Remembering a great Pakistani: Sir Zafrullah Khan

Dear VRV...

Looks like you`ve completely lost your mind.

1. Muslim League claimed to be the representative party of the Muslims because it won the elections. Now if a Muslim A, B or C does something somewhere, how is that the Muslim League.. several Muslims tried to assassinate Jinnah... were they Muslim Leaguers too?


2. I blame the person who taught you the English language. You clearly have no idea about metaphors... in the same speech, Jinnah called Congress` civil disobedience a gun ... what does that mean? If it was violence, why - according to you - was Jinnah then taking all the blame on the 17th? Direct Action Day was supposed to be day of peaceful protest which it was everywhere except Calcutta where, the Congress planned all the murders.

3.

a. Blitz was a Congress Mouthpiece ... Penderel Moon says so very clearly. Forgive me for believing him rather than you.

b. Should we quote what Wavell thought of Gandhi and Nehru. As for Azad being more of a Muslim than Jinnah... we all know that Azad was more ``Muslim-looking`` but he had discredited himself with the Muslims by walking into Gandhi trap on the Khilafat movement issue... it is not about who was more Muslim but who was more of a man of integrity and had the confidence of his people. Besides, dress looks and rituals don`t make a Muslim. Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain also had an Azad-like Muslim cleric in their court... look what happened there.

c. Clearly you are not very good at the English language. The reference to ``Congress newspaper`` in this particular post was to the Congress mouthpiece Blitz. However the Statesman was not a British newspaper... but had it been, it would just show how far the British would go to support their lackeys the Congress Party.


By the way you`ve been arguing and screaming at the top of your voice... but to date you still haven`t been able to produce a single statement or factual piece of information that blames the Muslim League. Opinions and editorials from newspapers are merely based on conjecture and surmises and don`t hold up in court my dear friend.

Please also tell me exactly which part of the following is ``cooked up``?


``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``


... as for the Gujurat comparison ... it is a valid one... In Gujurat Hindus used perceived outrage, to go on a rampage against Muslims killing murdering plundering them and their families... In Calcutta, Hindus used the pretext of a civil disobedience campaign to unleash hell on Muslims.... In both cases appreciably more Muslims died than Hindus... And like Modi, Patel gloated in Calcutta on this great Hindu victory... and Gandhi made a few noises like Advani.

>>>All Muslims don`t equal Muslim League. <<<

If that was the case why the mothered Jinnah was shouting from roof tops that he and ML ALONE represents Muslims in India?

>>>For point No. 2 <<<

ML resolved to observe Direct Action to achieve Pakistan; it was also meant unconstitutional means (previously illegal means). When the draft was taken to the Viceroy, he objected the word `illegal`, then Jinnah changed it to unconstitutional. Jinnah clearly said that they(ML) too had a pistol (wasnt he referring to violence????).

>>>For point No. 3 <<<

It was proved since this was started that it was proved beyond doubt that u r an utter idiot, with no comprehension of simple English or an understanding worth ur American degree.

>>>1. Wavell said he had no evidence of League`s involvement in Calcutta Killings.
<<<

It again proves that how big idiot u are. Wavell didnt said that ML was innocent.

Wavell personal diaries prove that: ``Azad is an attractive character and really A MUCH TRUER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MUSLIMS THAN JINNAH.``

Blitz was NOT Congress mouth-piece but a weekly of an eccentric Rusi Karanjia, a Bombay Parsee who wrote as he wished. Once he wrote for months that it was Americans who crashed the Korean airline off Sakhalin islands, when it was actually crashed by Russians. No need to write abt Blitz.

The master idiot writes: >>> Now why would a Congress Newspaper...<<<

Statesmen was a British newspaper. For British, by British, of British. A frog in the well feels, otherwise. I have no need to prove this dimwit abt the Statesmen as a British newspaper. Probably he`d not have seen the pages of it, for relies on the garbage thrown by Google.

OTOH, the memoirs of Suhrawardy wrote in clearer terms as to why Bengal govt had to do the `job` i/o Sind. It`s anybody`s guess abt all DAD violence.

This idiot resorts to cheap thrills by part-quotation of some cooked-up quote and assign it to a famous man, as he did in the case of Wavell`s quote. Jinnah`s statement and Advani`s statement on Gujarat are similar. They dont cut much ice on the facts on ground. Some idiots resort to cheap thrills and wud have them.

(More quotes from London/British newspapers to follow soon)

Dear VRV,

Your comments are pathetic and as usual without basis.

For point No. 1

Let me remind you that the discussion here is about Calcutta killings and not any Id flareup. Could you tell me how you are going to relate the two? All Muslims don`t equal Muslim League.


For point No. 2

That is Wavell`s estimate of Suhrawardy yes. But where does he say that he was responsible for Calcutta killings. He doesn`t and you are wrong again.


For point No. 3

I fail to see the relevance. How is this quote - whatever it is supposed to mean- relevant to Calcutta Killings.

Now only an utter idiot would assume that Wavell`s statement that there was a flareup or an incident where Muslims were involved equals to somehow his blaming the Muslim League. Please show me where in the said quote does he mention Muslim League, League or Muslim Leaguer? He doesn`t nor does he think Muslim Leaguers start trouble... he infact blames Congressmen of being dishonest and without any integrity again and again.

The only conclusive thing we have is:

1. Wavell said he had no evidence of League`s involvement in Calcutta Killings.

2. Wavell said appreciably more Muslims died than Hindus.

3. Wavell said Congress` claim was far fetched.

``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``


As for Statesman... if you had seen I had quoted the editorial of Blitz, the Congress Mouthpiece... which holds a diametrically opposite view:


Meanwhile the Congress Mouthpiece ``Blitz`` wrote this about the direct action day:

The worst enemies of the Muslim League cannot help envying the leadership of Mr Jinnah. Last week`s cataclysmic transformation of the League from the reactionary racket of the Muslim Nawabs, Noons, and Knights into a revolutionary mass organisation dedicated, by word if not be deed, to an anti-Imperialist struggle, compels us to express the sneaking national wish that a diplomat and strategist of Jinnah`s proven calibre were at the held of the Indian National Congress. There is no denying the fact that by his latest master-stroke of diplomacy Jinnah has outbid, outwitted and outmaneuvered the British and Congress alike and confounded the common national indictment that the Muslim League is a parasite of British Imperialism

Now why would a Congress Newspaper praise Jinnah if Direct Action Day was all that you are making it out to be...

The fact is that Calcutta was an exception... a well thought out plan by the Congress which sabotaged the League`s programme for temporary political gain....



You also seem to suggest that Direct Action was in of itself violent... It is funny how Indians here use the word `Direct Action` as if it means some kind of violence in of itself... Infact in the examples of `Direct Action` ... this website speaks of `Non-violent Direct Action` by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr....

http://www.free-definition.com/Direct-action.html

Direct Action simply means civil disobedience... as Dr. King put it:

``Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.``


Now consider H V Hodson`s description of the League Programme:

``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 `The Great Divide`)


Explaining Direct Action Jinnah made it clear that the direct Action will not be in any form but in peaceful form...


``16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner.``

Press Release Jinnah 14th August 1946

Now here is an additional challenge. First you declared that I was educated in the Pakistani system and that was the reason why I was arguing the way I was... now you are declaring that I am reading Pakistani history books. Other than Ayesha Jalal, who you`ve quoted as well, would you give me a single example of a Pakistani history book I have quoted or used in my case... the reason being that I have made my case entirely on Indian and western sources... so are you ready apologise for another one of your lies?

yASSer,

I need to produce most of the material then I wud change my gear.

Till then dont dream abt anything........it`s infact u whose quality is intersticed in ur name. Need any proof? Look at the address.

For a braindead moron-cumliar-dementic-cum-dyslexic ther cud be no diff between what yASSer doctored and what was actually said.

As for date it was, 21st Aug BUT Wavell wrote letters to Nawab of Bhopal & his boss.

To Nawab of Bhopal:

`` No one regrets more than I do the action taken by Muslim League to resile the acceptance of the proposals for the Constituent Assembly, AND THE THREAT TO RESORT TO ``DIRECT ACTION``, which I think was unwise and unnecessary.``
+++++

Jinnah`s statement was a token statement with ``AN IMPLICATION THAT THE VIOLENCE WAS DONE BY HIS PARTY``. As u are braindead, I dont expect u to understand it.

Hence I will address my posts to the people who read this, not to u. I am convinced many times that u are incompetenet to carry on with arguments and a professional liar par excellence!

(Continued from # 567)

FROM THE PAGES OF ``WAVELL, THE JOURNAL OF VICEROY`` (edited by Penderel Moon). This contains details from the personal-cum-official diary of Viceroy Wavell himself.

Page 340.

I then had three quarters of an hour with Suhrawardy. He was polite and not at all aggressive and took in a subdued way of a homily I delivered to him on his duties as Premier of Bengal......

On the general political situation I said that I had done my utmost to secure a fair deal for the Muslims, but that I was quite unable to support Jinnah over the question of a nationalist Muslim, and that I thought a nationalist Muslims in the place of a Hindu shoud be a source of strength to Jinnah rather than otherwise.

After dinner I had another hour with the Governor.........the danger of a really big flare-up at the Id with Hindus and Muslims, WITH MUSLIMS THE AGGRESSORS*; the small number and low morale of Calcutta police, to whom he was going to give a pep talk next day.....

AND

page 348. (on his interview wiyh Suhrawardy on 08th Sept 1946)

`` I had always thought HE`S A DISHONEST AND SELF-SEEKING CAREERIST WITH NO PRINCIPLES``.

+++++++++

Sept 10, 1946.

Mrs. Sarojini Naidu dined and we had a long talk on politics and of the necessity of getting Jinnah and the Muslim League in and the DIFFICULTIES OF JINNAH`S CHARACTER. Mrs. N SPOKE OF JINNAH RATHER AS OF LUCIFER, A FALLEN ANGEL, one who had promised to be a great leader of Indian freedom.....``

* I comment on thsi: Wavell thinks that it`s always Muslim leaguers who resort to violence, otherwise why he casts them as trouble makers?????


(MORE TO COME).

Dear Harish mian,

If you recall, you claimed for over a year that Jinnah did not break his silence (as if he was Gandhiji) for over a week after the Calcutta Killings. As it was in no way relevant to the issue, I accepted your statement in good faith.

Now it turns out that VRV has produced below this statement from Jinnah on the 17 August 1946, next day after the Calcutta Killings:

“I condemn the violence and sympathise with the victims. It was contrary to what the working Committee (of ML) said that some people have acted against the directives (sic)”.

Now either VRV is lying or you were lying all those years. Lets not forget the additional matter of a tailor`s litigation in small claims court ...


Dear VRV,

How long will you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

Please tell me what part of the post below is doctored:

``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``


As for Statesman... if you had seen I had quoted the editorial of Blitz, the Congress Mouthpiece... which holds a diametrically opposite view:


Meanwhile the Congress Mouthpiece ``Blitz`` wrote this about the direct action day:

The worst enemies of the Muslim League cannot help envying the leadership of Mr Jinnah. Last week`s cataclysmic transformation of the League from the reactionary racket of the Muslim Nawabs, Noons, and Knights into a revolutionary mass organisation dedicated, by word if not be deed, to an anti-Imperialist struggle, compels us to express the sneaking national wish that a diplomat and strategist of Jinnah`s proven calibre were at the held of the Indian National Congress. There is no denying the fact that by his latest master-stroke of diplomacy Jinnah has outbid, outwitted and outmaneuvered the British and Congress alike and confounded the common national indictment that the Muslim League is a parasite of British Imperialism

Now why would a Congress Newspaper praise Jinnah if Direct Action Day was all that you are making it out to be...

The fact is that Calcutta was an exception... a well thought out plan by the Congress which sabotaged the League`s programme for temporary political gain....


More on Direct Action

It is funny how Indians here use the word `Direct Action` as if it means some kind of violence in of itself... Infact in the examples of `Direct Action` ... this website speaks of `Non-violent Direct Action` by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr....

http://www.free-definition.com/Direct-action.html

Direct Action simply means civil disobedience... as Dr. King put it:

``Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.``


Now consider H V Hodson`s description of the League Programme:

``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 `The Great Divide`)


Explaining Direct Action Jinnah made it clear that the direct Action will not be in any form but in peaceful form...


``16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner.``

Press Release Jinnah 14th August 1946

Now here is an additional challenge. First you declared that I was educated in the Pakistani system and that was the reason why I was arguing the way I was... now you are declaring that I am reading Pakistani history books. Other than Ayesha Jalal, who you`ve quoted as well, would you give me a single example of a Pakistani history book I have quoted or used in my case... the reason being that I have made my case entirely on Indian and western sources... so are you ready apologise for another one of your lies?

Dear Yasser,

>>>Primary source is better than Newspaper editorials. You did not quote newspaper report you quoted a newspaper editorial. I quoted another newspaper editorial from the Congress camp which actually contradicted the first one. So your point is invalid. <<<

Your `primary source` is a doctored sentence attributed to the Viceroy.

Whereas Statemen is not a Congressi newspaper. Dont read Pak history books. Btw u r free to quote Dawn here.

>>>The rest of your nonsense, which shows me that you don`t have any argument left, falls flat on its face when one considers that I was educated in the West and read all my history in the US. Even my high school education was British... doing IGCSEs and A Levels along with APs. <<<<

I wont take ur gold-plated shit here.

******SOME Jhalak for u.*******

FROM THE PAGES OF WAVELL, THE VICEROY JOURNAL Edited by Penderel Moon (OUP)
(EMPHASIS IN CAPITALS & BRACKETS ARE MINE)

+++++++++++

Page 326. ``...the Legue`s resolution would certainly increase communal tension which was already acute...`` (On ML resolution to reject CM proposals.)

Dated: 17th August, page 334.

On August 16, which the ML had decided to celebrate as Direct Action Day, and which the ML Government of Bengal UNWISELY declared as a pulic holiday, there`s an appalling outbreak of communal rioting in Calcutta that lasted several days.

August 19th. page 335.

I had half and hour meeting with Azad about Calcutta riots and the Interim Govt. He criticised the Bengal Ministry severely, and said that although they had apprehended trouble they had not taken sufficient precaution, as they had been too late in enforcing a total curfew, and the troops had not been called out soon enough.
......
......

Azad is an attractive character and really A MUCH TRUER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MUSLIMS THAN JINNAH. He was obviously worried at the possible fate of the Muslims in such places as Cawnpore and Lucknow.

On his visit to Calcutta on August 26. page 339.

The (Police) Chief points to my mind were Suhrawardy`s continual presence in the Control room on the first day with many M. League friends and HIS OBVIOUS COMMUNAL BIAS, that the victims were entirely goondas and people of the poorest class.; that there were no attcks on the police;

........

I then saw Bucher......commented on the completely COMMUNAL ATTITUDE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER, SUHRAWARDY, when he had driven round with him on the 18th.

The came the Chief Secretary, Walker and his assistant Martin. They agreed on the COMMUNAL BIAS OF SUHRAWARDY........He (i.e Suhrawardy) thought that Calcutta might get thorugh the Id without fresh disturbances unless Jinnah declared a jehad.

.....

I had half an hour or so with the Governor.....he said that Suhrawardy had forfeited everyone`s confidence and suggested the possibility of a Coalition Ministry under Aiz ul Huque.

+++++++++++++++


MORE TO COME.....

PPS: Are you lying again or is it those ``alchopops`` ?

I am looking at the scanned copies you sent me ... and both the letters... to the Nawab and the one to Pethick Lawrence... are dated on the same day and if anything, the letter to Lawrence came after the letter to N-of-Bhopal.

The date of the letter to Lord Pethick Lawrence is clearly there 21st August 1946.

PS: Also I just looked at the article you mention and Ayesha Jalal`s reference is in particular to those who want to attribute an Islamic component to the Pakistan movement... something you wish to do as well. So since I am arguing exactly what Ayesha Jalal is arguing, her point seems more valid about you than me....

Dear VRV,

Here are my responses:

1. Primary source is better than Newspaper editorials. You did not quote newspaper report you quoted a newspaper editorial. I quoted another newspaper editorial from the Congress camp which actually contradicted the first one. So your point is invalid.

2. The rest of your nonsense, which shows me that you don`t have any argument left, falls flat on its face when one considers that I was educated in the West and read all my history in the US. Even my high school education was British... doing IGCSEs and A Levels along with APs.

Ironic... but since you quote Ayesha Jalal as such an authority ... you ought to read what she has written about the Direct Action Day in her book the ``Sole Spokesman``. She also holds that Muslim League as such had nothing to do with the calcutta killings. Once again your nonsense is fallen flat on its face.

Re: # 562

Dear Yasser,

What is better than a newspaper report? The news was compiled by the reporter who saw the events with his own eyes as they unfolded whereas the letter was written by Wavell on 20th (not 21st as quoted by u) based on his report from the govt headed by Suhrawardy. I GUESS U CHANGED THE DATE TO NEGATE MY POINT ON WAVELL`S LETTER TO NAWAB OF BHOPAL IMPLICATING ml. I can see thru that.

In any case ML was absolved as per ur quote that was doctored thoroughly. In reality the actual quote doesn`t absolve ML but says that the Congress HAD NOT PROVIDED THE EVIDENCE YET. What else anybody need an evidence when there was confession by Suhrawardy as per his `confession` as appeared in his book Memoirs of Suhrawardy?

+++++++++++++++++

FOR THOSE CONCENRNED WITH THE TEACHING OF HISTORY IN PAKISTAN:

Dr. Ayesha Jalal wrote in `International Journal of Middle-East Studies, 1995; Cambrdige University Press.

``Although consistent in presenting a generally jaundiced and jumbled view of the past, officially approved textbooks display an exaggerating degree of confusion...... ``

AND

``Diversity born of confused origins and contested sacrifices straightjacketed by a teleological appraoch is what places Pakistan`s history text books among the best available sources for ASSESSING THE NEXUS BETWEEN POWER AND BIGOTRY IN CREATIVE IMAGINING OF A NATIONAL PAST.``

AND

``Evidence culled from the official text books on Pakistani history is a testimony to the imperative of differentiating between the creative bigotry of power and the critical power that vests in creative imaginings``

++++++++++++++

These analysis of Dr.Jalal tells that how Yasser cud be so cussed and ostrich-like.

Dear VRV...

Like I said quoting newspapers and journalese editorials would not cut it. We have primary source evidence ... which says that Muslim League was not involved.

Now you`ve produced the following statement from Jinnah and I thank you for it...

“I condemn the violence and sympathise with the victims. It was contrary to what the working Committee (of ML) said that some people have acted against the directives (sic)”.

So how does it prove that Jinnah was saying that ML was to blame for the violence? He was a gentleman and he was reprimanding those who had exceeded their limits... but by no means can this be taken to mean that he was saying that ML was committing excesses..
In any event... Wavell`s letter is dated 21st August... and it is clear from his letter that there was no evidence of ML`s involvement.

Pl read the last part of #560 by VRV as:

Wavell`s letter didnt absolve ML nor anybody said or implicated Congress so far for DAD violence. Your English comprehension is poor, obviously.

You are brain dead. Really.

As I siad, I am posting replies for public consumption, not for u. In this, I consider u as a dementic who throws these silly points in defence of the goonda party All India Muslim League and first Indian terrorist Jinnah.

Dear Yasser,

Calling the Statesman is a Congressi newspaper is baffling. All historical documents paint Anand Bazar Patrika as Congressi, NOT the Statesmen. I chose this newspaper coz, that was published from Calcutta and run by the Britishers.

You can see the pages of this newspaper of 1946 and thereabout. It always covered the England`s viewpoint. The coverage of domestic news is sparse. So ur ruse is untenable. Ina any case I am giving all this for public consumption, not for you per se.

Francis Tuker said it all and I dont need to repeat them. He saw the ML goondas in the meeting and they went on hacking everybody in their way. Hindus and Sikhs started retaliating from 18th onwards.

The biggest joke u are telling from the beginning is that Congress did violence whereas the DAD was the ML plan! I cud quote what British papers said when the DAD was called for by Jinnah in late July. Pl wait for a couple of days. I am in the process of collating the material from Colindale newspaper library in London.

Wavell said it, Burroughs said it, Tuker said it and Suhrawardy himself said it all. I wud quote what Jinnah said on 17th, verbatim later BUT this is what he said:

“I condemn the violence and sympathise with the victims. It was contrary to what the working Committee (of ML) said that some people have acted against the directives (sic)”.

If ur English is not failing you, this Jinnah statement mean that he acknowledged that his party cadre did the violence. (I WUD POST THAT STATEMENT VERBATIM TOMORROW).

There are two more accounts of Tuker`s subordinates who said it. As I said, I am going to post an omnibus reply and an ilog post to nail all ur versions that ML is a lily angel of DAD. If I can master this photo publishing I wud post that photo of Ml supporters brandishing iron rods and looking for to-be-victims. Instead it was the main accused and got away with its terrorism as the British and Indian leaders are on the verge of a historic development of the Interim Government formation.


>>>... especially Wavell`s letter which clearly holds that there was no evidence of Muslim League`s involvement.... It is clear that it was the CONGRESS PARTY that planned the massacres and violence in true Gandhian Fashion!!! <<<

Wavell`s letter didnt absolve ML not anybody said or implicated Congress so far. Your English comprehension is poor, obviously.

You are brain dead. Really.

As I siad I am posting replies for public consumption, not for u.

Dear VRV,

I take your latest post as an example of your inability to produce any real evidence and now you resorting to ``editorialisation`` of politics. So this is your evidence? An editorial from a Pro-Congress Newspaper? The ``STATESMAN`` was a Pro-Congress Mouthpiece. Do you want me to quote what Dawn said...

Meanwhile the Congress Mouthpiece ``Blitz`` wrote this:

The worst enemies of the Muslim League cannot help envying the leadership of Mr Jinnah. Last week`s cataclysmic transformation of the League from the reactionary racket of the Muslim Nawabs, Noons, and Knights into a revolutionary mass organisation dedicated, by word if not be deed, to an anti-Imperialist struggle, compels us to express the sneaking national wish that a diplomat and strategist of Jinnah`s proven calibre were at the held of the Indian National Congress. There is no denying the fact that by his latest master-stroke of diplomacy Jinnah has outbid, outwitted and outmaneuvered the British and Congress alike and confounded the common national indictment that the Muslim League is a parasite of British Imperialism

Now why would a Congress Newspaper praise Jinnah if Direct Action Day was all that you are making it out to be...

The fact is that Calcutta was an exception... a well thought out plan by the Congress which sabotaged the League`s programme for temporary political gain....


More on Direct Action

It is funny how Indians here use the word `Direct Action` as if it means some kind of violence in of itself... Infact in the examples of `Direct Action` ... this website speaks of `Non-violent Direct Action` by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr....

http://www.free-definition.com/Direct-action.html

Direct Action simply means civil disobedience... as Dr. King put it:

``Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.``


Now consider H V Hodson`s description of the League Programme:

``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 `The Great Divide`)


Explaining Direct Action Jinnah made it clear that the direct Action will not be in any form but in peaceful form...


``16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner.``

Press Release Jinnah 14th August 1946


When read together with the evidence provided earlier... especially Wavell`s letter which clearly holds that there was no evidence of Muslim League`s involvement.... It is clear that it was the CONGRESS PARTY that planned the massacres and violence in true Gandhian Fashion!!!

Dear Yasser,

I am working this weekend and I hope to give u a detailed reply later. In the meanwhile.....

Editorial in `The Statesman` on 20th Aug 1946 (the day Wavell wrote to Nawab of Bhopal implicating Muslim League and his boss in London poiting out Congress accusation against Muslim League and his inability to get evidence at that time to that effect).

``That verdict we repeat. The origin of the appalling carnage and loss in the capital of the great province, we believe the worst communal rioting in India`s history, was a political demonstration by the Muslim League``.

Need no explantion, I guess. If u still feel this challenging for ur peanut brain..........