Remembering a great Pakistani: Sir Zafrullah Khan

Dear VRV,

The full text of what you`ve mailed me is even more unflattering to the Congress Party... I would love to paste the scanned copy of what you sent me ... and I have tried but I don`t know how to... I do hope that someone tells us how because it will conclusively expose you as the liar you are...


In the meanwhile please tell me if the following text is not from your email...

From VRV`s email

I am quoting directly from what you sent me Page 274 of Volume VIII of the TRANSFER OF POWER by Mansergh:

``2. The 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..``


Please tell me how the hell then am I lying .... this is from your source...

Harish,

1. Thanks for the post. He kept quoting a letter from Viceroy Wavell which he quoted in a wrong way. I explained to him that:

“Hang him not, spare him AND Hang him, not spare him” mean two different things.

2. I have the official transcripts of Muslim League meetings (edited by Syed Sharifuddin, Pak). If I dissect the speeches of the 23 leaders and Jinnah then the intention of DAD wud be much more clearer (apart from what u quoted from various ML leaders during that period).

Harish pl give me ur email, so that I can send u the pages and u can post them here. He`s chickening out from that job.

Yasser,

This is a clear case of breach of trust. I asked to post them here and u chickened out BUT gave a few sentences to support your theory?? There are more sentences that implicate Suhrawardy. Please post them without delay. I dint send them to ur personal record BUT for posting on this board.

``No satisfactory evidence not reaching YET the Viceroy meant NO evidence againt Muslim League?``.


Abt the far-fecthed and no violence in Sind, pl read what Suhrawardy said in the book ``Memoirs of Shaheed Suhrawardy``.

Who taught you Law and who gave u the degree in Law?

I wudnt take any bullshit. Please post the pages here.

You repeated the TWISTED QUOTE for 20 (or so) times:

``I`ve found no evidence of Muslim League involvement in Calcutta killings and appreciably larger number of Muslims died than Hindus”.

However the letter says:

“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.”

HOW CAN THESE QUOTES WUD BE THE SAME??

In any case half-truths are misleading. Let the people read the full text of the letter and a letter from Wavell to the Nawab of Bhopal (written on the same day page 273), which decries Direct Action Day as unwise and unnecessary and says further that ‘THE RESULTS OF THIS ARE ALREADY EVIDENT IN THE DREADFUL HAPPENINGS IN CALCUTTA’.

These letters were written on 21st (i.e within a week of the Great Calcutta Killings) when the violent incidents were happenings all over Calcutta and its echo in other parts of India. How can there be a finality of judgment as to who died more and who less?

NOW YOU ARE HIDING BEHING STANLEY WOLPERT????

I think ur standards of morality is different from that of mine. When u quote a letter of a person, u cant be so liberal with the language, which is dangerous ab initio.

For ur benefit I explain:

Please read what I quoted from Suhrawardy on a) why killings in Calcutta (the point of Wavell is answered) not in Sind and b) the inference that more Muslims died than Hindus, please read the report of the Surgeon General of Bengal and my explanation to that. Viceroy depends on the report of the Bengal Home Ministry. Any report sent by Suhrawardy wud not be free from bias since deaths were happening all over Calcutta and many deaths were unaccounted for (bodies cut into pieces, thrown into gutters and Hoogley river etc…).

The record was straight that Suhrawardy controlled the work in Police control room which was referred to as bizarre by the commissioner of Police.

IF YOU HAVE ANY IOTA OF PRESTIGE, PLEASE POST THE PAGES WITHOUT DELAY. Breach of trust wud hence be another point of grudge between us.

And here is from your own attachment

I am quoting directly from what you sent me Page 274 of Volume VIII of the TRANSFER OF POWER by Mansergh:

``2. The 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..``


Please tell me how the hell then am I lying .... this is from your source...

I just read your email and the attachments...

Could you tell me if it doesn`t say that

a. the Viceroy did not have any evidence of Muslim League`s involvement...

b. that appreciably more Muslims died than Hindus...

Simply answer these questions....

Yes or no will do...

Another response to VRV`s lies

Now don`t hide behind the semantics...

Here is a simple test:

Did Wavell not make these two claims in his letter to Pethick Lawrence of 21st August 1946:

1. More Muslims died than Hindus.

2. He had seen no evidence of Muslim League`s involvement.

If he made these two statements... which he did ... and I proved he did.... then you have been proved a first rate liar. Hiding behind technicalities would not get you off the hook...


private delete

September 27, 2006

VRV caught lying in grand style....

Why is it that people bluff like there is no tomorrow when they know that they’d be caught lying conclusively and shamed into a moral blackening of the face? Atif2 does it regularly but it is expected of the mullahs… why does VRV do it or do all Indians do it…

VRV has been … shamelessly and without any discernable self respect… accusing me of lying … well apparently the source I put up was also used by Professor Stanley Wolpert of UCLA in his book “Jinnah of Pakistan” … a good 20 years before I first used it.


On Pages 286-287 of Jinnah of Pakistan, OUP, 1993 edition Stanley Wolpert writes and I quote:

‘On August 21, Wavell informed Pethick Lawrence that “the present estimate” of casualties was 3000 dead and 17,000 injured. Congress was convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League ministry but the Viceroy had as yet seen no “satisfactory evidence to that effect.” The latest estimate of casualties was that “appreciably more Muslims than Hindus were killed” ’

The citation has been numbered 22… and the corresponding note on Page 395

It reads:

22. Wavell to Pethick Lawrence, August 21, 1946, Mansergh, Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, P.274

People like VRV and his cheerleaders BJKumar feel that by abusing me and impugning my integrity they can change the facts that are easily verifiable… but unfortunately this is an exercise in futility. Ultimately… they face the embarrassment that Atif2 has become so accustomed to.

Lets argue on facts and stop firing shots in the dark... let me assure you that I don`t make a comment without being sure of its veracity.

Re: # 533

Pl read 533 (point 6) as :

6. In the end, I conclude that u are a habitual liar and I hereby stamp ur forehead - as many done to u b4 - as a LIAR.

i/o

6. In the end, I conclude that u are a habitual liar and I hereby stamp ur forehead - as many done b4 to u - as a LIAR.

Yasser,

The same old story. Pl publish the 3 pages that I am sending. That shud clear all the doubts.

1. Wavell has NOT said (as u quoted him):

``I`ve found no evidence of Muslim League involvement in Calcutta killings and appreciably larger number of Muslims died than Hindus”.

Instead he said (as I quoted) :

``Congress was convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League ministry but the Viceroy had as yet seen no “satisfactory evidence to that effect.”

Pl examine this again:

``I`ve found no evidence of Muslim League involvement in Calcutta killings...``

AND

``...the Viceroy had as yet seen no “satisfactory evidence to that effect`` (i.e. trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League ministry).

Any person with average intelligence wud tell that those two sentences do not mean the same.

REMEMBER THE HOME PORTFOLIO WAS BEING HANDLED BY SUHRAWARDY. Whatever Wavell wud quote shall be be coming from official channels. Being the mothered communal Muslim Leaguer he`s I dont expect him to give the true picture of the actual happenings. Instead I wud depend on the Army boss i.e Burroughs.

As for Francis Tuker said and was repeated by Wavell is that:

``Whatever were the immediate causes of the outbreak, it is clear that when it was started Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as the Muslims``.

(Btw, I dont expect them to be like lambs to be butchered by Muslim League thugs).

As for More Muslims died than Hindus, I replied and I do it again: There can be any accurate report of deaths and that was corroborated by the accounts of reporters and officials. Many dead bodies were thrown into Hoogly river and gutters. Where is the count? I also quoted Surgeon General of Bengal on this. It was only the guestimation. Moreover wud Suhrawardy give an anti-Muslim League report?

HOWEVER, THE BOASTS OF SUHRAWADY EXPOSED THE REASONS FOR DAD AND WHY IN BENGAL and u can find it in the book “Memoirs of Shaheed Suhrawardy.”


LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST: DONT MISINTERPRET HISTORY AND ESPECIALLY THE QUOTES OF THE CORRESPONDENCE,

coz there is diff between:

“Note: Hang Yasser

AND

Not hang Yasser.”

As for the rants on Gandhi and implicating Gandhi for Calcutta violence, please produce any primary source of evidence. Secondly, u didnt produce an evidence that Muslim League wanted to nominate a Hindu to the Interim Government within their quota.

Dear VRV,

Now don`t hide the semantics...

Did Wavell not make these two claims in his letter to Pethick Lawrence of 21st August 1946:

1. More Muslims died than Hindus.

2. He had seen no evidence of Muslim League`s involvement.

If he made these two statements... which he did ... and I proved he did.... then you have been proved a first rate liar. Hiding behind technicalities would not get you off the hook...


As for the rest of your comments... I quoted Sir Francis Tuker`s comments where he speaks of clear evidence of Hindus and Sikhs being armed to kill ... who was arming them. Patel and the Congress high command... with the backing of ``Mahatma`` Gandhi. And this is not the first time Gandhi was proved to be behind such clandestine violent activities... do you want me to quote Annette Doherty`s deposition where she accuses Gandhi`s followers of getting her husband murdered and then accuses Gandhi of trying to bribe her to shut up?

Yasser,

1. In your view both the sentences mean the same thing????

>>>>Congress was convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League ministry but the Viceroy had as yet seen no “satisfactory evidence to that effect.”

=

``I`ve found no evidence of Muslim League involvement in Calcutta killings and appreciably larger number of Muslims died than Hindus”. <<<<<

2. What the same Wavell said afterwards was provided in my posts in the same pages of the board. Pl go back and check. Pl also read what Burroughs said and what Suhrawrdy said (that appeared in Memoirs of Suhrawardy).

THIS IS CLASSIC YASSER LATIF HAMDANI.

You are nothing but an unadulterated liar.

3. On the same day Wavell wrote another letter to the Nsawab of Bhopal. Wavel decries the Direct Action as unwise and unnecessary. THE RESULTS OF THIS ARE ALREADY EVIDENT IN THE DREADFUL HAPPENINGS IN CALCUTTA.

So Muslim League is absolved in these statements???

4. In page 275; from the letter of Wavell to Pethick Lawrence.

``The trouble is that rank and file of the League consist very largely of unstable elements in the towns and of students and many of them ARE NOW INCAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT ON POLITICAL MATTERS.``

Do u need more indictment of Ml than this on the mentality of ML cadres?

5. I know that I never came across this sentence that exonerated Muslim League but I kept quiet and gave u benefit of doubt till I found the actual text. OTOH, u called the quotes from the Memoirs of Suhrawardy as lies, which were proved to be wrong. Moreover u said abt a Hindu minister to be nominated by Muslims League. Pl give more info otherwise that wud also be considered as another lie.

6. In the end, I conclude that u are a habitual liar and I hereby stamp ur forehead - as many done b4 to u - as a LIAR.

Best wishes for the remaining lies with the remaining Chowkies! :-)

And this is the evidence:


On Pages 286-287 of Jinnah of Pakistan, OUP, 1993 edition Stanley Wolpert writes and I quote:

‘On August 21, Wavell informed Pethick Lawrence that “the present estimate” of casualties was 3000 dead and 17,000 injured. Congress was convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League ministry but the Viceroy had as yet seen no “satisfactory evidence to that effect.” The latest estimate of casualties was that “appreciably more Muslims than Hindus were killed” ’

The citation has been numbered 22… and the corresponding note on Page 395

It reads:

22. Wavell to Pethick Lawrence, August 21, 1946, Mansergh, Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, P.274

On a private note people like you, Harish mian and BJKumar feel that by abusing me and impugning my integrity they can change the facts that are easily verifiable… but unfortunately this is an exercise in futility. Ultimately… they face the embarrassment that Atif2 has become so accustomed to.

Lets argue on facts and stop firing shots in the dark... let me assure you that I don`t make a comment without being sure of its veracity.

Dear VRV,

Like the mad mullah, you also have an old disease ... you feel that by singing this mantra of abuse and lies you can shut me up. You know, as well my other detractors including madmullah`s secret alias BJKumar, that the reference I have given you is exact on the dot.

The fact is that you always reject without checking properly. This is not the first time you`ve done it. Infact... the reference is there on both 274 of Volume VIII and the other one as well. I am not going to give into your bad behavior. Calling me a liar, abusing me and falsifying information which can easily be verified will not help you win arguments. So keep going in circles... but the fact is that only is the said information there on the said pages... but I`ll tell you where I got the reference from...

Stanley Wolpert quotes the same reference that I have quoted and the entire line in his book ``Jinnah of Pakistan``. I`ll give you the page number in a few hours...

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


Not only that a reference to the same letter is made by an Indian website which is from the content quite anti-Pakistan...it asserts:

In his letter to Pethick-Lawrence, Wavell had reported that appreciably more Muslims than Hindus had been killed.

http://www.indhistory.com/mutiny-interim-government.html


Continuously calling me a liar and abusing me will not help you win your case. I have seen the reference myself and many many many people have quoted it in their books and articles...
for you to get up and deny it.

My suggestion... check the volume and the pages again and send me the scanned copies as you suggested to yasser.hamdani@gmail.com.... if you don`t send me the copies in two days, I will assume that you were putting up a show with malafide intent.

Yasser! What can I say abt this repetition?

YOU HAVE DONE IT AGAIN! YES, YOU DONT HAVE AN IOTA OF SHAME TO TELL A LIE!

I have taken copies of the pages 273, 274 and 275. I shall send it to ur email. Pl publish them here for the benefit of all the readers. Things wud be much clearer to everybody. THERE IS NO SENTENCE AS GIVEN BY YOU (BELOW) THAT IS RELATED TO WAVELL. YOU ARE EXPOSED AGAIN!! POOR LIAR-E-AZAM!!

(Please publish all the three pages. That`s my condition.)

>>>``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) <<<<

Another gem from you, obviously another lie. I have explained why the Suhrawardy’s (also the Home Minister) govt’s accounts cant be taken as I quoted the report Bengal Surgeon General. It was the common knowledge that many bodies were thrown into gutters, Hoogly river.

>>>Congress planned and carried out Calcutta Killings to perfection<<<<

Another lie!

>>>>You ask why Jinnah wanted a 5:5 arrangement in the constituent assembly .. because it was the interim government to preside over the constitution making process and not the government itself. <<<

So, you demand more than ur share of people`s representation? Why object to non-League Muslims?

>>>>>The Cabinet Mission Plan- which Jinnah had accepted-, around which the constitution was to be made, was going to be perfectly democratic - indicative of one man one vote.... if you read the provisions of the Cabinet Mission Plan you will see that Muslims would end up getting only 33% total representation <<<<

Another stupidity of Jinnah. If the Indian Muslims constitute 26%, how u demand 33% and u call it democratic, not to mention that NOT all Muslims backed and voted for League?

>>>>Congress cornered him by resorting to violence in Calcutta.<<<<

One lie after another!!!!!

>>>He then bounced back by nominating a Hindu as one of Muslim League`s five representatives in the interim government thus broadening the basis of his claim. <<<

Pl quote the relevant page of this info, if u are not inventing history, please.

>>>This is something Indians still complain about. Talking of devil possessing me and other such garbage is useless talk when we are discussing academic points and so far your sources have actually proved my points instead of yours. <<<<

People with inverted brains can do such things.

>>>Also what point did this Norman Brown make because you failed as usual to paste <<<

Norman Brown was reviewing the Indian political scene at that time i.e. b4 independence. That’s all.

As for me posting the pages, my iBook or my knowledge fails me. I do use copy and paste commands but it doesn’t work. So, I send the pages to u. Please post them here.

PEOPLE WUD BE MUCH MORE ENLIGHTENED ABOUT UR LIES!!!

Dear VRV,

You can call me whatever you wish- I would not care ... after all you call yourself the lion so it doesn`t matter what you call me... I do however recommend you read Saadat Hassan Manto`s ``Mera Sahab``, the tribute to the life of Mahomed Ali Jinnah.

Now your points are ridiculous ab initio. We have the viceroy on the record saying that he found no evidence of Muslim League`s involvement. From your own sources (Tuker and Suhrawardy) it is clear that Hindus and Sikhs were armed by Congress leadership... and it is Patel who is found gloating over the events of Calcutta.

Why- the blood of innocents was spilt precisely to force Jinnah to accept the 6:5 arrangement. That is exactly what happened... Congress planned and carried out Calcutta Killings to perfection and Jinnah was left with no option but to back down from his position lest more blood be spilt. Infact... I think Jinnah shouldn`t have backed down. One should never appease fascists... and Congress was exactly that.

You ask why Jinnah wanted a 5:5 arrangement in the constituent assembly .. because it was the interim government to preside over the constitution making process and not the government itself. The Cabinet Mission Plan- which Jinnah had accepted-, around which the constitution was to be made, was going to be perfectly democratic - indicative of one man one vote.... if you read the provisions of the Cabinet Mission Plan you will see that Muslims would end up getting only 33% total representation and that too would not be completely league dominated. But Jinnah`s hand was forced. Congress cornered him by resorting to violence in Calcutta. He then bounced back by nominating a Hindu as one of Muslim League`s five representatives in the interim government thus broadening the basis of his claim . This is something Indians still complain about. Talking of devil possessing me and other such garbage is useless talk when we are discussing academic points and so far your sources have actually proved my points instead of yours.

Also what point did this Norman Brown make because you failed as usual to paste it.

I prefer not to call u Manto as I learned from my readings that this doesn`r suit you. Therefore you`d be called either Yasser or Mr. Hamdanai, never Manto (if this has relation to Sadat Hasan Manto).

Yasser,

Are u going to tell that direct Action Day was the plan of non-Muslim Leaguers (Congressmen) who were hell-bent on achieving Pakistan? I guess that you also expect the non-League Indians to await their heaven-sent death at the hands of League goonds? Wah bhai wah!

Here is a point from the research article of Prof. Norman Brown in 1947 (American Philosophical Journal):

Suhrawardy was quoted in New York Times as saying that Muslims shall be the ruling race in India.

WHY??? What abt the democratic pricniple? Why Jinnah want parity with Congress at 5:5 instead of proportional representation (not even 6:5 which he accepted after much bloodshed, the Devil). Jinnah`s war cry originated from this principle of petulence. Jinnah was also adamant that Congress cant nominate Dr. Zakir Hussain or Azad from the quota of Congress?????? Therer was this rule in the White Paper of Atlee that one party cant object to the nominations of the other party. Being a legal eagle the Jinnah was, where was propriety in his petulence?

Another from Suranjan Das: Young Hinu boys were sacrificed in the mosques imitating the Hindu sacrifices of animals in Kali temple. Those mad ML men too were possessed by Jinnah at that time.

WHY THIS VISCERAL HATRED?

Jinnah after all joined the govt after seeing the blood of thousands of innocents?? Why this savage mentality???????

So much for the democratic mentality of League and Jinnah that they cant take one seat less in the Interim Govt, which is many times higher than their vote share in India then?

As for violence: Did I ever quote anything outside the original reports??? Never!

Had I been writing a book I wud have taken an academic view of the issue and judged the facts but I am arguing that Muslim Legue and its obstinence as the reason for the bloodshed in Calcutta. Suhrawardy was the man who who took upon himself the job of enforing the DAD thru violence. If the aggrieving communties replied and retaliated, they are humans too. U expect them to be killed with devotion???

I also heard u telling that Suhrawadry`s people died. What does that mean? He was supposed to be representing all the people, not just Muslim Leaguers (these ML goons even attacked the hse of the ex-Speaker of Bengal assembly who was a Muslim. His fault? He was a Congressman, in the parlanace of Jinnah, a quisling).

Perhaps u are possessed with the devil that u justify the misdeeds i.e blood and gore STARTED BY THE ML. That`s why u dont deserve this name Manto.

Dont explain that Direct Action Day was Congress and Gandhi`s plan. Thanks but no thanks.

PPPS:

VRV sahab

I just checked...

An apology is in order. You are right. Wavell`s letter is not on Page 879 Volume IX.... but Page 274 Volume VIII...

I found it while looking through one of your references and it turns out that you read it and deliberately omitted it:

``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)

PPS: VRV I just discovered the real reason why you are acting so badly... you deliberately distorted Sir Francis Tuker`s account below as well:


Sir Francis Tuker

Courtesy: While Memory Serves
(London: Cassell, 1950), pp. 137-151



From then onwards the area of military domination of the city was increased. Static guards took over from police guards and a party of troops under Major Littleboy, the Assistant Provost-Marshal, did valuable work in the rescue organisation for displaced and needy persons. Outside the `military` areas, the situation worsened hourly. Buses and taxis were charging about loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and firearms.

You very cleverly substituted the bold part with ``people`` thinking that I wouldn`t catch it. Shame on you... Thankfuly it was one of your own Indian compatriots who pointed out this blatant lie in your argument....I await your ``Photocopy`` of the page that you are now going to put up from a different volume than the one I stated.