Pakistan Travelogue II

Re: # 717

To add to this.... if you discount the source for its obvious bias, you will see that logically what I am saying makes sense even according to this source...

Muslim League`s ministry in Calcutta was only surviving because of cross communal alliances that it made with non-Muslim but non-Congress forces

Calcutta violence only threatened to bring down the League ministry... now tell me why would ML choose Calcutta instead of Delhi, where its Direct Action was a rousing success?

If proving hold over Muslims was the issue... it would be much better demonstrated (As it was) in Delhi.... then why Calcutta at the possible expense of the Muslim League ministry?


The bottom line remains... it was an extremely well thought out conspiracy.

Re: # 713


Suffice to say ... the author of ``Facts are sacred`` doesn`t believe in facts... but rather is an articulate fibber... like his illustrious father.

Re: # 713

This is just an opinion. I have read it before. It is not from a credible source. If you put up the website you will see how ONE SIDED this source is.

It goes without saying that Direct Action Day was a complete success else where in India (As my quote from the Congress Paper ``Blitz`` shows above).... and it is also well known that Muslim League had much more muscle in Lahore and Delhi at the time.

Violence in Calcutta weakened the League`s case for a United Bengal... and it tainted their very successful civil disobedience movement with violence .... it forced Jinnah to join the interim government which he did not want to on Congress` terms...

So seriously stop quoting one sided websites... please thank you.

Re: # 714

My point exactly...

In the aftermath of the violence in Calcutta, Jinnah was forced to join the interim government.... so how did Muslim League gain...

BTW .... good thing you haven`t posted the website.... because you know that this editorializing that the author is doing is wrong. I have read it several times, and I am amazed the lack of balance that this guy has...

As for Suhrawardy.... yes it was his negligence that caused such untoward occurences, but it is clear that the ensuing violence saw Hindus wreak havoc on Muslims because they were well prepared...

Manto what to you think about this:

``On the same August 16, 1946, While Mr. Suhrawardy was causing the outbreak of Hindu-Muslims riots in Calcutta, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru was proposing that if Mr. Jinnah co-operated an interim government could be set up comprising six ministers from the Congress, five from the Muslim League and one each from the minority communities of Sikhs, Christians, and Parsis. Mr. Jinnah was however firm on his stands that apart from the Muslim League nominees there would be no Muslim representative in the cabinet. Without this guarantee there could be no advance, he ruled.

This was the only issue on which the whole thing collapsed. It was strange logic. After all, Punjab too was a Muslim-majority province. NWFP had the largest Muslim concentration-of 93 per cent-and it was represented not by the Muslim League but by Khudai Khidmatgars. How could the Muslim League chief then claim the right to nominate a representative on behalf of this province?

The basic fact was that the Muslim League was being accorded its share-in fact more than its share-of seats at the centre. How could it then place a binding on the Congress that the latter should name no Muslim in its own quota of seats? If the Congress had claimed that since Muslim League had a majority only in two provinces, Bengal and Sindh, it could not represent Punjab and NWFP, what would Mr. Jinnah’s legal mind have said to that? If one looks at the situation more closely it would appear that Mr. Jinnah’s principal focus was not the Muslims as such but the establishing of Muslim League’s exclusive domain over all Muslims.

The person most worried was the Viceroy, Lord Wavell. His ‘Breakdown Plan’ was coming to grief. He first pressed on Mr. Nehru to leave five of the cabinet seats vacant against the possibility of Muslim League joining in later. But when Nehru refused on the basis that it had been a condition of the proposal that which over party did not accept it would have to stay out. Wavell himself set out to argue with Mr. Jinnah and wasn’t rested until Mr. Jinnah left no door open.``

August 16, 1946, was fixed as the day of direct action. There wasn’t much that the Muslim League could do anywhere save Bengal, where it had its ministry with Mr. Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy as the chief minister. (In fact the assembly there had 25 British members, but for whose support the Muslim League could not have attained the necessary majority to stay in power.) The provincial government thus itself announced direct action, and declared complete holiday on that day so that the whole government machinery could take part in organising meetings and processions it was an odd situation that the local administration itself was setting out to create a law and order problem. If the action was to cause Hindu-Muslim friction, its fires were bound to spread to the rest of the country. What would then happen in the provinces where Muslims were in a minority? It was characteristic of Muslim League politics that the party was strongest in the non-Muslim majority areas. Who would gain by communal riots there? And who would lose?

The Bengal chief minister thus himself led the direct action in his province – and it had its predictable consequences. Riots started. The Muslims had lit the fire, the Hindus fanned it, and the Sikh caused widespread devastation. Muslims were in a minority in Calcutta. Sikhs had virtual control over the city’s transport. Almost all taxis were run by them. According to Hodson:

Whole streets were strewn with corpses – men, women and children of all communities – impossible to count, let alone identify. If the Muslims gave the provocations and started the holocaust, they were certainly its worst victims for they were in a minority in the city.

Being a commercial centre, Calcutta was filled with migrant labour and trading classes from different parts of the country. It was especially a magnet for the people from the poor and backward neighbouring province of Bihar, a majority of who were non-Muslims. When this mix of migrants fled to their homes in the wake of the communal riots and carried tales – no doubt exaggerated in the telling – of arson, loot, rape and murder, the fire of hate and revenge spread to all corners and it caused an outburst of incredible barbarism.

Re: # 711

PS: Hartal means strike in Urdu... a kind of a boycott.

Re: # 710

Much better... I have no problem accepting that Muslim League`s plans in Calcutta went haywire... For this screw up .... Suhrawardy lost his job as ML`s Boss in Bengal... and was replaced by Nazimuddin who was untainted with violence.

Re: # 708

``If there was a much higher death toll of Muslims as affirmed by Patel and Wavell, that proves that the Hindus had planned much earlier to teach Muslims a lesson. ``

It just proves that Hindus were more strong in that region which could be attributed to their numerical strength. Later in Bihar Muslims were at the receiving end and in Noakhali the Hindus.


``Actually here is where you fail to realize that it was counterproductive for Muslim League to get blamed for violence in Bengal where it had a government. ``

I am not saying that ML would have pre-planned violence. But it is quite simple not to expect any untoward action during such a charged environment. Even at present times Hartal means violence. Guj also exploded on the pretext of bandh/hartal.

Re: # 706

``Jinnah`s ``Muslim Goons`` were killing ``Innocent Hindus``... but still the Muslim Death toll as affirmed by Lord Wavell and Patel was several times more than the Hindu death toll... ``

No one is saying that only muslims killed hindus. What people are saying is the brutal violence unleashed by Muslim thugs in Calcutta had triggered Hindu counterattacks. The same thing happened during Mumbai riots too.

Also, another point where we differ is you blaming Gandhi and Congress for starting the riots and absolving Jinnah of any blame. Which we think is foolhardy.

Re: # 707

Actually here is where you fail to realize that it was counterproductive for Muslim League to get blamed for violence in Bengal where it had a government.

If there was a much higher death toll of Muslims as affirmed by Patel and Wavell, that proves that the Hindus had planned much earlier to teach Muslims a lesson.

I find it strange that despite a ``Strong establishment`` and ``Government`` Muslims lost several times more lives than the Hindus.

Remember it was Lord Wavell who after investigating the matter ruled out any Bengal Muslim League involvement....

Manto:

About Jinnah denouncing the riots doesn`t mean much, its same as Vajpayee doing the same during Guj. riots.

Regarding Patels letter, conspirators don`t divulge their intentions by writing a memo. Also, if i gloated your muslim deaths in guj doesn`t mean i conspired and participated. (just an example)

So get over the Congress thug theory. Even after partition the muslims have voted enmass for decades in favor of congress.

Congress did to ML what they would have done to Jan Sangh/RSS of that time.

``Re: # 703

Delhi as a city had a much larger Muslim population ... so did Lahore. Bengal having a large Muslim population is immaterial. ``

along with muslim populaiton, ML had a strong political establishment in Bengal.

Ladies and gentlemen...

What logic by the Indians...

Jinnah`s ``Muslim Goons`` were killing ``Innocent Hindus``... but still the Muslim Death toll as affirmed by Lord Wavell and Patel was several times more than the Hindu death toll...

Now either the ``Innocent Hindus`` were Super Human or they were not Innocent

While these ``Innocent Hindus`` massacred ``Muslim Goons`` , not a voice of protest was heard from the Mahatma of Nonviolence... or any of the other leaders....

Infact .... Patel gloated over the success of the Congress (which was supposed to represent both Hindus and Muslims) in killing off many more Muslims in Calcutta!

Re: # 703

Delhi as a city had a much larger Muslim population ... so did Lahore. Bengal having a large Muslim population is immaterial.

The fact of the matter is that Congress arranged and planned the whole thing ... to taint the Muslim League`s successful civil disobedience ....

Re: # 701

The extract you provided says nothing of Jinnah being responsible... so lets not lie ok?

Re: # 699


``You still haven`t explained why this didn`t get violent any where else? especially in Delhi and Lahore where Muslim League could have created some real trouble and put the blame on the government?``

Bengal had the largest concentration of Muslim population in India. Could it be because Muslim League was in ruling Bengal and Sindh only. Punjab was with Unionist and Delhi with Congress(?). It was only in Bengal that the Muslim League succeeded in forming
``relatively`` stable ministries in the two decades before the British quit
in 1947. It is a verified fact that out of 100 million Muslim populations in British-India, 33 million were from Bengal province. The leaders of Bengal Provincial Muslim League (BPML) were among the vanguards that had spearheaded the Pakistan Movement.

Moreover your constant claim that ML wanted a united Bengal doesn`t mean that they were generous. What they wanted was Calcutta sans the Hindus (if necessary). Calcutta had the jute mills whereas Eastern Bangla had raw jute.
the ``Great Calcutta Killing`` of August 1946 and the violence in the Noakhali district (east Bengal) seven weeks later, some people call the beginning of the ``partition riots.`` These riots helped persuade many that ``Pakistan`` was the only answer to India`s communal problem. These partition riots completed the convergence between elite and popular communalism and were significantly different from all preceding instances of Hindu-Muslim violence, being well-organized and overtly communal, religious, and political. Both upper and lower social classes were involved as institutional political leaders also directly mobilized the crowd.

The great Calcutta killings (even after it ended after Gandhis fast) brought to fore the Hindu-Muslim schism, Ajaz Ahmad (pak journalist) even wondered whether pak would have been formed if there were no bengal riots. So, why would congress thugs start these riots. Also Congress ruled NWFP at that time too. Why would it take communal stand?


``The Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946 was so effective that the dream of a separate homeland was realised by August 1947, said Prime Minister Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain .``
I wonder how?