Skip to content

Advocatetanmoy Law Library

Legal Database

United States Code

  • Title 1. General Provisions
  • Title 2. The Congress
  • Title 3. The President
  • Title 4. Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States
  • Title 5. Government Organization and Employees
  • Title 6. Domestic Security
  • Title 7. Agriculture
  • Title 8. Aliens and Nationality
  • Title 9. Arbitration
  • Title 10. Armed Forces
  • Title 11. Bankruptcy
  • Title 12. Banks and Banking
  • Title 13. Census
  • Title 14. Coast Guard
  • Title 15. Commerce and Trade
  • Title 16. Conservation
  • Title 17. Copyrights
  • Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure
  • Title 19. Customs Duties
  • Title 20. Education
  • Title 21. Food and Drugs
  • Title 22. Foreign Relations and Intercourse
  • Title 23. Highways
  • Title 24. Hospitals and Asylums
  • Title 25. Indians
  • Title 26. Internal Revenue Code
  • Title 27. Intoxicating Liquors
  • Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
  • Title 29. Labor
  • Title 30. Mineral Lands and Mining
  • Title 31. Money and Finance
  • Title 32. National Guard
  • Title 33. Navigation and Navigable Waters
  • Title 35. Patents
  • Title 36. Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations
  • Title 37. Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
  • Title 38. Veterans' Benefits
  • Title 39. Postal Service
  • Title 40. Public Buildings, Property, and Works
  • Title 41. Public Contracts
  • Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare
  • Title 43. Public Lands
  • Title 44. Public Printing and Documents
  • Title 45. Railroads
  • Title 46. Shipping
  • Title 47. Telecommunications
  • Title 48. Territories and Insular Possessions
  • Title 49. Transportation
  • Title 50. War and National Defense
  • Title 51. National and Commercial Space Programs
  • Title 52. Voting and Elections
  • Title 54. National Park Service and Related Programs

Read More

  • Home
    • About
  • UPDATES
  • Courts
  • Constitutions
  • Law Exam
  • Pleading
  • Indian Law
  • Notifications
  • Glossary
  • Account
  • Home
  • 2021
  • November
  • 12
  • Letter from Jinnah to Stafford Cripps communicating demand of Muslim League-09/02/1946
  • INDIAN HISTORY
  • POLITICAL DOCUMENTS

Letter from Jinnah to Stafford Cripps communicating demand of Muslim League-09/02/1946

A caretaker government already exists under the framework of the present Constitution viz. The Governor-General’s Executive Council, and there is no need to tinker with it under the new phraseology of “political Executive Council”. Equally, the idea of a single Constitution-making body is fundamentally opposed to the basic principles that the Muslim League has declared times out of number.
2 min read
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Letter from Muhammad Jinnah to Sir Stafford Cripps, 9th February 1946

Transcript

10 AURANGZEB ROAD
NEW DELHI

9th February, 1946.

My dear Stafford Cripps,

I have received your letter dated 19th December, 1945, and I thank you for it. Yes, I have had free and frank talks with the members of parliament, who visited India and I have left no doubt in their minds as to the position of Muslim India and the Muslim League. I agree with what you said in your statement, which you made immediately after the breakdown of the Simla conference, given to the press on the 15th of July, that the major issue i.e. Pakistan must be immediately dealt with. The Government should, without any further delay, make a clear declaration of its policy accepting Pakistan as the only solution of India’s constitutional problem and I am hopeful that once the principle has been accepted the details can be adjusted.

There is no reason or ground for talking about ‘interim arrangement’ now that the war is over. Besides, it goes against the fundamental principle which we have repeatedly declared, that we cannot agree to any arrangement which postulates an all-India government whether interim or permanent. Our position was solemnly accepted by the British Government in parliament, by its declaration made in August, 1940 and we were repeatedly assured by the pronouncements made by the Secretary of State for India and other responsible leaders of Great Britain from time to time. The only exception that we were prepared to make was the exigency of the war and its prosecution successfully as in that case the entire attention would have been rivetted to the war effort and all domestic controversies and differences would have been, by common consent, kept in abeyance. A caretaker government already exists under the framework of the present Constitution viz. The Governor-General’s Executive Council, and there is no need to tinker with it under the new phraseology of “political Executive Council”. Equally, the idea of a single Constitution-making body is fundamentally opposed to the basic principles that the Muslim League has declared times out of number. It will be perfectly futile to force such a measure upon Muslim India, as it must result in disaster, not to say that it will be a breach of the solemn declaration of August, 1940 and the repeated assurances of His Majesty’s Government to that effect, given from time to time.

I am enclosing herewith a copy of my statement that I issued after the pronouncement made by Lord Pethick Lawrence, the Secretary of State for India, with regard to the visit of the members of the Parliament to India together with a copy of the address of the Viceroy to the Central Assembly on 28th January and my reaction to it.

I hope you are keeping well and with very kind regards,

Yours sincerely,
M Jinnah


Related

Tags: 1846 CE BRITISH INDIA Jinna

Continue Reading

Previous: Britain’s position on India at 2nd World War-Stafford Cripps’ Statement-reaction from Gandhi & Nehru-27.07.1942
Next: Profile of Subash Ch Bose by Miguel Covarrubias, Collier’s Magazine-30/09/1944

Indian Supreme Court Digest

  • Unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint (SC-18/05/2023)
  • For passing order u/s 319 CrPC, ‘satisfaction’ as mentioned in para no106 of Hardeep Singh case is sufficient (SC-2/06/2023)
  • ISKCON leaders, engage themselves into frivolous litigations and use court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores-(SC-18/05/2023)
  • High Court would not interfere by a Revision against a decree or order u/s 6 of SRA if there is no exceptional case (SC-2/4/2004)
  • Borrower may file a counterclaim either before DRT in a proceeding filed by Bank under RDB Act or a Civil Suit under CPC-SC (10/11/2022)

Write A Guest Post

Current Posts

Unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint (SC-18/05/2023)
15 min read
  • Criminal Procedure Code 1973

Unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint (SC-18/05/2023)

For passing order u/s 319 CrPC, ‘satisfaction’ as mentioned in para no106 of Hardeep Singh case is sufficient (SC-2/06/2023)
8 min read
  • Criminal Procedure Code 1973

For passing order u/s 319 CrPC, ‘satisfaction’ as mentioned in para no106 of Hardeep Singh case is sufficient (SC-2/06/2023)

Ghanshyam Vs Yogendra Rathi (02/06/2023)
8 min read
  • Supreme Court Judgments

Ghanshyam Vs Yogendra Rathi (02/06/2023)

Indian Lok Sabha Debates on The Railways Budget 2014-15 (10/06/2014)
198 min read
  • Indian Parliament

Indian Lok Sabha Debates on The Railways Budget 2014-15 (10/06/2014)

  • DATABASE
  • INDEX
  • JUDGMENTS
  • CONTACT US
  • DISCLAIMERS
  • RSS
  • PRIVACY
  • ACCOUNT
Copyright by Advocatetanmoy.