome Windows says:

    Thanks a lot non-communal for your erudite and measured comments. The Punjab imbroglio of 1951 was a result of factionalism within Congress. One group was pro-Patel (Gopi Chand Bhargava (also a corrupt politician)) and Bhimsen Sachar (famed to be incorruptible)). Patel thru a series of manipulations managed to dethrone Sachar from the PM(before 1952 states had Premiers not CMs) post during Nehru’s absence. Once Patel died the Bhimsen Sachar and Pratap Sing Kairon group also came out in open revolt. The administration due to this faction fighting became very inefficient. There were many challenges to be faced, foremost being the refugee situation. Unlike Patel, Nehru did not simply replace Bhargava with Sachar, but decided to impose President’s rule till the factions got their act together. This was done for the people in the interests of “real” democracy. In my opinion he should be commended for it. Please see this interesting link for details – http://books.google.co.in/books?id=41HYYdO21KQC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Presidents+rule+punjab+1951&source=bl&ots=bp2JkggdxP&sig=PY4WURdHMZvOymvT5YUEpUfSgtQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=31n2UJzkF8HNrQfT6IGgDQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Presidents%20rule%20punjab%201951&f=false. I agree about Nehru’s blind spots like his praise of Stalin and his silence on the 1956 Hungarian uprising. Intellectually he had aligned himself to some extent with the Soviet bloc. Also realpolitik did play a part. Please remember John Foster Dulles (with us or against us mindset) and Pakistan being a member of various US military pacts. In the Naga case Nehru did behave in an autocratic manner. However, the Naga leadership was not democratic in the true sense. Nagas were afraid of the Phizo goons carrying guns.However the operations by conducted by the Indian army to crush Naga insurgency were very brutal. Nagas did precipitate matters by the massaccre of Non Naga tribals in Assam. In Kerala of course, some Communist excesses and the ratcheting up of anti-government protests by some Hindu religious right-wing groups led to a state of anarchy. Still Nehru should not have dismissed this government. (BTW I am a Delhi member of the CPI). Nehru did not want Morarji Desai or any other right-wing person to succeed him, in fact he kind of ensured that Lal Bahadur Shastri did succeed him. We are being uncharitable to Nehru when we say that he wanted Indira to succeed, Congress was a different party then with many tall leaders and the question of dynastic succession then would simply not have arisen. On the other hand it is Indira Gandhi who ensured dynastic succession.

  15. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Rahul, the admirers of Jinnah can come up with similar excuses for their own leader. Also, I am not sure about the importance of realpolitik in Nehru’s Stalin speech. I think it’s pretty clear from the speech’s wording that it was more a matter of personal admiration and Nehru’s devastation at the death of “Marshall Stalin”. About dynastic succession it is not I who is being uncharitable, Kuldip Nayar ascribed that quote to Shastri (that Nehru wanted his daughter to succeed him). In any case, Indira Gandhi became INC President at the age of 42, supremely unqualified, when Nehru was the country’s Prime Minister.
    .
    My comment was mainly addressed to the needless bashing of Jinnah when the author of this article has written perfectly valid arguments none of which are historically untrue. It is true that Nehru insisted on retaining the article 356 in the Constitution, the power to arbitrarily dismiss elected state governments by the viceroy (or the President), something INC very strongly opposed when it was part of the GOI Act, 1935.

  16. Facts are Not Sacred United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    “article has written perfectly valid arguments none of which are historically untrue”

    As valid as historically true as that Jinnah and Bose were participatory democrats as leaders of their organizations while Gandhi was a fascist.

  17. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    Even Apples and pears oe could effectively be able to compare. To compare Jinnah with Nehru is complete miss, since Nehru was the head of the caretaker Govt. whereas Jinnah was the head of a new muslim Nation which through his visionary foresight and selfless efforts was created. He was the new Caesar and no longer the flunkies of the subcontinent who were simply bowing in front of their masters who had to leave.

    Both leaders, however, failed to show their foresight in devising a master plan for the new born independent Nations in terms of administration, beaucracy, judiciary, police as well as the creation of new or reform of the old institutions.

    As a consequence both countries are currently suffering on account of the colonial laws or lack of new laws which ensures equality and justice for all.

    Rex Minor

  18. Shukracharya United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Rexie

    You seemed to be direct from an asylum. Thanks desi mohamad you are no political and true person..

  19. Marylou France Internet Explorer Windows says:

    I really appreciate this post. I’ve been looking all over for this!
    Thank goodness I found it

    on Bing. You’ve made my day! Thanks again

    Here is my web site Marylou

  20. Jinnah4Mary United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Mary Lou, we are glad you found it, too. The author’s posts now belong to your forum more than they belong here.

  21. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    Jinnah was not a true Muslim. We need true Muslims like bin Quasim who converted an entire region of kuffar to Islam. Jinnah was a Shia.

  22. What an odd article! Who on earth would think Nehru was a democrat? Or Jinnah, for that matter?

  23. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    We need true Muslims like bin Quasim

    hindu apartheid system was responsible for conversion.u are lucky that muslims were ruling.catholics would have force every indian to convert or die.
    indonesia iraq afghanistan converted while ruled by hindus or budhhdist.mohammed bin qassim brought the light of islamic justice and equality in india.he did do conversion.his stay was qiute short.he allowed hindus in army,for that he has to pay with his life.

  24. Tajender ka baap India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Oye Tajender puttar
    .
    Saale Tu PAGAL Khane se kab nikla oye
    .
    Aur UAE kaise pahuch gaya be

  25. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Oye Tajender puttar

    pitajee bahut afsos hai ke aap abhi bhi wahin hai.waise mohammad bin qassim brought the light of islam in sindh.during muslim rule EVERY INDIAN WAS EQUAL BEFORE LAW.SOMETHING UNTHINKABLE DURING VEDIC PERIOD.SHUDRA SHAMBHOOK WAS BURNT ALIVE WHEN CAUGHT RECITING HOLY SCRIPTURE.
    before converting to budhhdism ashoka killed entire population of kalinga.
    u high caste were executive of mohammed bin qassim.

  26. ss Qatar Google Chrome Windows says:

    YLH is known for cherry picking historical facta to prove his point. There are couple of more historical facts which have not been mentioned

    1. Jinnah decided not to become the country’s first prime minister, instead choosing to be the Queen’s representative to the new country as her first governor general. By any parliamentary standards or tradition, the post of governor general is largely ceremonial. It has the all the pomp and ceremony, but little true executive power.
    However, in the words of British Lord Louis Mountbatten, who oversaw the independence of India and Pakistan, Jinnah was incapable of resisting “pomp, the gaudy ceremonials of the top office of the state for which he had worked so hard.”

    When Mountbatten tried to explain to Jinnah that, under Pakistan’s interim constitution, the governor general was a ceremonial head of state and real power lay with the prime minister, Jinnah told him curtly, “In Pakistan, I will be the Governor-General and the Prime
    Minister will do what I tell him.”

    2. Jinnah revoked the authority of the Muslim League parliamentary group and chose the country’s new prime minister.

    3. He also named his prime minister’s first cabinet for him, and if that was not enough, as governor general also sat in cabinet.

    4. In the summer of 1947, one week after swearing in his new prime minister and cabinet, Jinnah dismissed the duly elected provincial
    government in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and instead for calling for fresh elections nominated the new chief minister

    5. Nine months after dismissing the NWFP government, Jinnah demonstrated his arbitrary power again. This time he dismissed the government in the province of Sind, which belonged to his own party, the Muslim League. And as if this were not enough, the ailing leader of Pakistan then tried to stage a palace coup inside the provincial government of Punjab.

    6. In less than a year of the nation’s existence, the man who had created Pakistan as a democratic state for the Muslims of India had gone against the grain of democracy, invoked Islam to bring discipline among those who protested, and mere weeks before he passed away, declared to the country’s majority Bengali population that their language was not worthy of being the nation’s national language as it was not a “Muslim” language. Before he died, he had sown the seeds of the country’s breakup. The so-called language riots that broke out after Jinnah’s “Urdu Only” speech were the first step towards the ultimate secession of East Pakistan and the birth of Bangladesh.

    7. Jinnah’s biggest failure as Father of newly born country was that his own colleauge were unaware about his vision of Pakistan polity. One statement (Aug 11, 1947) in a house of landlords and opportunist can not make a movement secular. I will like to add, entire leadership of AIML was unaware about the modern secular vision of Jinnah, and that is why Objective Resolution was passed with overwhelming majority in the house immediately after death of Jinnah. I will hold Jinnah responsible for running a confused Pakistan movement wherein his followers had no clue about his own vision about the polity of Pakistan. There was no such confusion in Congress and sudden demise of Gandhi did not create such policy vacuum in India.

  27. Very Communal United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    ss

    Didn’t Nehru also say that Hindi was the Hindu language and those opposing it were collaborators of aliens? His Hindi only speech in Madras led to riots.

    Jinnah became the Queen’s representative to Pakistan as her first governor general because he took full responsibility for Pakistan’s progress. Nehru wanted to avoid this responsibility so had the courage to became only the prime minister. This proves that Nehru was only half the democrat that Jinnah was.

  28. ss Qatar Safari iPad says:

    very communal
    hindi is spoken by overwhelming majority in india as compared to any other language, india had to choose one language among 28. May not be an ideal statement from nehru but not at all comparable to jinnah’s statement where he was speaking to majority of pakistan who spoke bengali and declared urdu as state language which was spoken by a tiny minority at that time.
    I am not a constitution expert however do know one thing, indian & paki democracy was based on brit parliamentary sustem in which all executives are with the PM and not governor. PM is responsible for the performance of govt. gov. is just a ceremonial head and that was very well explained to jinnah by mount batten
    since jinnah did not live long, this comparaision i really not apple to apple

  29. Nawab of Arcot India Google Chrome Windows says:

    What YLH had written is a simple statement of facts. Barring two or three the rest of the comments are from those who are mentally deranged.

  30. Nawab of Arcot India Google Chrome Windows says:

    A simple statement of facts by YLH.Barring two or three the rest of the comments should have been swallowed by D B.

  31. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Nawab of Arcot ……………..origin of nawab of arcot is gopamau a kasba in district hardoi uttar pardesh.he is only prince who is still recognized by goverment of india.his privy purses still continue.correct if i am wrong.

  32. HTTP://pediatricianinhouse.blogspot.ru/ France Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Hey! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new apple iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your

    posts! Keep up the fantastic work!

  33. Together with the whole thing that

    seems to be developing inside this area, all your

    viewpoints happen to be rather radical. On the other hand, I am sorry, but I can not subscribe to your

    whole suggestion, all be it radical none
    the

    less. It seems to me that your comments

    are not entirely justified and in simple fact you are generally
    your self not really entirely convinced of the point.
    In any case I did enjoy looking at it.

  34. Hello There. I found your blog using msn.
    This is a very well written article. I will

    make sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful information.
    Thanks for the

    post. I will definitely comeback.

    My blog post :: http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/blogs/blog.article.php?blog=172764&ID=1000253254

  35. Deana France Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Do you have a spam problem on this site; I also am a
    blogger, and I was curious about your situation;
    we have created some nice procedures and we

    are looking to trade methods with others, be sure

    to shoot me an e-mail if interested.

    Visit my weblog Costa Blanca Classifieds – Deana -

Leave a Reply

*


9 + = fourteen

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>