The ANP Challenge

It was Lord-M and contrary to perception in Pakistan, it was Mountbatten controlling Nehru through his wife and not the other way around.

(Hint: It was neither Jinnah nor Gandhi and only partially Nehru. )

The Brits- Lord M particularly

???

Regards

Harishbhai,

(If they had done so, then you would have argued that since they were unreliable, their words didn't count.)

Indeed I wud have argued just that. But the fact that they did not even bother pointing a finger at MAJ suggests that MAJ was not guilty.

Regards

Re: # 634

PS: Had they done so, indeed that would be the argument. But the fact that they haven't implies that this was not even an issue or an accusation.

Re: # 634

The answer to who was responsible is given by Stanley Wolpert in his book "Shameful Flight". Unfortunately Salman is too dishonest to tell the truth.

Hint: It was neither Jinnah nor Gandhi and only partially Nehru.

#632 by majumdar

If MAJ was really responsible for starting the violence, JLN/MKG wud certainly have pointed fingers at MAJ.

If they had done so, then you would have argued that since they were unreliable, their words didn't count.

In that case we also have to accept that JLN was responsible for massacres of Muslims in East Punjab.

The killings happened on both sides so both sides are to blame. But who was responsible for starting the violence?

Dear Harish bhai,

I am glad you admit the possibility of Jinnah not being involved.

In so far as Calcutta Muslim League goes and Suhrawardy is cocnerned, I have not denied that Suhrawardy may have been responsible inadvertently for the fiasco through his decision of keeping the police but what I cannot accept is that it was bloodshed he wanted because it was his government that was going to suffer (and it did as a result- he was replaced by the Congress CM). Suhrawardy might even have wanted some troubles and disturbances... but he was not that kind of a man. Suhrawardy was certainly not an anti-Hindu Islamic fanatic. You should read about him. You will find Suhrawardy to one of the most secular and liberal politicians in all of South Asia. Reports that MAH Ispahani sent to Jinnah made a note of appreciation that Suhrawardy is trying really hard to stop the violence.

In Gandhi's passion Wolpert did write about "Muslim thugs" but he did not say that they were Muslim leaguers. It is much more possible that Muslim League being a constitutional party was inexperienced and completely unprepared to handle civil disobedience and direct action - as a result of which the Mob went crazy. Similarly there are no "Confessions" in Suhrawardy's memoirs. He only said what I am saying here.

If it is the issue of responsibility, then I admit that the ML was responsible as it did not have the means to control the agitation it had brought about ... but if it is the question of ML leaders deliberately calling for violence as a matter of policy ... I am afraid I cannot agree because the Direct Action Day itself was a day of peaceful civil disobedience which did unfortunately stoke off a communal war in Calcutta and Bihar.

Harishbhai,

JLN/MKG are certainly very unreliable and undesirable persons from my POV. But that is not the point. If MAJ was really responsible for starting the violence, JLN/MKG wud certainly have pointed fingers at MAJ.

(No can separate a ship from its captain.)

In that case we also have to accept that JLN was responsible for massacres of Muslims in East Punjab.

Regards

Yasser, if you do not want to concede that it was with Jinnah's consent that the DAD violence took place, it is okay. I won't press you on it and you may be right. But to deny that the ML started it all even after provocative speeches by leaguers in the days preceding the DAD and Suhrwardy declaring a holiday to the police force, his own confessions in his memoirs and Stanley Wolpert's indictment takes some doing.

Re: # 628

Even the initiation by ML is not clear for reasons I have already mentioned (Salman doesn't quote Wolpert where he says no evidence was found of Muslim League's involvement). All that can be said in my view is that Jinnah's call for direct action day had consequences that Jinnah did not intend or calculate and to that extent Jinnah is responsible as much as Gandhi and Nehru are responsible for violent acts by Congressmen throughout before and after the events of 16th August.

Re: # 626

Infact ... it is their lack of credibility that may strengthen my argument.

Is it not a fact that partisan opponents of Jinnah like Gandhi and Nehru and Azad did not accuse him of violence.

Yasser/Majumdar bhai,

No can separate a ship from its captain. That the ML initiated violence is clear. Whether or not Jinnah wanted it that way does not deflect from the fact that ultimately, the buck stops with him. Do you dispute this?

Re: # 625

For your benefit you may produce any statement from Nehru Gandhi or Patel or Azad or Bacha Khan (your so called largehearted fellows) accusing Jinnah of violence at any time during this "range" of "violent incidents" perpetrated in your imagination. (When we talk of whole range, I am sure you will include the genocide of Muslims in Punjab perpetrated by the Congress under Nehru right? )

BTW we were discussing only one issue : Bacha Khan's contradictory stances in Pakistani politics post 1947. Unable to impeach my arguments, Salman resorted to abusing Jinnah quite unsuccessfully.

The fact of the matter is all the things I said in the article are true. Salman did not have an argument.

1. He has retreated from his claim about Fakir of Ipi... which even ZAKKK admits was closely associated with Bacha Khan.

2. He still hasn't given us evidence for Pir of Manki Sharif's alleged desire to murder Nehru. Nor has he told us why then did Bacha Khan remain so close a friend of this evil Pir of Manki and even lowered him in the grave after his death.

3. He has also failed to respond to my questions about the "evil" KAQK who was an old comrade of KAGK.

#622 by majumdar

But at least we shud have some credible sources from Indian side (MKG/JLN etc) who accused MAJ (pbuh) of inciting violence against Hindoos.

Majumdar bhai, MKG/JLN etc. are credible? I thought they were on your sh!tlist, MKG for sleeping with his nieces (brahmacharya), his advocacy of all things "primitive" and JLN for his sympathies for the commies.

We're trying 2 diff topics here.

I am making comments abt the whole range of violent incidents perpetrated by AIML under Jinnah

&

U r making ref to DAD.

As for Suhrawardy, he himself made it clear thru' the 'Memoirs of Suhrwardy' that they (AIML) 'did it' in the provinces where ML was in power.

Why u need x, y or z to make accusations when he himself admitted to DAD violence?

VRV mian,

That argument doesn't make sense and is void ab initio.

The "too big hearted" fellows did accuse Suhrawardy didn't they? Nehru pointed fingers at Suhrawardy and many other leaguers several times. Why did he shy away from pointing fingers at Jinnah? The way you guys change goal posts is funny and ironic. My only regret is that you deceive simpletons like Salman into permanently dwelling in their fool's paradise.

Please refrain from making partisan statements with no roots in reality.