Saviour or Tinpot Dictator?

Errata:


``I`ve found no evidence of muslim league involvement in calcutta killings and appreciably larger number of Muslims died than Hindus``

Mansergh Volume VIII TOPP Page 274

Harish Hyd mian,

Let me produce H V Hodson quote for your highness yet again:

The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen. Page 166 Great Divide

Now... are you saying all Hindus were Congress members? Or all Muslims are Muslim League members? If you recall I produced evidence that one of the major culprits (from the Muslim side- Hindu culprits were even more in number) in Bengal violence was a fellow who had lost election to a Muslim League candidate in 1946. Besides the quote from H V Hodson you produced blames all communities and not Muslims.

For the record : So far you`ve produced nothing from H V Hodson or Wolpert that blames the Muslim League for orchestrating violence. Admit it. The only person who has quoted the facts here is me. You know it. Most balanced people will admit it- For obvious reasons I don`t expect an admission from you.

You would know the facts had you picked up the books you`ve pointed to but admitted that you`ve never actually read them or opened them or even seen them. You are operating on hearsay which is why I`ve been able to deconstruct your arguments with relative ease.
As for you being offline - convenient excuse. You need respite. I can see that sudden exposure to facts has had a terrible impact on you ...

``Chootiya-e-Azam``...

My post did not refer to Gandhi. Why are you bringing him up again?

``metaphors``

The only problem is as I pointed out that you bartered your dignity for a can of self-exploding whoopass.

Cheers
-YLH

BTW, I`m offline for all of next week, but have saved this topic on Favorites. So will see you after I come back.

#607 by Mantolives

I believe you meant whoop.. but nonetheless this gutter language indicates only what I`ve been saying all along.

Why are you squealing like I kicked you in your groin? I was only using ``metaphors`` (like Jinnah was doing when he was talking about the Muslim pistol). Kapiche?


#606 by Mantolives

I have produced a third quote that follows and the fourth one that precedes that which forms the context and which proves that there were two sides to the story. And even the two quotes you produce don`t blame the Muslim League let alone Jinnah.

Aha! Two sides? Which two sides my dear? You said it was the Congress that started the riots, while not being able to produce a single shred of evidence to that effect. Will you now admit that you are openly lying these days dear Yasser?

... ofcourse had you actually picked up the book you would know what I am talking about.

You still haven`t been able to explain if the excerpt that I produced from Gandhi`s Passion doesn`t exist in the hard copy version of the same book.

Hodson has not blamed Muslim League even once on the book- I`ve produced the quotes and page numbers. All I can deduce is that you simply have no argument.

Aww, unless you mean to argue that by ``Muslims`` he didn`t mean Muslim League. We all know the massive preparations that the ML was making first by arming ordinary Muslims and then recruiting hardened Muslim criminals to do the job. The icing on the cake however would be the fact that Suhrawardy declared a holiday to the Police force, when there were enough indications (which even an ordinary newspaper reporter could see) that there would be violence. What was Jinnah doing when the Bengal CM declared that holiday? Had he passed out from drinking excessive whisky? Or was he smacking his lips in anticipation of this ``show of strength`` that would bring the Congress to its knees?

Has truth come to mean something other than the opposite of falsehood in English language- reading you one surely would think so.

YOU are the original spinmeister Yasser. Note how you explained away Jinnah`s Jihad in the NWFP. Like a petulant schoolkid angry at momma for not buying him candy, Jinnah prepared to wage Jihad. I laughed so hard, I had to clutch my stomach. I forsee a good career for you as a stand-up comic. You should actually try it.

Thanks for being man enough to admit that you have never actually picked up the book you refer to which is why you are unable to back up with the facts.

Unlike YOU, I`m man enough. Thanks for recognizing this fact though.

If you picked up a book you would know the facts and you would probably open up that mind of yours.

Aww, what a lame excuse Yasser. Come back with something better the next time.

By comparison I have referenced every source and produced quotes from the authors you claim were taking your point of view.

The evidence is the same but the Paki in you overtakes the human being in you and you read what you want to. Anyone having an iota of common sense would see that incendiary speeches coupled with deliberate acts of omission were going to lead to violence. Heck, forget about experts, even a lay newspaper reporter could foresee what was coming, but not the Chootya-e-Azam.

And forget those authors- only yesterday you were treated to what I would say is a slap on the face by Majumdar- when you tried to use his words against me.

Aww, now Majumdar is your only crutch? What have I reduced you to Yasser? I feel sorry for you.

As for ``fiction``... you are the one who claimed to have some sort of monopoly on the truth - which you don`t but the illusion that you do forces you to act the way you do.

I admit you beat me hands down with words, but when it comes to facts, you are a dud.

``even an amateur like me can whup your sorry butt``

I believe you meant whoop.. but nonetheless this gutter language indicates only what I`ve been saying all along. Is it a case of self-exploding can of whoopass? I think so.

Dear Harish Hyd,

1-Its not being ``spoon fed``. I have produced a third quote that follows and the fourth one that precedes that which forms the context and which proves that there were two sides to the story. And even the two quotes you produce don`t blame the Muslim League let alone Jinnah. ... ofcourse had you actually picked up the book you would know what I am talking about.

2- Hodson has not blamed Muslim League even once on the book- I`ve produced the quotes and page numbers. All I can deduce is that you simply have no argument. ``which I disagree with`` - ah ha the buffet approach. You are not going to accept what he is saying but are going to infer something totally opposite from what he hasn`t said. And then you have the nerve to say that you are defending the ``truth``. Has truth come to mean something other than the opposite of falsehood in English language- reading you one surely would think so.

3- Thanks for being man enough to admit that you have never actually picked up the book you refer to which is why you are unable to back up with the facts. As for sleepless nights... are you projecting your own condition. If you picked up a book you would know the facts and you would probably open up that mind of yours.

4- ``Thats way less than I have done`` ... saying it doesn`t mean anything. The proof is there. You`ve produced no evidence or proof. Your sketchy inferences and biased website quotes notwithstanding, there is not even a single shred of evidence in what you say. By comparison I have referenced every source and produced quotes from the authors you claim were taking your point of view. And forget those authors- only yesterday you were treated to what I would say is a slap on the face by Majumdar- when you tried to use his words against me.


5- As for ``fiction``... you are the one who claimed to have some sort of monopoly on the truth - which you don`t but the illusion that you do forces you to act the way you do.

-YLH

#604 by Mantolives

I have both Gandhi`s Passion and Jinnah of Pakistan by the said author and challenge you to produce the paragraph where he comes right out and blames the Muslim League.

Yaar, why do you insist upon being spoon-fed? In the two excerpts I provided, Wolpert first says violence was unleashed by Muslim thugs and that Suhrawardy was widely blamed. Taken together, what does it mean? That it was indeed the ML that was culpable. Simple logic, apparently a bit too much for you to fathom.

The proof is in the pudding.

Exactly. Which is why Jinnah`s ``intentions`` don`t matter one bit. It was what Leaguers did in the days preceding DAD and what they did on the DAD that matter. As they say, ``Actions speak louder than words``.

On the contrary I have produced Hodson`s quote where he rules Muslim League culpability or intention on part of any central league leaders let alone Jinnah.

Now you`re openly lying. Hodson merely rules out ML`s intentions (which I disagree with, but let`s for a moment forget that) not culpability, unless you thought both mean the same.

Have you even ever picked up the book you are referring to ?

If I could give you such sleepless nights when I haven`t picked up a single book, you can only imagine your plight if I actually picked one.

The world has seen enough pretenders and witchdoctors who claim a monopoly on the truth... in reality they`ve always been exposed narcissist bigots suffering from a severe personality disorder. I fear that if you actually believe that you are defending the truth - then you are merely another one on a long list of such witchdoctors who have plagued. humanity.

Impressive words Yasser. I believe you can become a good writer..of fiction that is. When it comes to history, even an amateur like me can whup your sorry butt as has been amply evidenced by now.

So far you haven`t proved a single thing and that is precisely why you are acting the way you are.

The only thing you`ve done is quote Hodson in which he merely says it was not intentional. That`s way less than what I`ve done. So it`s clear who`s acting.

Dear Harish Hyd,


1- The excerpt you took from NYT had no apportioning of blame to Jinnah or the Muslim League. I have both Gandhi`s Passion and Jinnah of Pakistan by the said author and challenge you to produce the paragraph where he comes right out and blames the Muslim League... infact he gives both sides of the story and points out that the viceroy ruled out any Muslim League involvement.

2- The proof is in the pudding. You`ve been saying that it doesn`t matter whether you produced the page numbers or not is just another example of your skewed sense of reality.
You say whichever author... I would say that the number of authors I have quoted are not just one or two... I`ve named an extensive list. You on the other hand only quote websites or reviewed articles by biased writers.

3- I`ve not denied Hodson`s words. You`ve not produced a single quote from H V Hodson that blames the Muslim League. On the contrary I have produced Hodson`s quote where he rules Muslim League culpability or intention on part of any central league leaders let alone Jinnah. Page 166 - Great Divide.

4- Again Hodson or Wolpert don`t blame the Muslim League.

The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen. Page 166 Great Divide

This is a quote from H V Hodson. Could you produce a quote contradicting this view? Seriously do you think if you repeat enough times that he said it - do you really think you would convince people otherwise? Have you even ever picked up the book you are referring to ?

5- The ``evidence`` you`ve given does not blame the Muslim League. Please don`t be clever by half. Wolpert says On Page 284 of Jinnah of Pakistan

`Muslim workers from Howrah Jute Mill had begun pouring into the city toward Ochterlony`s ``needle`` Monument for a mamoth meeting to celebrate direct action day. Chief minister Suhrawardy and some other leaders of Bengal`s Muslim League were scheduled to address the meeting. Reports that ``Hindus had erected barricades at the Tala and Belgachia bridges to prevent Muslims from entering the city`` reached British headquarters by 7 30 AM, but the Brigadier in command of Calcutta, JPC Mackinlay had ordered all of his troops confined to barracks that day.`

Then he says on Page 285- The Viceroy found no satisfactory evidence point to Muslim League`s involvement.

Apparently Wolpert also considers the Page 879 of Volume IX of TOPP a credible source.


6- The world has seen enough pretenders and witchdoctors who claim a monopoly on the truth... in reality they`ve always been exposed narcissist bigots suffering from a severe personality disorder. I fear that if you actually believe that you are defending the truth - then you are merely another one on a long list of such witchdoctors who have plagued. humanity...

7- So far you haven`t proved a single thing and that is precisely why you are acting the way you are. I wish you luck.

#599 by Mantolives

Not in Yasser`s court... in every reasonable forum and every academic argument this is a necessity.

I took Stanley Wolpert`s excerpts from the NYT website which had an excerpt from his book Gandhi`s Passion. Are you saying the NYT lied?

I`ve already exposed his arguments below and anyone can see whether or not he has any reasonable argument... but I don`t expect any impartiality from you with your skewed sense of reality.

Ah! Now that you brought that phrase, if there is anyone on Chowk with a ``skewed sense of reality``, it is you Yasser. You simply refuse to think for yourself, preferring instead to hang on to the coattails of whichever author is in line with your own opinions.

I was actually pre-empting your counterargument which I expected to be ``but there are no sikhs in Punjab`` for that is the kind of arguments you resort to often.

What kind of nonsense is this? Why would I say there are no Sikhs in Punjab? With such statements, please pardon me if I begin to doubt your sanity.

If Hodson is evidence then you should have accepted his own words shouldn`t you?

Well it works both ways. If you cite Hodson as evidence, then you should accept his words (that I produced) too, shouldn`t you?

Harish bhai you are kidding me right? No you haven`t. The words you quoted did not speak of Muslim League

It is clear as daylight now that the ML was to blame and all these three sources that blame it are diverse: two (Hodson and Wolpert are writers), one a newspaper report, one an inquiry report by the SGPC. Note that I`m discounting the British website that said as much.

and in any event those words proved that all communities were equally involved...

My dear, we`re only talking about who started it. It is a known fact that all communities were involved, but what did you think? That Hindus and Sikhs would lie down and play dead when Muslims mobs unleashed savage attacks on them?

As for Wolpert... he quotes Tuker that the first reports of violence came when a mob of Hindus stopped a Muslim procession from going to the main maidan...

Here`s an extract where he refers to the DAD:

``MAHATMA GANDHI fell into ``darkest despair`` on the eve of India`s independence in August 1947. Savage fighting spread from Punjab and the North-West Frontier to Eastern Bengal and Bihar. Brutal violence unleashed a year earlier by Muslim thugs in Calcutta had triggered Hindu counterattacks and the murder of more Muslims in Bihar.``

Here`s another:

``The man most widely blamed for the mass murder of Hindus and the torching of their property in the days and weeks following Direct Action Day was Bengal`s Muslim League Chief Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy. Every British officer, including Governor Sir Frederick Burrows and Chief of the Eastern Command Lt. General Sir Francis Tuker, pointed to Suhrawardy as the villain of the terror that exploded after he gave Calcutta`s police a special holiday to ``celebrate`` Direct Action.``

Now where`s your proof dear?

Please note that you are quoting Inder Malhotra`s comments and not the book itself

Are you saying that Inder Malhotra made it up? This may be disingenuous alright, but it is a pathetic defense.

Jinnah was very upset at the British and was ready to drive them out having lost all faith in their ideas and government... his revolutionary fervor and desire to drive out the British was second to none ... which is why he supported Bhagat Singh so passionately when Gandhi was still busy signing pacts with Irwin (along with some token support for the cameras)

Wow! Jinnah as the Mahatma? Very cleverly, you`ll hide the facts that Gandhi signed that pact to get 90,000 Satyagrahis released. But I can argue too that Jinnah supported Bhagat Singh for the cameras, so what`s the point here?

That actually would go against your argument... wasn`t Jinnah ``wheeling and dealing`` with Wavell as you said...

Note the timelines dear Yasser. Jinnah was in bed with Wavell in 1946, and Wavell was subsequently replaced, Jinnah called for Jihad in 1947. This is a clear indicator that despite his secular outlook, Jinnah wasn`t averse to using religion if it suited his purpose.

Pakistan did not necessarily mean partition of India ... Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai prove in their books very conclusively that the Lahore Resolution kept options open for an India with autonomous units (which you may refer to as Pakistan- but which Jinnah did not till 1942 and that too he thanked Congress for as he was never really influenced by Rahmat Ali)

The question my dear is WHY?

And you haven`t even really quoted the book but an Indian journalist`s view of the book...

Do you know what quotes (``) are used for? If you did, you wouldn`t get such a stupid doubt.

Humayun Mirza is the son of a shortsighted Pakistani president Iskandar Mirza who was never involved in Pakistan movement whose biggest achievement is that he destroyed the Muslim League, founded the republican party- the first `king`s` party in Pakistan, hated democracy, abrogated the constitution, made a sitting chief of Army staff the Prime Minister... and was ultimately humiliated and exiled to London where he died cursed by the Pakistani people? And whose son had a point to prove about his father`s involvement in the Pakistan movement?

Words, words, and more words, but not a point in it. You may spin all you want, but it is clear what we already know.

But then... with you it is ``Heads Harish wins Tails YLH loses``... so whats the difference?

You`ve captured it very well. I defend truth, so I can never lose. You defend Jinnah, so you can never win.

BJKumar,

You continue to repeat yourself like a broken record without anything worthwhile. The two websites (Khalistan and Dalitstan) you refer to were quoted as counters to similar or even worse websites quoted by your people and not as a source of my argument. That you continue to try and deflect arguments by making scapegoats is merely reflective of the fact that as usual you have nothing to offer by way of argument.

Unless you can show me that Gandhi did not actually say the things I ascribe to him using his Collected Works... Unless you can prove that Claude Markovits` book ``Ungandhian Gandhi`` was written because of some malafide intention... unless you can prove with a logical argument that the view of partition and Jinnah taken by Ayesha Jalal, H M Seervai, Patrick French, Irfan Habib, Sumit Sarkar, S K Majumdar, Ainslee Embree, Lawrence Zirring, Roger D Long, Anil Seal, Ajeet Javed, S K Bandopadhaya, and many many more is wrong and what you imagine (and I repeat imagine because most of your arguments are based on assumptions and imagination like what you ``believed`` Seervai`s argument would be) is right.... you are wasting my time and yours.

My claims stand academically proved and supported (unlike yours and Mr Harish Hyd`s) by impeccable sources and scholarship (such as the names mentioned above).

-YLH

#594 Manto
[I did not at any point declare my sources as less than impeccable.]

You absolutely positively did not! And therein lies the weakness of your position. The writer must be the first line of defense in examining the credibility of the source before shoving them down the throat of the readers – when the source is doubtful in legitimacy, the reader expects you to inform him or her – not the other way around – and when someone informs you as such, you try to counterattack instead of being appreciative, that too after your attempts to ignore the discrepancy fail miserably!

You have time and again failed the critical “taste” test, Manto mian! You can do all kinds of word theatrics but your failure on the “intellectual” honesty scale (even by the by and large low chowk standards) is just too stark to evade.

In fact, I can even say the following.

Your inability to see the real purpose of why I bother to interact at all on your board – unlike the countless others who have given up on you – will handicap you in your dream like nothing else ever can – not the worst of your adversaries! My dear ignorant friend, I am not trying to “win” anything from you – you have little of value for me to win – but I do like your dreams enough that I do not like you making an absolute mince-meat of those dreams – not to mention a spectacle of yourself. (You are not the only such writer around here, by the way!)


[What matters is that when I sleep at night my conscience is clear... but I wonder if the facts I have put up plainly infront of you allow you a good night`s rest. I don`t think so.]

No, YOUR conscience’s clarity to yourself has little value to anybody other than yourself – you are a trivial person like this interactor is! But if you really cared about your dreams (and I am beginning to allow me a degree of doubt even on that score) you would keep your mind open and learn from EVERYTHING to best advance those dreams – instead of simply hemorrhaging the verbal deluge that you unleash here.

(By the way, I sleep so sound at night that N sometimes complains – what if we get burglars?!)

#595 Manto
[....academic scholarship....]

Let everybody know when you get your academic recognition - then perhaps people will actually start taking you seriously - perhaps even Mushy would (although that does carry some risks).

So far you have been rather evasive regarding describing your efforts at such scrutiny - and if any such scrutiny took place, what the results have been yet. In light of your promptness to jump and claim ``look ma, told ya...`` on virtually everything, I somehow feel that the results may have been less encouraging than what you expected.

Dear Harish Hyd,


``Oh so now anything without a hard copy reference/page number is not admissible in Yasser`s court?``

Not in Yasser`s court... in every reasonable forum and every academic argument this is a necessity. You would not need to come to my office... I can verify your argument by going to the source as I have a rather large and extensive library at my home of which I am excessively proud.

``BJ sahib ... credibility``

BJ sahib would wreck my credibility if he had any. This is the same gentleman who resorts to calling people whores for disagreeing with them... I`ve already exposed his arguments below and anyone can see whether or not he has any reasonable argument... but I don`t expect any impartiality from you with your skewed sense of reality.


``idiot ... sikhs ... calcutta``

Can you show me where I said they aren`t. I was actually pre-empting your counterargument which I expected to be ``but there are no sikhs in Punjab`` for that is the kind of arguments you resort to often. Sikhs were there and were a party to violence ... Hence Gurcharan Singh`s evidence is partisan at best.

``H V Hodson... stanley Wolpert``

Precisely and I showed you that neither of these gentlemen blamed the Muslim League or said that the League was planning violence... infact H V Hodson on page 166 rules out any malafide intention on part of the Muslim League leadership. If Hodson is evidence then you should have accepted his own words shouldn`t you? Again on page 166 ... he is very clear that Muslim League`s direct action day was meant to be a peaceful day of civil disobedience and nothing more.

The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen Page 166 Great Divide


``I`ve quoted words from Hodson that go in the opposite direction``

Harish bhai you are kidding me right? No you haven`t. The words you quoted did not speak of Muslim League and in any event those words proved that all communities were equally involved... As for meaning didley squat... yes your repeating a lie really means didley squat. As for Wolpert... he quotes Tuker that the first reports of violence came when a mob of Hindus stopped a Muslim procession from going to the main maidan... No British government inquiry found any evidence of Muslim League involvement... the viceroy ruled out any ``satisfactory evidence`` of the League involvement... this is also quoted in Wolpert... apparently for him it was good enough.


``Iskandar Mirza`s son`s book``

Hearsay and that too not about Calcutta or DAD that we are talking about... and not from the book but instead from some Indian journalist. (Please note that you are quoting Inder Malhotra`s comments and not the book itself )... Since I read the book myself a few years ago at a library ... half of what Mr Malhotra has ascribed to the book is his own spin... but yes the book speaks of Jehad against the British in the Waziristan Agency... Jinnah was very upset at the British and was ready to drive them out having lost all faith in their ideas and government... his revolutionary fervor and desire to drive out the British was second to none ... which is why he supported Bhagat Singh so passionately when Gandhi was still busy signing pacts with Irwin (along with some token support for the cameras)

In any event ... at best it is a point of view. It is well known that Iskandar Mirza was not a Muslim Leaguer and was not in any way involved in the creation of Pakistan... That actually would go against your argument... wasn`t Jinnah ``wheeling and dealing`` with Wavell as you said...

Pakistan did not necessarily mean partition of India ... Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai prove in their books very conclusively that the Lahore Resolution kept options open for an India with autonomous units (which you may refer to as Pakistan- but which Jinnah did not till 1942 and that too he thanked Congress for as he was never really influenced by Rahmat Ali)....


So it is established that H M Seervai`s view is at variance to Humayun Mirza`s son`s views- right. And you haven`t even really quoted the book but an Indian journalist`s view of the book...

So who are we going to believe?

H M Seervai is a neutral party - he is an Indian Parsi, a jurist , a man of immense integrity and a person whose books are usually taken as the final word in law, constitution and history...

Humayun Mirza is the son of a shortsighted Pakistani president Iskandar Mirza who was never involved in Pakistan movement whose biggest achievement is that he destroyed the Muslim League, founded the republican party- the first `king`s` party in Pakistan, hated democracy, abrogated the constitution, made a sitting chief of Army staff the Prime Minister... and was ultimately humiliated and exiled to London where he died cursed by the Pakistani people? And whose son had a point to prove about his father`s involvement in the Pakistan movement?


But then... with you it is ``Heads Harish wins Tails YLH loses``... so whats the difference?

Harishbhai

(On the contrary, I`m very happy that Pakistan was created. )

So am I but not bcoz I believe that Pakistanis and Bdeshis are wicked people but bcoz Hindus and Muslims were unwilling to make the compromises necessary in 1947 and had the country been united we still would have been quarrelling like cats and dogs and nation buidling would have been at a standstill. And of course Waziristan and Wana would have been Indian territory.

(With 140 million Jihadis and their closet-suppporters like you)

That`s a patently unfair comment on Manto at least.

(The Quaid`s dream lies shattered today and Gandhi`s India is on its way to taking its right place on the world stage. So the only thing you can do is put lipstick on the pig, but unfortunately, it will still remain a pig.)

Its true that MAJ (pbuh)`s Pakistan lies shattered and I can only pray that the newer generation is more like Manto and repairs the damage. While India has done well in the recent past, its still dilli door ast (Delhi is far away). But inshaallah we will get there one day. And it has started recovering only after it started repudiated MKG and the Nehruvian scums that he imposed on us. India`s future may depend on further going away from Gandhian ideals.

Regards

#594 by Mantolives

He blames Congress for partition and says Jinnah was committed to a United India even in the end.

According to Humayun Mirza, Iskandar Mirza`s son, contrary to popular belief, Jinnah had wanted Pakistan all along. Here are some damning excerpts from his book ``From Plassey to Pakistan``. You can read the article by Inder Malhotra, eminent Indian journalist, who reviewed the book here.

``The British game plan was thus clear enough long before Mountbatten replaced Wavell. About Jinnah`s attitude, clinching evidence just available from an unexpected but unquestionable source underscores that he, far from being opposed to Partition, was hell-bent on getting Pakistan.

``The source is Humayun Mirza, the only surviving son of Iskander Mirza, Pakistan`s first president who, in 1958, had suspended his country`s Constitution only to be overthrown and exiled by General (later Field Marshal) Ayub Khan in 20 days flat. The son, a former vice-president of the World Bank, has written his father`s biography From Plassey to Pakistan (University Press of America Inc). It is a treasure-trove of information.

``Plassey is its starting point because the Mirzas are descendants of Mir Jafar who had betrayed Sirj-ud-Doula in the famed battle that had delivered Bengal to Robert Clive.

``Iskander Mirza was the first Indian graduate from Sandhurst but had to join the Indian Political Service because English officers in the Twenties did not want to serve under Indians. Having served diligently at the North West Frontier Province for long years, he became a joint secretary in the Defence Ministry in New Delhi where he remained, before migrating to Pakistan as the new country`s powerful defence secretary. He, of course, respected Jinnah immensely.

``In turn, Jinnah cultivated him (as he did other faithful bureaucrats such as Ghulam Mohammed, Mohammed Ali et al, who were to take over Pakistan after Jinnah`s death and Liaquat Ali Khan`s assassination). And thereby hangs a most pertinent and startling tale that needs to be told at some length.

``In February 1947``, records the son, admittedly on the basis of his father`s testimony to him, ``Jinnah sent for Iskander Mirza and told him that the prospects of getting Pakistan did not look good. He felt that the Muslim anger had to be properly demonstrated, otherwise the British would hand the country over to the Congress. He declared that if Pakistan could not be won by negotiation, it would have to be won by the will of the Muslims.``

``Jinnah added that he had decided that ``should negotiations fail by the middle of May, a dramatic statement must be made by the Muslims``. Humayun Mirza continues: ``He asked Iskander Mirza to be prepared to resign from the Government of India, and return to the tribal territory that he knew so well. There he was to start a jehad (holy war) against the British. Jinnah reiterated his faith in Iskander Mirza, urging him to take this extraordinary step to preserve the interests of the Muslims of India.``

``As Humayun Mirza puts it, his father was ``stunned`` by Jinnah`s request. For it would strain his ``respect for the British`` and his ``friendship with many of his Hindu colleagues`` and lead to ``bloodshed``. ``Yet,`` adds the author, ``he (Iskander Mirza) could not refuse Jinnah.`` But he told Jinnah that money would be needed to ``undertake this immense task, particularly if it involved (NWFP) tribesmen``. He estimated the requirement to be a crore of rupees, and also told Jinnah that before he (Mirza) could ``disappear into the tribal country, some cover story would have to be prepared``.

````Iskander Mirza,`` his son goes on to write, ``was given Rs 20,000 for immediate expenses and told that the Nawab of Bhopal would provide the rest. As for the cover, he would be told of it at the right time. Jinnah also gave Iskander Mirza his personal assurance that if anything happened to him, he would take care of the latter`s family``. (Emphasis added.)

``Iskander Mirza, according to his son`s book, ``started immediately to draw up a plan of action``. But as he prepared to present it to Jinnah, ``the latter informed him that Pakistan had been won and there was no longer any need for a jehad``. In the words of his son: ``One can easily imagine Iskander Mirza`s sense of relief.``

``Humayun Mirza comments that Jinnah was ``prepared to go to any length to achieve Pakistan... Once he made up his mind, he would pursue a single objective with tenacious zeal``. Nothing more need be added.``

#592 by Mantolives

Stanley Wolpert (for whom you`ve not given any hard copy reference/page number) does not at any point say that Muslim League planned it. There is no blame apportioned on Jinnah or the Muslim League leadership.

Oh so now anything without a hard copy reference/page number is not admissible in Yasser`s court? If I had provided the hard copy refernce, you`d want me to show it to you in person at your office in Lahore. But seriously, are you saying those were not the words of Stanley Wolpert and someone pretending to be him wrote that? Now you`re slipping dangerously beyond redemption.

The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen.

Aww, now you repeat the same old words by Hodson. I gave you lines by the very same Hodson which go exactly in the opposite direction. So basically, it means diddly squat.

Have you even picked up the book by the guy ... because had you done so you would be trying to impeach his credibility as well.

And now you compare your credibility with his? Until BJ Sahib opened our eyes to it, we weren`t even aware that you quoted Dalitstan. No honest man would go anywhere near that website for obvious reasons. The fact that you did proves that despite your attempts to project yourself as a liberal Paki, you`re worse than even Urstruly and Masadi, who at least are straight-talking and bluntly honest about their views.

Now thats news for you... Sikhs in Calcutta but these are the facts...

Idiot, if there were no Sikhs in Calcutta, why would the SGPC commission Gurcharan Singh to prepare a report? Also, there is no town or village in the whole of India where you can`t find Sikhs, so stop being a fool.

Wavell`s conclusion page 879 Volume IX does not take a partisan line but concludes simply that there was simply no evidence that pointed fingers at the Muslim League let alone the Central Muslim League who you want to blame.

Just repeating the same point ad nauseam proves nothing dear Yasser. If Stanley Wolpert and Hodson are not evidence, I think you`ll question even Allah.

But I can see why you are so hard-pressed to find arguments... as to repeat the same old bankrupt arguments which don`t stand any test.

You`re the one hard-pressed to provide proof of the ML`s innocence. I`ve provided diverse sources that include even a British newspaper that foresaw the impending violence, but Jinnah was perhaps rubbing his hands in glee because that`d give him a chance to get his revenge on Gandhi for having upstaged him.

It was after all because of the intransigence of the Congress Party on partitioning provinces and separating completely Pakistan and Hindustan ... that led to two hostile countries.

I`m sure you`d have liked the Congress to lie down and play dead to Jinnah`s blackmail. They were smarter than that and Jinnah`s bluff was called. For all that BS about bargaining counter, Jinnah thought the Congress would play ball and didn`t calculate as to what would happen if the Congress refused to give in. The result of his diseased thinking is a diseased nation that is the cause of much of the world`s worries today. Thank God, we got rid of it when we could.

PS: Whether my findings would stand the test of academic scholarship- ofcourse it would.

About my conclusions on partition- they are well supported by all historians who have investigated the matter- this includes Ayesha Jalal, H M Seervai, S K Majumdar, Patrick French, Irfan Habib, Durga Das, Sumit Sarkar, Ainslie Embree, Ian Talbott, Roger D Long, H V Hodson etc.

About my conclusions on Gandhi... I wrote this: ``Ungandhian Gandhi`` by Claude Markovits argues exactly the same about Gandhi and is considered an authority. I have not used ``gandhi behind the mask of divinity`` because apparently you have something against Sikhs... even though that is also merely quotes primary sources about Gandhi`s life and therefore is unimpeachable. Similarly Gandhi nobody knew is another book that reaffirms this point of view.

Dear BJKumar...

Why do you even try when you always put your foot in your mouth?

1- I suggest you hold what you *think* Seervai`s argument would be and read the book itself. Your problem is that you operate on teoo many assumptions. Seervai has not written a biography of Jinnah... he has written solely about the events of partition as per primary source documents and his verdict is that Jinnah was the only person who acted honorably in the whole mess. He blames Congress for partition and says Jinnah was committed to a United India even in the end. This is his argument in a nutshell... it is way beyond where Ayesha Jalal stops... it questions the intentions and tactics of Congress leaders.

2- I did not at any point declare my sources as less than impeccable. That you would distort my words to sound like that shows just how far you can go in order to ``Win`` though there isn`t a ghost chance of that happening given the low quality of your rebuttals.
What I said was that while I base my comments on Primary sources ... I do respond to biased sources (like those quoted by Harish Hyd) by quoting similar sources (Dalitstan and Khalistan etc though they might be accurate who knows) to show that point of views exist on both sides. My allegations against Gandhi are from THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI and I have painstakingly referenced every single word- Can you deny this? You can`t- but may be you can given your questionable level of honesty and personal integrity.

3- Other than personal attacks and insinuation- you`ve not proved a single word by way of argument... infact you are even worse at than our friend Harish Hyd... who atleast tried to argue on some sort of facts- except he made a mess of himself.

What matters is that when I sleep at night my conscience is clear... but I wonder if the facts I have put up plainly infront of you allow you a good night`s rest. I don`t think so.

#583 Yasser

Yasser, finally, after a lot of running away, you admit that some of your sources are less than impeccable. The fact that you were FORCED to do so - and it took over 500 posts to get you to this point - speaks volumes of your objectivity - or rather, the lack of it. (I would urge you not to be so ``modest`` - give yourself ``credit`` for a LOT more questionable sources, please! Your sheer volume of interacts guarantees it.)

The problem with your credibility - the way it appears to me, is from the apparent confusion in your mind between your role of a lawyer - who must win no matter what the truth is - and a wanna-be historian - which does not appear to be your strong suit.

The lawyer in you beats the pulp out of the amateur historian in you - he makes him cry and run to the bathroom to hide - and cringe like a curds-covered cat.

I am looking at some of the people who you mention as if they were keepers of the great gospel. The truth is - I am feeling even less impressed.

These individuals appear to have had their own weaknesses and axes to grind, too. M.N.Roy for example, was a communist - I take pretty much everything that communists say with a pinch of salt. There is little objectivity in those whose words and deeds are ideologically driven. The communists - thank God for their departure from most theaters - invented the very term ``propaganda``. The Soviets excelled in revising and recreating history to suit their worldview. There have been FEW liars like them.

If I understand the situation right, many communists from those times were opposed to the Indian freedom movement to begin with. Such boot-lickers!

Now Seervai, from all accounts - appears to have been a brilliant jurist - so it is understandable that a lawyer like you would hold him in awe like a god - perhaps the same reason you do it for Jinnah. Leaving aside the point that I have not even looked at what Seervai said of Gandhi, it is worth impressing to you that even professionally brilliant minds are not necessarily good judges of human beings and can make mistakes. It would be my guess that his thinking of Jinnah as a secularist would be influenced by how he saw Jinnah do things which were not what a ``pious`` Muslim would have done - simple things like eating or drinking. Rest assured that the vast hordes of Muslims who followed Jinnah did not do so because of his secular credentials - and Jinnah took full advantage of their blind religious madness for political purposes - when he did that, that makes him a demagogue through and through - irrespective of how he was earlier on in his life!

So what people say about individuals - and the opinions that they express - come to naught.

In the end, what remains is deeds and the consequences of those deeds. There is no running away from those. Anybody can become an arm-chair lecturer - especially in these days of the internet - when false trails are so easy to create! This site and perhaps other sites on the web are teeming with such lecturers.

And by the way you have still completely failed to answer my question why you have not held up your write-ups to the scrutiny of professional historians - even the ones that you have quoted yourself.

But, I like your energy and enthusiasm anyway. Anybody who calls Mushy what you called him deserves better than simply being ridiculed. Your intents must not be discounted.

For the thousandth time, I wish you well with your dreams. They are good dreams. In my view, your chances of accomplishing them will improve dramatically if you open up your mind a bit and start seeing things for what they were instead of how you would LIKE them to be.

Wishing you well,
BJ Kumar

Dear Harish mian,

Your being sure doesn`t mean a thing nor would it ever mean a thing. It is your bias and ignorance of the man. I am not going to correct you on this. You may continue to believe what you do...

On DAD... once again:


1- Stanley Wolpert (for whom you`ve not given any hard copy reference/page number) does not at any point say that Muslim League planned it. There is no blame apportioned on Jinnah or the Muslim League leadership.

2- H V Hodson on page 166 says

The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen.``

Have you even picked up the book by the guy ... because had you done so you would be trying to impeach his credibility as well.


3- Gurcharan Singh`s communal evidence is as neutral as Suhrawardy`s evidence. Sikhs were also actively involved in communal violence in Calcutta as per Sir Francis Tuker. Now thats news for you... Sikhs in Calcutta but these are the facts...

4- Ofcourse you would now try and hide behind wheeling and dealing.. but if that were the case why didn`t Wavell give the government to the Muslim League instead of wooing the Congress as per the original promise by the Cabinet Mission? Wavell`s conclusion page 879 Volume IX does not take a partisan line but concludes simply that there was simply no evidence that pointed fingers at the Muslim League let alone the Central Muslim League who you want to blame.

But I can see why you are so hard-pressed to find arguments... as to repeat the same old bankrupt arguments which don`t stand any test. As for your affirmation that you wanted Pakistan`s creation - I didn`t accuse you otherwise. It was after all because of the intransigence of the Congress Party on partitioning provinces and separating completely Pakistan and Hindustan ... that led to two hostile countries.


-YLH

#590 by Mantolives

Now you claim that Jinnah gloated and yet you know full well that even as the saying goes if you died a hundred times and brought to life a hundred times you can`t substantiate the statement that Jinnah showed any glee on Hindus and Sikhs getting killed... it is just so out of character for a man like him. He was not Sardar Patel or Harish Hyd or even Gandhi to demean himself in such a manner.

Sure. I`m sure he wouldn`t have cared to give second thought to those who had perished due to his avarice for power. The man was sleeping on the floors, did nothing to stop violent Muslim marauders, didn`t show a hint of regret that so many had died due to his folly, was all gung-ho when Margaret Bourke White went to interview him without pausing to condole with those who had lost their lives due to his stupidity. It was so out of character for him.

FTR You`ve not produced a single argument or damning evidence that proves that Muslim League was complicit- other than quoting pov articles by sources (if you can call websites and googling that) of your choice. So please continue to repeat this mantra which is indicative more of your dishonesty than anything else ... Unless you can rebuke Wavell`s clear statement of fact and Hodson`s clear acquiital of the League leadership...you have no case.

Your one-time favorite Stanley Wolpert clearly says ML was to blame. H V Hodson says Muslims started it. Gurcharan Singh Talib`s report says the ML was preparing for a showdown months in advance, the British website I quoted blames the ML, and you say there`s no damning evidence? Must have been lost on you no? Wavell`s statement carries no weight because we all know the wheeling-dealing between him and Jinnah. It is like saying Modi is innocent. As for Hodson, I`ve provided his very own words. So it you who`s dishonest.

I am certain - in my hearts of hearts- that you are a very distressed individual today because all that you believe about that ``wrinkly bharat mata`` and its moral superiority lies shattered before you.

On the contrary, I`m very happy that Pakistan was created. With 140 million Jihadis and their closet-suppporters like you, it makes progress that much more difficult and India wouldn`t be the toast of the world today. India`s foresighted leaders did the right thing by amputating the gangrenous limb that Pakistan was. Since then, your country has become more diseased and the CIA says it won`t be there in 2015. You guys are still searching for an identity and like cheap imitation jewelry, you have to call yourselves Indians when you go abroad to save your skins. Not even Sub-Saharan African nations have to put up with this kind of humiliation. The Quaid`s dream lies shattered today and Gandhi`s India is on its way to taking its right place on the world stage. So the only thing you can do is put lipstick on the pig, but unfortunately, it will still remain a pig.

Harish mian...

More repetition of the same old. Now you claim that Jinnah gloated and yet you know full well that even as the saying goes if you died a hundred times and brought to life a hundred times you can`t substantiate the statement that Jinnah showed any glee on Hindus and Sikhs getting killed... it is just so out of character for a man like him. He was not Sardar Patel or Harish Hyd or even Gandhi to demean himself in such a manner.

You say old arguments have not been cleared up. My dear friend you must be joking. FTR You`ve not produced a single argument or damning evidence that proves that Muslim League was complicit- other than quoting pov articles by sources (if you can call websites and googling that) of your choice. So please continue to repeat this mantra which is indicative more of your dishonesty than anything else ... Unless you can rebuke Wavell`s clear statement of fact and Hodson`s clear acquiital of the League leadership...you have no case. Let me give you the references for those sources again:

1-Mansergh TOPP Volume IX Page 879

2- H V Hodson Page 166- third Paragraph- the Great Divide.


You say I am certain of who conceded defeat- you are right - I am quite certain. It is certainly not me. I have proved my case beyond a shadow of doubt using primary sources prompting you to resort to personal attacks and abuse. I am certain - in my hearts of hearts- that you are a very distressed individual today because all that you believe about that ``wrinkly bharat mata`` and its moral superiority lies shattered before you.

-YLH

#587 by Mantolives

Please note for your own benefit that other than personal insults and abuse you`ve not introduced a single new argument which can in any way prove your argument. You keep claiming a lot of things... but no real facts.

Well, I`d introduce new arguments only after the old ones have been cleared, but your inability to do that plus the fact that you`re forced to do the cat-on-a-hot-tin-roof dance (I rather enjoy that) make me put you through the same routine over and over again.

I accept your concession of defeat wholeheartedly. Now you can continue to go in circles and claim what you`ve been claiming but the bottom line is that there is no evidence to support your claim... infact damning evidence shows that Congress used Muslim League`s direct action day to create trouble in Bengal to bring down the League ministry.

What damning evidence Yasser? Wavell`s conclusion that the ML was not to blame? But that doesn`t blame the Congress either, so is there some ``damning evidence`` which only Yasser Latif Hamdani, the great lawyer from Lahore knows? Or are you hearing voices? I`m sure its the latter, but it`d be better if you spell it out.

As for defeat, after trying to wriggle out of answering those uncomfortable questions, I`m sure in your heart you abundantly know who`s conceded defeat. Some things are best left unsaid because it is embarrassing to the other party, so I`ll grant you that face-saver.

As for Narendra Modi... he can only be compared to Patel ... both were full of glee at the number of Muslims dead.

Well in that case, Jinnah was worse than the two. Modi and Patel gloated (if at all they did) at the death of Muslims. Jinnah gloated at the death of Hindus and Sikhs, but too bad he forgets that lakhs of Muslims, many of them innocent were killed too.

And by the way- I myself took the debate off of M N Roy ... because I didn`t want you to even have a little bit of room to wriggle out of the position you`ve cornered yourself into and which is why you are back to old ways.

But on M N Roy and your claims about him- I do hope you will visit my ilog and read something about the great man.

Dear Harish Hyd,

Please note for your own benefit that other than personal insults and abuse you`ve not introduced a single new argument which can in any way prove your argument. You keep claiming a lot of things... but no real facts.

I accept your concession of defeat wholeheartedly. Now you can continue to go in circles and claim what you`ve been claiming but the bottom line is that there is no evidence to support your claim... infact damning evidence shows that Congress used Muslim League`s direct action day to create trouble in Bengal to bring down the League ministry. As for Narendra Modi... he can only be compared to Patel ... both were full of glee at the number of Muslims dead.

-YLH

#584 by Mantolives on April 25, 2006 10:20pm PT

After investigating the matter a little more, I`ve discovered that the Gurcharan Singh Khushwant Singh refers to is Gurcharan Singh Tohra and not the gentleman referred to by Harish Hyd.

Thanks for admitting this but if you thought by such confessions, you can shore up your lost credibility, you`re naiver than we thought.

In any event...the source remains one sided and biased- but I felt it was fair that this clarification was made in order to be fair to Mr Talib and Mr Tohra.

Bhai it is such blanket judgments that strain your already low credibility further. I for one wouldn`t pass such sweeping judgments, until I have a stronger source to disprove my rival`s.

#573 by Mantolives

Please point out how many of the leaders that you`ve named were physically present in Bengal? Zero. That is the answer to the question what Jinnah did to restrain them... none of them were involved in violence in Bengal.

Yasser Yaar, you must be smoking something. First of all, where did I claim they were in Bengal? Secondly, what logic leads you to conclude that in order to incite violence, you need to be physically present close to the theater of violence? Was Narendra Modi personally raping Muslim women and killing children during the Gujarat violence? So your defense is basically a heap of doo-doo.

The reason I said Punjabi was you were quoting two more than others... Feroz Khan Noon and Abdur rab Nishtar... and with the exception of Hidayatullah- all of them are Punjabis.

There you go again. Yet another contortion. And please tell us what Gilani and Ghazanfar Ali were? Three out of six are not Punjabis, yet you went on to make that ludicrous claim. Perhaps you thought you could get away cheaply.

If Suhrawardy- not on your list- was nominated as the culprit- he was removed for negligence as well... and as for the comparison between Gujurat and Calcutta... ofcourse.

If Jinnah hadn`t done that, the Congress and British both would have bayed for his blood, so he let the violence die down on its own and then made Suhrawardy the convenient scapegoat. Not that Suhrawardy was innocent but he thought he`d be rewarded for his ``services``, but Jinnah the master strategist simply fired him.

I told you yesterday that it is a very apt comparison...

In that case, Jinnah can very well be compared to Modi. Suhrawardy was merely the pawn that was acting at his master`s behest. As to your argument that Jinnah`s intentions were ``noble``, it is quite clear from the statements issued by his cohorts and the subsequent turn of events. Events that even a newspaper reporter could foresee, but the great statesman Jinnah couldn`t.

In both instances an Armed Hindu Majority in a Hindu Majority city killed a large number of the Muslim minority under a false pretext that they had provoked violence.

Only a man with his head buried in an unmentionable place would think that blood-curdling calls to violence are a false pretext. But then, you`ve mastered the art of contortion, so please excuse us it it sounds nonsensical.

In both instances inquiries absolved Muslims of planning the violence.

Like I said, Narendra Modi has NOT been implicated in the Gujarat, but there is enough evidence to prove that he was indeed responsible, first by making provocative speeches (as Jinnah and his cohorts did), and then not responding quickly enough (like Suhrawardy, who declared a holiday to the entire Police force). So you`re fooling nobody here, except perhaps yourself.

As for Hodson`s statement absolving Muslim League of intending to start violence... the context is what I said you need to pick up. He was very clear that Muslim League had not planned violence... but violence erupted. Both statements are indeed made by him... but had you actually picked up his book you would know what the context is.

More spin. Goebbels would have been proud of you Yasser, but which context? Please explain that to us.

On M N Roy- you`ve been caught once again to pull a fast one- which is why you are back despite having said two hours ago that you were leaving.

Thanks, but I won`t take the bait. We`ll come to this issue after we`ve sorted out the other one. If you thought you could use this Roy dude as the escape route out of the hole in which you find yourself, you`re mistaken.

At this point I wish to point out that yesterday I quoted Khushwant Singh on Gurcharan Singh. After investigating the matter a little more, I`ve discovered that the Gurcharan Singh Khushwant Singh refers to is Gurcharan Singh Tohra and not the gentleman referred to by Harish Hyd.

In any event... the source remains one sided and biased- but I felt it was fair that this clarification was made in order to be fair to Mr Talib and Mr Tohra.

BJkumar...

The two or three websites that you ascribe to me have indeed been quoted by me once or twice... but by no means has my argument rested on them ... I`ve always used PRIMARY SOURCES of information and hard copy sources. It is when people like Harish hyd and you respond by quoting anonymous websites instead of hard copy sources that I too put up these websites as counters.

I am very happy to quote primary sources as well hard copy sources... but some how I have a nagging suspicion that you are incapable of complying to this rule. Why? Because earlier on this board you were quoting a review piece on Ayesha Jalal and continued to claim you were right - even when I produced a rebuttal by Ayesha Jalal herself... So there is no point in being all self righteous. Similarly my arguments on DAD and Partition are basically derived from Ayesha Jalal, H M Seervai, Sumit Sarkar, Durga Das and S K Majumdar.

As for my findings on Gandhi... they are based on Gandhi`s own collected works and I`ve referenced every single word... I am afraid it does not require the patronisation of any academic ... your analogies aside... you know very well that your claim that I will stand ``exposed`` is merely to satisfy your own self now that you have discovered the facts about the man you admire so much.

An example of this is that the book ``Ungandhian Gandhi`` by Claude Markovits argues exactly the same about Gandhi and is considered an authority. I have not used ``gandhi behind the mask of divinity`` because apparently you have something against Sikhs... even though that is also merely quotes primary sources about Gandhi`s life and therefore is unimpeachable.

Okay, so I went a bit overboard with my analogies in #578, #579. I am sorry about that. It should not be taken in the wrong way.

It was for a moment.

Only for a moment.

In the heat of the moment!

That`s all!

Majumdar #539, {``In that sense India is lucky that there is a grand mess and no clear cut ethnic majority of Hindi speakers- even Hindi speakers are more conscious of being Biharis, Rajasthanis, Haryanvis etc. than of being a Hindi speaking monolith. ``}

Majumdar,
You have given the perfect analogy to the Punjabi hegemony issue in Pakistan. You are right about comparing the situation to a mammoth Hindi-speaking province consisting of UP, MP, Bihar, Haryana, and Rajasthan. Such a province would have a sizable (50% or more) of India`s population. To that if you added a hypothetical assumption of Hindi-speakers constituting 70% or more of the armed forces, you would approach the situation in Pakistan today. India has been taking large provinces and cutting them down to smaller administrative units (East Punjab into Haryana, Punjab, and HP). UP and Bihar have been broken down further, and I can see J&K also splitting up into at least three smaller units. Instead of downsizing West Punjab into three smaller units, Pakistan added to Punjab`s size by including Bhawalpur state into that monolith. There is nothing bad about Punjabis or Hindi-speakers, it is the tyranny resulting from monopolization that becomes the problem.

#538, {``Salim bhai...
Fancy yourself as the Caesar I see? :) ``}

No sir, with my luck I am always playing the part of Mark Antony. :)

#578 (Addendum)

And a mujra will stay a mujra - no matter how much its ``pimps`` go ``waah-waah``!

Yeah!

The experience is even more exhilirating than a forced hours-long being-closeted-in experience with a used Ford Pinto salesman!

Also, Manto...

Since we are talking analogies, here is one more...

You recycle tons of old text in a far worse manner than a dalaal hands around thalis of paan at a mujra!

#564 Yasser

[…are M N Roy, H M Seervai, SK Majumdar, H V Hodson, Richard Grenier or Asiananda sources of illrepute ?]

I don’t know, I have not read those individuals.

But I DO know the following.

Arthur Kemp, Dalistan.org, and Baldev Singh, are among the countless other sources of “ill-repute” that you have quoted in the past – sometimes without telling the reader, many times extensively – and you have tried to pass them off as reputable. When confronted, you have either started relieving yourself in pants or just ignored the question.

You can hide and you can fudge, but your credibility is an immediate casualty of your sneaky “lawyerly” ways – except perhaps to dishonest individuals – like the chowk editors who in their heart wish very fervently for you to be “right” so they close their eyes and do not demand even the slightest of credibility and accountability from “authors” like you – and other such trivialities that grace these web pages!

More importantly, if you are so unafraid of unbiased reviews, why don’t you summarize your findings and run them by legitimate scholars of history (and in my view, Farzana Versey is not a scholar of history, perhaps not of anything). I believe Prof. Jalal would be a good start, since she has a certain degree of academic credentials – in spite of some controversy over her stands, few doubt her academic repute – NOBODY will ever confuse HER for a lawyer!

You don’t do any of that perhaps because of highly obvious reasons – that you will be found out and exposed – and will look as ridiculous as a wet cat – a highly pathetic wet cat!

Every dog has his day – but cats only have nights of infamy – to shrink like certain bodily appendages that fail to “rise” to the occasion!

The proverbial guns which always fail to fire!

Manto,

OK but if I get the time. I have got a family to feed.

Regards

Majumdar...

If you are interested in M N Roy- please visit my ilogs... I have quoted a few articles about the man that you will find interesting. I don`t wish to let BJ and Harish get off the hook by derailing the discussion and then blaming it on me- so its best we communicate on M N Roy through our ilogs.

Harish 571

On the contrary- I am on the topic. I think you`ve been unable to prove a single point about Direct Action Day and are now trying to prove a point about M N Roy.

I am sure now for both you and BJKumar Majumdar`s comments in 572 are a big slap on the face.

Dear Harish

More of the same I see?

Please point out how many of the leaders that you`ve named were physically present in Bengal? Zero. That is the answer to the question what Jinnah did to restrain them... none of them were involved in violence in Bengal. The reason I said Punjabi was you were quoting two more than others... Feroz Khan Noon and Abdur rab Nishtar... and with the exception of Hidayatullah- all of them are Punjabis.

If Suhrawardy- not on your list- was nominated as the culprit- he was removed for negligence as well... and as for the comparison between Gujurat and Calcutta... ofcourse. I told you yesterday that it is a very apt comparison...

1- In both instances an Armed Hindu Majority in a Hindu Majority city killed a large number of the Muslim minority under a false pretext that they had provoked violence.

2- In both instances inquiries absolved Muslims of planning the violence.


As for Hodson`s statement absolving Muslim League of intending to start violence... the context is what I said you need to pick up. He was very clear that Muslim League had not planned violence... but violence erupted. Both statements are indeed made by him... but had you actually picked up his book you would know what the context is.

On M N Roy- you`ve been caught once again to pull a fast one- which is why you are back despite having said two hours ago that you were leaving.

Manto mian/others

My knowledge about MNR is very limited. All I know is that he was a Bong like me and a communist and had substantial influence on left leaning politicians (both commie and none commies) who entered Indian politics in 1950s and 1960s. Manto tells me that he was a humanist- now I dont know what a humanist is supposed to be so I again I can`t comment. But I do hope to read up on MNR and find out what he stood for.

But yes I do dislike communism considering the damage that they have done in India and even more so abroad.

Manto, assuming of course that MNR was a good man, saying that MNR was a great luminary like Stalin or Trotsky was highly injudicious. It would like me saying that YLH is a learned and eminent Pakistani like Maulana Urstruly (pbuh) and Maulana Masadi (RA)- highly unfair to all persons concerned.

Regards

#568 by Mantolives

Tell me why is M N Roy a charlatan exactly ? You claimed that- didn`t you?

I see you`re desperate to wean away the topic from DAD, but not so fast dear Yasser. I`ll prove everything and more, but first things first.

#563 by Mantolives

They did say that Direct Action Day led to violence ... but they have not apportioned blame as such.

Now dear Yasser, you`re turning blind. Your one-time favorite Stanley Wolpert in his book ``Gandhi`s Passion`` says, ``The man most widely blamed for the mass murder of Hindus and the torching of their property in the days and weeks following Direct Action Day was Bengal`s Muslim League Chief Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy. Every British officer, including Governor Sir Frederick Burrows and Chief of the Eastern Command Lt. General Sir Francis Tuker, pointed to Suhrawardy as the villain of the terror that exploded after he gave Calcutta`s police a special holiday to ``celebrate`` Direct Action.``.

Liaqat Ali Khan was from UP but he was a Punjabi and no where near Bengal.
Ghazanfar Ali was also not present in Bengal.
Ghulam Mustafa Shah Gilani was from Multan environs.
Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah was from Sindh.

Aww, so now you`re trying to change tack? How very clever! You said only Punjabi Leaguers made provocative statements. I proved otherwise. Now you`re measuring the distances at which they were from Bengal? Nice try but no cigar.

The point is that none of these leaders were involved in any violence in Calcutta or any where else... despite what they might have said ... long before DAD was even announced.

And I suppose Narendra Modi personally went about raping and killing Muslim women and burning their babies. Original point, but nonsensical, isn`t it?

It absolves Muslim League of any blame. I have quoted the exact page number and when you read your own selective quote in the context you will see that my reading is correct.

Then why does he make the statement that if the Muslims started it, they were its worst victims? Why should we believe that statement and discard this one? After all, both were made by him?

I must agree with this statement after seeing the futility of shining light(s) -heck spot lights- on your mind for many years

Then who`s the fool here?

As for Jinnah and Ispahani`s correspondence - I`ll have to locate it but I quoted it once before as well.

Just saying so won`t do my dear friend, come back armed with the proof and then we`ll talk.

Please produce some arguments as to why you feel he is a charlatan other than the fact that he thought Gandhi was a medieval fascist?

I`ll leave that as homework for you today, but if you can`t find anything, I`ll willingly oblige you tomorrow.

Zeemax...

I will look into 548.

Dear Harish Hyd,

As far as I can see that by abusing a world renowned figure like M N Roy as someone only known in ``Timbaktu`` you have managed to tell us more about yourself than every before. Basically- as far as I can see- for you anyone who dares to have a different point of view than yours... is worthy of abuse.

Tell me why is M N Roy a charlatan exactly ? You claimed that- didn`t you?

Manto,

Thanks for your #552.

More on the ambulance incident:

Many explanations have been given for this act of negligence by the bureaucracy. In a recent article in quarterly ‘Al-Aqreba’, Islamabad, Syed Hashim Raza who was at that time the Administrator of Karachi has given his own version of the happening. He writes, “When on 10th September Quaid-i-Azam and Miss Jinnah left Quetta Airport for Mauripur no one except the pilot knew where the plane would land. Those days I was the administrator of Pakistan’s capital Karachi. Whenever Quaid-i-Azam would depart from Karachi as administrator I used to be present at the airport to see him off. Similarly, whenever he would arrive in Karachi it was my duty to receive him. But no one had a clue to the arrival of this plane. When I asked Quaid’s military secretary afterwards that why I was not informed about it he told me that Miss Jinnah had ordered him that no one should be informed about the arrival of the plane except Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan with the instructions that he should not come at Mauripur Airport. When the Military Secretary rang up Jinnah Hospital to send an ambulance he did not tell them for whom the ambulance was required. This ambulance got stuck up at some distance from the airport. Some fault had occurred in its engine that could not be rectified by any one and another ambulance was called from Jinnah Hospital. For one hour Quaid-i-Azam’s nurse kept warding off flies in that sultry heat. When the second ambulance arrived then Quaid was driven to the governor general house and was made to lie in his bed room. His doctor has written in his book that he died at twenty past ten the same night.” This account shows that the whole thing was mismanaged. Was an enquiry ordered into the happening? Why a faulty ambulance was sent to the airport on a call from the military secretary to the governor general and even if hospital authorities were not told for whom the ambulance was needed at the airport it seems they had no sympathy for a patient in emergency and distress.

P.S. Did you get the time to research my query in #548?

#564 by Mantolives

He will realise that he was simply wrong about M N Roy ... and then you`ll be left with no arguments as usual ...

Sure, and pigs will spout wings. Please let us know when that happens.

So apart from Lawyer, SAP coordinator, Writer, Economist, Journalist, now Yasser is a wannabe Nostradamus. He`s actually making predictions about how Majumdar will lap up what he says and I will be proven wrong. As they say, if wishes were horses.

My advice- base your case on something concrete and not pathetic attempts to impeach my credibility.

Yasser dear, you`ve impeached your own credibility, no one else needs to do it.

Ah I see...

Majumdar makes a btw comment about communists and BJKumar and Harish Hyd jump on it.

The famous Urdu saying: ``Doobtay ko tinkay ka sahara``.

Majumdar`s comment about MN Roy really had little to do Roy himself but communists and Stalin and Trotsky. But the lack of integrity that is apparent in posts by Harish Hyd and BJKumar is just strengthened by their glee.

Dear BJKumar,

My comments about Gandhi are directly from his ``Collected Works`` - Is that a Jehadi source? One would think so at first glance... but those are the collected works of Mahatma Gandhi. Now please answer the simple question: Why are M N Roy, H M Seervai, SK Majumdar, H V Hodson, Richard Grenier or Asiananda sources of illrepute ?

So far this bad behavior on your part and your buddy Harish Hyd`s part ... amounts to nothing but a concession of defeat on the issues at hand.

Harish mian...

Majumdar is an intelligent fellow. He will realise that he was simply wrong about M N Roy ... and then you`ll be left with no arguments as usual ... My advice- base your case on something concrete and not pathetic attempts to impeach my credibility.

Dear Harish Hyd,

Like I said... more of the same.

``I`ve provided three sources that conclusively prove that it was the ML`s doing``

Nope. The three sources (for which you did not give any page numbers) do not prove any such thing... They did say that Direct Action Day led to violence ... but they have not apportioned blame as such.

``Liaquat Ali Khan, Raja Ghanzafar Ali Khan, Ghulam Mustafa Shah Gilani, and Ghulam Hussain Hadayatullah were Punjabis``

Liaqat Ali Khan was from UP but he was a Punjabi and no where near Bengal.
Ghazanfar Ali was also not present in Bengal.
Ghulam Mustafa Shah Gilani was from Multan environs.
Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah was from Sindh.

The point is that none of these leaders were involved in any violence in Calcutta or any where else... despite what they might have said ... long before DAD was even announced.
H V Hodson`s quote is very clear. It absolves Muslim League of any blame. I have quoted the exact page number and when you read your own selective quote in the context you will see that my reading is correct.


``The mind of a fool is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it contracts``.

I must agree with this statement after seeing the futility of shining light(s) -heck spot lights- on your mind for many years ... As for Jinnah and Ispahani`s correspondence - I`ll have to locate it but I quoted it once before as well.


``MN Roy was a charlatan``

Well apparently International Humanist and Ethical Union which he founded and which continues to do good work all over the world doesn`t think so.

http://www.iheu.org

Nor do the guys who built the huge M N Roy human development centre in Mumbai.

But then again anyone who disagrees with you or your narrow view of history is a charlatan. That is your tolerance I suppose.

Please produce some arguments as to why you feel he is a charlatan other than the fact that he thought Gandhi was a medieval fascist?

Mian Manto,

Like it was said in #505, you throw an avalanche of selective quotes for tonnes of ill-reputed sources - pretending that the filthy stink is not there! You, the chowk editors, and their lapdogs are the only ones to lap it up.

Let me quote the following from #505, for your convenience.

``.... you fail to sway anybody, except those (like the editor) who are already your ideological soul-mates! At least they know when to keep their little mouths shut!

You stand alone - a solitary figure - like a wanna-be Mahatma - being egged-on and holding on to the crutches of the Khalistani writer crowds, and the racist South African Arthur Kemp and Jihadi/ISI-origin sites like ``dalitstan``.

You throw ``land-mines`` - like that charge of ``murder cover-up`` against Gandhi - and NOBODY picks it up - because unlike you, they know a dud when they see it. You do so, too - but try to pass it as a legitimate charge from a legitimate source - therein lies your dishonesty!

You do exactly what most lawyers for criminals do - their objective is to make their client get off - by saying that ``somebody else`` did IT - so they throw dust into everybody`s eyes.

You don`t throw dust - you practically start a sandstorm! The experience is as enjoyable as being exposed to the most desperate of used-car salesmen - or the paan-chewers of Banarasi lanes exhorting people to climb up those steps!

Your arguments have more holes than Swiss cheese. Your credibility gaps are so wide that Kaptain here could drive his whole truckload of army supplies (bootlegged for profit) through it. I can even visualize Omar R. Quraishi doubled up all over in pain - clutching his tummy - because too much laughter can hurt!

Your credibility is more abstract than the ``ether`` of a few centuries ago - in your mind, it exists everywhere - in reality, it exists nowhere!

Paradoxically, the very fact that you have no credibility is also your best insurance policy in current-day Pakistan!

How so?

The day mian Musharraf and his GHQ start thinking that you represent any serious threat to their way of doing things - is the day you could get your rear kicked into the slammer - and will perhaps also be the day you will start singing their praises.

You will then immediately start seeing things in a new light.

It could even become yet another day of a brand new conversion for you - the day you start seeing the army and GHQ in a new light!

Sometimes the lights hurt those eyes!

So be very thankful that you look like a chump!``

In anticipation of another hearty THANK YOU, let me address the following to you!

You are welcome!

#556 by majumdar

If the above is true, it only shows that the said gentleman was a liar and a scoundrel of the first order. I am surprised that you choose to quote him.

Majumdar Sahib, just came back to take a quick look and saw your post here. Not just this Roy dude, Asiananda, Arthur Kemp, and Richard Grenier are a few other sources that Yasser mian has quoted. Please google up these names and you`ll know the shady nature of these ``scholars``.

#553 by Mantolives

What I have said repeatedly is that it is not certain which party started it but what is certain is that Muslims were not prepared and Hindus were armed to the teeth. This in of itself rules out any pre-planned violence on part of the Muslim League.

You saying so is not nearly enough Yasser. I`ve provided three sources that conclusively prove that it was the ML`s doing, and the only one you provided, Hodson`s words say that the ML didn`t intend to start violence. Now I`m sure you understand there is a world of difference between ``did not do it`` and ``did not intend to do it``, that`s basic English, so there.

Furthermore I said that there was no evidence with the British government that suggested Muslim League`s involvement in violence...

Like I said, Wavell`s words amount to a hill of beans, because we know the secret wheeling-dealing between him and Jinnah during those heady days. I can provide the evidence if you wish Jinnah to be exposed further.

Jinnah was in touch with Suhrawardy and M A Ispahani - we know that M A Isphahani was repeatedly sending reports to him about whether Suhrawardy was doing enough to stop the violence or not.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Where is the evidence dear Yasser?

The ``provocative`` statements you quoted were mostly by Punjabi politicians like Noon or Abdurrab Nishtar. On 14th August 1946, Jinnah made it clear that they were not allowed to resort to any violence and they did not.

Liaquat Ali Khan, Raja Ghanzafar Ali Khan, Ghulam Mustafa Shah Gilani, and Ghulam Hussain Hadayatullah were Punjabis? Thanks for redefining the word ``Punjabi``. I didn`t know it was soooo all-inclusive.

As H V Hodson says on page 166 of the Great Divide... the direct action day remained a peaceful day of civil disobedience all over - as league leaders had wanted- except in one place.

The very same Hodson said, ``if the Muslims started it, they were its worst victims``. In any case, common sense would tell us that after months of being provoked, only a fool like Jinnah could have expected DAD to pass off peacefully.

If you are ignorant of M N Roy then it is your fault and shows how sheltered your knowledge base really is.

Yaar, now you`re getting hilarious. M N Roy was a charlatan to the bone. Read up on him and then talk to me.

I have quoted Asiananda as one of the many authors - others being H M Seervai and S K Majumdar... you`ve still not been able to prove why you feel he is not a scholar and why Gurcharan Singh- a corrupt SPGC chairman atleast according Khushwant Singh- is better than him.

Gurcharan Singh Talib was appointed by the SGPC to inquire into the riots, so he`s more likely than Asiananda to have been to the scene of the violence. Asiananda was perhaps a kid when DAD took place. So don`t even compare the two.

We can go over this one more if you wish... whatever it takes to pry open that mind of yours.

Sure. But I`m not doing this to pry open your mind. As someone said, ``The mind of a fool is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it contracts``.

BJKumar,

Please prove how M N Roy or H M Seervai or Asiananda are sources of ill-repute?

If you can`t prove or impeach their credibility than know that you are all that you accuse me of ....

Please answer a simple and direct question. Don`t fire from other people`s shoulders.

#556 Majumdar

[...a scoundrel of the first order. I am surprised that you choose to quote him. ]

On the other hand, I think it is highly consistent of Yasser. He has made it is life-long career to quote highly shady sources of ill-repute for the purposes of revising history - and making sure that no historian of repute ever reads it.

In that crime, he is actively aided and abetted by the shady ``crooks`` who run this web-site - the ones with the jihadi bed-fellows, t