Pakistan Travelogue II

Manto,

Sorry for joining in uninvited. But did you show stuka all the Lahore landmarks named after Dr. Abdus Salam.

Regards

The real face of Gandhi`s non-violence

From Richard Grenier`s famous essay in Commentary the American Jewish Committee Magazine...

http://eserver.org/history/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt

Skeptics might also not be surprised to learn that as independence approached, Gandhi`s inner voice began to change its tune. It has been reported that Gandhi ``half-welcomed`` the civil war that broke out in the last days. Even a fratricidal ``bloodbath`` (Gandhi`s word) would be preferable to the British.

And suddenly Gandhi began endorsing violence left, right, and center. During the fearsome rioting in Calcutta he gave his approval to men ``using violence in a moral cause.``


There is other stuff in this article that makes even more disturbing reading...

Re: # 779

Ha ha is not a good answer.

I accept your concession of defeat despite the fact that you don`t know how to gracefuly bow out.

#778 by Mantolives

[What could Jinnah do to stop the Marauding maiming Hindu crowd.]

Ha! Ha! Ha! No answer again? That`s okay. After all, I knew I had you by the balls when I asked that question. Almost a 100 posts later, its still the same. No answers.

[BTW I used TIME for a direct quote (hence the extract).... not a claim about history.]

What difference does that make? The very same report clearly said that Muslims started the violence.

Since it has now been proved beyond a shadow of doubt that you don`t have any answers to the questions I asked, I will put an end to your troubles by leaving you to revel in your misery.

Re: # 777

What could Jinnah do to stop the Marauding maiming Hindu crowd.

Thanks for admitting that You have NO ANSWERS to very direct and logical questions that prove that your source is inaccurate. BTW I used TIME for a direct quote (hence the extract).... not a claim about history. I used Transfer of Power papers as legitimate information.

Your abuses and insults just go to prove that you have lost your marbles completely.

These questions remain unanswered:

1) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML not choose Delhi or Lahore where it had much more muscle and where it could blame it on another government?

2) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML didn`t start it else where in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority?

3) Why if ML had preplanned the whole thing, did Hindus still manage to kill many times more Muslims than Hindus? Are Hindus superhuman? Or do God`s deities help them?

4) Why was Patel gloating if Congress had nothing to do with it? Was it Hindu Pride? or was it an indication of Congress plan working ... as in destabilizing the cross communal alliance on which ML ministry stood?

5) Why was the direct action day an overwhelming success, as evidenced by the Congress paper, all over India, and yet no violence broke out where Muslim League was the strongest or where Jinnah himself was physically present?

6) Why didn`t communal violence break out in Bombay where Muslim League had won 40 seats and which was by far the most volatile Indian city?

7) Why did Lord Wavell who was in the Congress Pocket absolve Muslim League Ministry of all blame for Calcutta?

#775 by Mantolives

[Harish Hyd, you are losing it.]

Its the other way round buddy. Still no answers? Jinnah did nothing? We knew that all along.

[Your sources were journalese at best.]

Oh!! So now Wolpert`s book is journalese. The Time report was not journalese when you cleverly pulled out extracts, but suddenly became `journalese` when I did it? Ha! Ha! Ha! What next? Will you say Wolpert never existed? Amazing turnaround really. For a man who would quote Wolpert at the drop of a hat, you have surpassed your hero, who was once the ``ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity`` but later on made a U-turn to become the opportunist thug who wanted to lord over Pakistan.

[I don`t blame you for having lost your senses completely. Truth and myth-shattering can take its toll on people.]

Ha! Ha! Ha! Coming from you, this is really rich. I mean a Paki, brought up on a steady diet of hatred of Hindus and India is talking about shattering myths? With you, I have witnessed first-hand what happens to even supposedly educated men when they are indoctrinated with hatred. No wonder, the Jinhadis that come out of Madarssas are so well motivated. But at least they can be excused on grounds of poor education. What excuse have you got to make?

Re: # 773

So thats how you win arguments ... resorting to abuse. Very democratic of you. Is it any wonder that Hindu crowds in Calcutta in 1946 went violent?

Logic and truth has a strange effect on you chaps.

Re: # 774

Harish Hyd, you are losing it. Please don`t flatter yourself about proving something conclusively because you haven`t. Your sources were journalese at best. I gave you primary sources that were a convincing rebuttal.

I have given you two very convincing sources to prove that it was the Congress Party and Hindus that planned and caused the murder and mayhem in Calcutta. Both of these sources are from the ``Transfer of Power papers``. The sources you have quoted are mere opinions and nothing more. I also quoted Hodson as saying that the Muslim League leadership clearly didn`t want violence.

I also quoted above Lord Wavell the viceroy in a confidential letter expressing clearly that there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE OF MUSLIM LEAGUE INVOLVEMENT ... this is the same Lord Wavell who was trying to give Nehru the interim government.

So far I have seen nothing but insults and abuse from you.

Yes The Muslim League did call for direct acton day a day for peaceful Hartal. It was PEACEFUL all over India. In Calcutta it was deliberately sabotaged a Hindu crowd that had barricaded the city. Your argument is akin to saying that Pakistan Cricket team caused the Delhi crowd to go violent yesterday by beating India.

I asked you seven questions which would overturn the basis for your questions:

1) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML not choose Delhi or Lahore where it had much more muscle and where it could blame it on another government?

2) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML didn`t start it else where in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority?

3) Why if ML had preplanned the whole thing, did Hindus still manage to kill many times more Muslims than Hindus? Are Hindus superhuman? Or do God`s deities help them?

4) Why was Patel gloating if Congress had nothing to do with it? Was it Hindu Pride? or was it an indication of Congress plan working ... as in destabilizing the cross communal alliance on which ML ministry stood?

5) Why was the direct action day an overwhelming success, as evidenced by the Congress paper, all over India, and yet no violence broke out where Muslim League was the strongest or where Jinnah himself was physically present?

6) Why didn`t communal violence break out in Bombay where Muslim League had won 40 seats and which was by far the most volatile Indian city?

7) Why did Lord Wavell who was in the Congress Pocket absolve Muslim League Ministry of all blame for Calcutta?


I don`t blame you for having lost your senses completely. Truth and myth-shattering can take its toll on people.

#770 by Mantolives

[How does this prove that Calcutta riots were his doing.]

Because the old crook called for Direct Action after his cohorts were baying for Hindu blood. This can mean only one thing. The riots were raging and Jinnah did squat to silence his goons who had gone berserk after his call for DA. Even a Kindergarten kid would know whom to hold responsible.

[Let me remind you that during that week Gandhi also did not go.]

Gandhi DID NOT call for Direct Action. It was your hero who did that and it was he who had to go there and calm the tempers. Are you so stupid that you can`t understand such a simple thing?

[The Indian leadership including Gandhi and Jinnah was negotiating a settlement with the Viceroy]

Really? Was Jinnah so busy ``negotiating a settlement with the Viceroy`` that he could not spare a couple of minutes and issue a statement calling for cessation of violence? Some excuse that is!!

[Jinnah visited the rioting mobs in Karachi in August-September 1947 and even saved Gandhi`s statue.]

Wow, what a noble gesture!! A man who called for and silently witnessed the brutal killings of thousands of Hindus and Muslims in Calcutta just a year ago, was now saving statues!!

[Now that I have answered your irrelevant questions.... will you answer mine?]

Not so fast buddy. You still haven`t answered as to what Jinnah did to stop the riots. If he did issue a statement calling for the violence to stop, provide the exact quotes. If no, accept it and go home when you still have the time.

You said the Congress started the riots, but I have conclusively proved that it was the ML that was to blame from two different sources, including one from the very report from which you selectively culled extracts that were in your opinion absolving Jinnah of culpability. You were trying to be too smart by half, but as it has always happened with you, you were caught with your you-know-what down.

Answer this before hoping to get your questions answered.

re:#772 by Mantolives
``I am not going to end this thread.... ``
O.K.
Keep barking.
Sridhar

Re: # 771

I am not going to end this thread.... just because you can`t answer the questions as usual.

Your refusal to answer the questions is indicative of your bigotry.... just like the crowd in Delhi today... and the rioting murdering maiming Hindu Mob in Calcutta in 1946....

Theories are NEVER static. Clearly when the top Congress leadership gloats over more Muslims dying than Hindus.... then TNT was not a theory it was a fact. It was minoritarianism not majoritarianism. It is also a fact that Pakistan could not exist on a theory that was valid in British India. So Jinnah called for retiring the two nation theory.

The TNT was valid because of Hindu bigotry.... it was after all as you fellows love to say ``reactionary``... well yes it was reacting to bigotry.


As for Jinnah being opportunist.... I think HV Hodson`s comment in his book ``The Great Divide`` echoes the popular opinion about Jinnah even amongst his opponents:


It was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weather cock swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist as well as a man of scrupulous honour.

re:#770 by Mantolives
No, Manto mian,
I have not lost my mind.

(Do u now agree that ``The Two nation theory`` was a stupid concept, which your own country`s rulers have quietly buried?

Ans: Nothing is static. Each theory or idea has its time. It was not a stupid concept but it is not applicable today. Jinnah had retired it himself ... it is well known.)
Really!
So, after founding a nation based on the basis of ``Two nations`` (meaning muslims and hindus can`t live in the same country), Jinnah retired the idea himself.
Wow!
So, what was all that bloodshed about? If he did not believe in that concept, why did he propound it in the first place.
And, no theory is static! What kind of bull is that. Your Jinnah comes out as opportunistic person who changes ideas as it suits him.
But, pray,let us end this thread. It is no use beating the same old thing again and again.
I just thing u need to grow up.
Sridhar

Re: # 769

Dear Sir,

It is quite clear to me that you have lost your mind completely. How do these questions that you have posed prove anything about Direct Action Day culpability? Each of one them is a loaded bigoted question indicative of a small biased mind that you certainly posssess. I am sorry I have to resort to your tactics now.

I`ll answer your questions despite their complete irrelevance:

1. Why did Jinnah go to the area where violence broke out and try and stop violence instead of merely issuing out statements? Since violence broke out only in Calcutta, it should have been easy for him to go to Calcutta. Why did he not go?

Ans: How does this prove that Calcutta riots were his doing. Let me remind you that during that week Gandhi also did not go. The Indian leadership including Gandhi and Jinnah was negotiating a settlement with the Viceroy

2. Do u now agree that ``The Two nation theory`` was a stupid concept, which your own country`s rulers have quietly buried?

Ans: Nothing is static. Each theory or idea has its time. It was not a stupid concept but it is not applicable today. Jinnah had retired it himself ... it is well known.


3. If Jinnah did not go to Calcutta, can u tell us if he did go to some other place, i mean anywhere, to quell riots or talk to rioting mobs?

Ans: I have given you several occasions above.... if you care to read. Jinnah visited the rioting mobs in Karachi in August-September 1947 and even saved Gandhi`s statue (Quoted above from ``Jinnah : Eik Punardrishti`` post 627)_... He visited rioting mobs and refugee camps of both communities several times ... where he is quoted by M S M Sharma a Hindu journalist to have broken down and cried in public for the first time... Jinnah visited the rioting mobs in Lahore on October 30th .... when he told the rioting Muslims to stop and ``protect your Hindu neighbors``... or a crowd in Sindh, whom he told ``Those who kill Hindus are enemies of Pakistan`` (Speeches and statements of Jinnah Oxford)

H V Hodson attributes to Jinnah the peace that was achieved soon after partition.


4. Why did Jinnah give up on his cherished ideals of secularims and hindu-muslim unity towards the end of his life? Does it not show a fickle minded, indecsive man (perhaps ravaged by the disease he was harboring) who lost touch with reality and believed what he wanted to believe?

Jinnah never gave up his ideals of secularism and Hindu Muslim unity. If you read H M Seervai`s book ``Partition of India: Legend and Reality`` you will see that Jinnah`s position was the most nuanced and complex in the whole matter ... much more so than you give him credit.



Now that I have answered your irrelevant questions.... will you answer mine? I bolden them simply so that you can`t ignore them.... nothing else.

1) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML not choose Delhi or Lahore where it had much more muscle and where it could blame it on another government?

2) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML didn`t start it else where in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority?

3) Why if ML had preplanned the whole thing, did Hindus still manage to kill many times more Muslims than Hindus? Are Hindus superhuman? Or do God`s deities help them?

4) Why was Patel gloating if Congress had nothing to do with it? Was it Hindu Pride? or was it an indication of Congress plan working ... as in destabilizing the cross communal alliance on which ML ministry stood?

5) Why was the direct action day an overwhelming success, as evidenced by the Congress paper, all over India, and yet no violence broke out where Muslim League was the strongest or where Jinnah himself was physically present?

6) Why didn`t communal violence break out in Bombay where Muslim League had won 40 seats and which was by far the most volatile Indian city?


And last but not the least:

7) Why did Lord Wavell who was in the Congress Pocket absolve Muslim League Ministry of all blame for Calcutta?

re:#765 by Mantolives
Hey Manto,
Care to answer a few questions, which have been raised before?
1. Why did Jinnah go to the area where violence broke out and try and stop violence instead of merely issuing out statements?
Since violence broke out only in Calcutta, it should have been easy for him to go to Calcutta. Why did he not go?
2. Do u now agree that ``The Two nation theory`` was a stupid concept, which your own country`s rulers have quietly buried?
3. If Jinnah did not go to Calcutta, can u tell us if he did go to some other place, i mean anywhere, to quell riots or talk to rioting mobs?
4. Why did Jinnah give up on his cherished ideals of secularims and hindu-muslim unity towards the end of his life? Does it not show a fickle minded, indecsive man (perhaps ravaged by the disease he was harboring) who lost touch with reality and believed what he wanted to believe?
Manto mian,
Posting all letters in bold wont` do.
YOu need to do better than that.
All the questions you have posed have already been answered. Perhaps u do not read other`s posts.
Sridhar

I made a mistake logging in.Man, you guys NEED to get laid!!!!.This is the only logical conclusion i can come to after reading all this drivel.

Manto:
read # 724

Re: # 762

The great man retired the tnt himself after partition....

So you are 57 years late.

Re: # 764

Your inability to stick with the topic and your determination to confuse the issues is indicative of your utter desperation....

Here is what you are trying to ignore

755 by Mantolives on April 15, 2005 7:13am PT
Dear Indians,

I will take the past few posts in which you people have resorted to insults, abuse and finally changing the topic by putting up a post about Gandhi`s greatness, as a concession of defeat.

I understand it is hard for you to logically debate valid historical points.

Still I`ll try .... please answer the post 746:

#746 by Mantolives on April 15, 2005 4:42am PT
Re: # 745

Tsk tsk... You can`t argue with logic and facts so you resort to petty insults and abuse? That is funny.

The quote I put up is from Wolpert also... and unlike the internet excerpt, he is quoting a primary source here.

So rich and fanatical Hindus barricading a city from poor factory workers assembling peacefuly to attend a rally is perfectly alright? What is clear is that Hindus had decided to stop these poor workers from entering the city at all costs thereby stoking the communal fire. Only you can`t see the devious plan of the Congress Party? Fanatical bigotry had forced the Hindus to stop Muslims at all costs... including resorting to murder and mayhem.

Let me ask you some questions again....


1) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML not choose Delhi or Lahore where it had much more muscle and where it could blame it on another government?

2) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML didn`t start it else where in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority?

3) Why if ML had preplanned the whole thing, did Hindus still manage to kill many times more Muslims than Hindus? Are Hindus superhuman? Or do God`s deities help them?

4) Why was Patel gloating if Congress had nothing to do with it? Was it Hindu Pride? or was it an indication of Congress plan working ... as in destabilizing the cross communal alliance on which ML ministry stood?

5) Why was the direct action day an overwhelming success, as evidenced by the Congress paper, all over India, and yet no violence broke out where Muslim League was the strongest or where Jinnah himself was physically present?

6) Why didn`t communal violence break out in Bombay where Muslim League had won 40 seats and which was by far the most volatile Indian city?


And last but not the least:

7) Why did Lord Wavell who was in the Congress Pocket absolve Muslim League Ministry of all blame for Calcutta?


You see the contradictions of the Indian propaganda have been exposed and all you can do is quote ``journalese reports``....


and


#741 by Mantolives on April 15, 2005 0:52am PT

Since you`ve already declared Wolpert to be a credible author based on some INTERNET excerpt.....

Here is something directly out of his book Jinnah of Pakistan that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Hindus led by the Congress Party started all the trouble to taint the Muslim League with violece:

On Page 284

`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.`


MY COMMENTS Stanley Wolpert has quoted a primary source Col Burrows to Lord Wavell from transfer of power papers volume 9.


When read in conjunction with Lord Wavell`s letter (which absolves the League ministry of any responsibility) on Page 879 IBID.... and Sardar Patel`s letter in which he is gloating about many more Muslims getting killed.... it becomes clear that even before Muslims came to the city to celebrate peacefuly direct action day .... the Hindus had been planning to sabotage the event by violence and they did so .... with great success.... murdering Muslim men raping Muslim women and pillaging Muslim households.

Now hatemongering fanatics and Gandhians on these boards CAN LIE all they want... misquote and try and latch on to small mercies of their foreign masters like the Time Magazine... the fact remains.... that it was the Congress Party that effectively ruined an otherwise successful direct action day.... for the simple and machiavellian purpose of bringing down the League Ministry which depended on Cross communal alliances.

These are the facts... whether Gurumoorthy or Rsidhar or Netizen decide to evade them is another issue.

So far I haven`t received an adequate reply except utter and total garbage... by a bunch of Indians, who can`t argue on facts and logic... and so debase themselves and everyone`s intellect by resorting to insults and namecalling matches...

Come back and argue when you are able to.

re: Manto`s various posts
Manto,
Give up man.
You are fighting a losing battle.
Your own country`s rulers have give up the ``Two nation theory``. Won`t u, a loyal subject, follow suit?
http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=170822
(Asia ; Pakistan formally buries two-nation theory:
Friday, April 01, 2005


[Asia News] New Delhi, April 1 (IANS) Almost six decades after the sub-continent`s partition, Pakistan`s ruling party Friday gave a formal burial to the two-nation theory by urging Indian Muslims to love their motherland.

In a speech laced with political significance, former Pakistan prime minister Shujat Hussain prayed at the historic Jama Masjid and called upon Indian Muslims to integrate themselves fully with the mainstream.

``You are Indians by choice. So live like Indians. Nobody forced you to stay back (and not settle in Pakistan),`` Hussain told a large gathering at the 17th-century red stone mosque in the city`s old quarters.

He reminded the gathering in Urdu that Indian Muslims should love their motherland as they stayed back in India, rejecting the offer to move over to the newly created Pakistan.

``You (Indian Muslims) should do everything for the progress and development of the country,`` he said.

Hussain, who is president of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League, is the highest- ranking Pakistani leader to visit the Jama Masjid, which along with the Red Fort across the street was built by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan.

The Pakistan Muslim League, although now divided into more than one faction, considers itself the rightful successor to the Muslims League that led the drive for Pakistan`s creation.

Hussain also referred to India-Pakistan relations, saying he was optimistic that both countries would be able to resolve all their differences and soon.

``I am positive India and Pakistan will resolve their differences. This is also because Indian leaders, be they in the government or the opposition, are in agreement on the issue of overcoming the differences with Pakistan.

``When the attitude of the leaders is right, then there can be no hitch.``

He also singled out Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf for the thaw in India-Pakistan ties. ``There are impediments in India-Pakistan relations, but Musharraf is determined to do away with them.``

The former prime minister, who spent about an hour at the mosque, said: ``I am overwhelmed by the hospitality I received.)
Sridhar

re: #747 by Mantolives
Manto mian,
This was what Mani Shankar Iyer (an idiot in my opinion) said:
``In his address, the Union Minister for Petroleum & Natural Gas, Mani Shankar Aiyar, said: `` India-Pakistan relations should not be seen as a `Hindu-Muslim` issue. India is not a Hindu State. Pakistan is an Islamic State, but it is not representative of the Muslim voice of India.``
Read the last sentence again. If u believe in the spirit of that article (from Hindu), then u must also believe what Iyer said there. He is saying that Pak is not representative of voice of muslims of India.
This is what Pak ambassador to India also said sometime ago. It seems that Pak rulers have quietly buried the ``Two nation theory``, the very foundation of the basis of Pak at the time of inception.
Now, your rulers have finally found some common sense and realized that Pak`s existence need not be based on some nonsensical ideology espoused by its founder.
Basically, the concept of ``Two nation theory`` is dead.
So, what did Jinnah live for.
He gave up all his cherished ideals: of hindu-muslim unity, of secularism and founded a nation on the basis of ``Two nation theory`` (the basis of which is that muslims cannot live with hindus). Even that cherished ideal is gone now.
Sridhar

re: #747 by Mantolives
Manto mian,
This was what Mani Shankar Iyer (an idiot in my opinion) said:
``In his address, the Union Minister for Petroleum & Natural Gas, Mani Shankar Aiyar, said: `` India-Pakistan relations should not be seen as a `Hindu-Muslim` issue. India is not a Hindu State. Pakistan is an Islamic State, but it is not representative of the Muslim voice of India.``
Read the last sentence again. If u believe in the spirit of that article (from Hindu), then u must also believe what Iyer said there. He is saying that Pak is not representative of voice of muslims of India.
This is what Pak ambassador to India also said sometime ago. It seems that Pak rulers have quietly buried the ``Two nation theory``, the very foundation of the basis of Pak at the time of inception.
Now, your rulers have finally found some common sense and realized that Pak`s existence need not be based on some nonsensical ideology espoused by its founder.
Basically, the concept of ``Two nation theory`` is dead.
So, what did Jinnah live for.
He gave up all his cherished ideals: of hindu-muslim unity, of secularism and founded a nation on the basis of ``Two nation theory`` (the basis of which is that muslims cannot live with hindus). Even that cherished ideal is gone now.
Sridhar

Re: # 759

a) I don`t expect anyone of you to do anything.... Please read the ``Jumbo`` post above (747) ... it is clear that Indians have already begun to accept who was at fault.

b) I don`t like to opine on irrational what ifs.

Re: # 758

This is where you are mistaken... I haven`t used Wolpert since 2001 (and today when Harish Hyd said he was a credible historian)... that was an initial phase for me... an appetizer if you will. His history is for the beginners.

Just goes to show that you don`t read. Had you read you would know that I have moved way ahead.

So why don`t you admit this was a shameless attempt on your part to try and help your compatriots who have made an utter fool out of themselves....

Is it any wonder given the utter dishonesty of Indians here, that you people are proved wrong constantly?

Re # various

Manto,

Suppose, just suppose, you are able to convice Indians that indeed Congress, Mr. Nehru,
Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Patel was at fault to cause partition of India, what do you expect
Indians to do?

Suppose, just suppose, you get convinced that indeed Muslim Leage and Mr. Jinnah was
at fault to cause partition of India, what would you do?

Re: # 753 YLH
//...The only way you Indians can win ...//

Who said about a ``win``? As far jinnah is concerned - nobody can win aginst YLH, the worshipper :)

All the same - it was interesting how Harish used Wolpert [the holy grail] to catch you in your own web.

Anyway - don`t get distracted - carry on. Beat the Indians to pulp with your formidable weapons from Wolpert, the wise-guy :)

Re: # 750

PS Try the book ... `` Jinnah : A corrective reading of Indian History`` by Professor Asiananda which comes highly recommended by the Congress government....

Maybe it will give your snakes of hate a little rest...

Re: # 751

This is your response to my questions? A movie about Gandhi?

Desperation at its worst!

Dear Indians,

I will take the past few posts in which you people have resorted to insults, abuse and finally changing the topic by putting up a post about Gandhi`s greatness, as a concession of defeat.

I understand it is hard for you to logically debate valid historical points.

Still I`ll try .... please answer the post 746:

#746 by Mantolives on April 15, 2005 4:42am PT
Re: # 745

Tsk tsk... You can`t argue with logic and facts so you resort to petty insults and abuse? That is funny.

The quote I put up is from Wolpert also... and unlike the internet excerpt, he is quoting a primary source here.

So rich and fanatical Hindus barricading a city from poor factory workers assembling peacefuly to attend a rally is perfectly alright? What is clear is that Hindus had decided to stop these poor workers from entering the city at all costs thereby stoking the communal fire. Only you can`t see the devious plan of the Congress Party? Fanatical bigotry had forced the Hindus to stop Muslims at all costs... including resorting to murder and mayhem.

Let me ask you some questions again....


1) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML not choose Delhi or Lahore where it had much more muscle and where it could blame it on another government?

2) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML didn`t start it else where in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority?

3) Why if ML had preplanned the whole thing, did Hindus still manage to kill many times more Muslims than Hindus? Are Hindus superhuman? Or do God`s deities help them?

4) Why was Patel gloating if Congress had nothing to do with it? Was it Hindu Pride? or was it an indication of Congress plan working ... as in destabilizing the cross communal alliance on which ML ministry stood?

5) Why was the direct action day an overwhelming success, as evidenced by the Congress paper, all over India, and yet no violence broke out where Muslim League was the strongest or where Jinnah himself was physically present?

6) Why didn`t communal violence break out in Bombay where Muslim League had won 40 seats and which was by far the most volatile Indian city?


And last but not the least:

7) Why did Lord Wavell who was in the Congress Pocket absolve Muslim League Ministry of all blame for Calcutta?


You see the contradictions of the Indian propaganda have been exposed and all you can do is quote ``journalese reports``....


and


#741 by Mantolives on April 15, 2005 0:52am PT

Since you`ve already declared Wolpert to be a credible author based on some INTERNET excerpt.....

Here is something directly out of his book Jinnah of Pakistan that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Hindus led by the Congress Party started all the trouble to taint the Muslim League with violece:

On Page 284

`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.`


MY COMMENTS Stanley Wolpert has quoted a primary source Col Burrows to Lord Wavell from transfer of power papers volume 9.


When read in conjunction with Lord Wavell`s letter (which absolves the League ministry of any responsibility) on Page 879 IBID.... and Sardar Patel`s letter in which he is gloating about many more Muslims getting killed.... it becomes clear that even before Muslims came to the city to celebrate peacefuly direct action day .... the Hindus had been planning to sabotage the event by violence and they did so .... with great success.... murdering Muslim men raping Muslim women and pillaging Muslim households.

Now hatemongering fanatics and Gandhians on these boards CAN LIE all they want... misquote and try and latch on to small mercies of their foreign masters like the Time Magazine... the fact remains.... that it was the Congress Party that effectively ruined an otherwise successful direct action day.... for the simple and machiavellian purpose of bringing down the League Ministry which depended on Cross communal alliances.

These are the facts... whether Gurumoorthy or Rsidhar or Netizen decide to evade them is another issue.



So far I haven`t received an adequate reply except utter and total garbage... by a bunch of Indians, who can`t argue on facts and logic... and so debase themselves and everyone`s intellect by resorting to insults and namecalling matches...

Come back and argue when you are able to.

Re: # 750

Have you heard of Mani Shanker Aiyar?

Now you`ve gone on another tangent... all the while not answering the questions that were ask?

Re: # 752

ah.... you wish ...

I think the board speaks for itself as to who beat who at what game...

The only way you Indians can win is by patting each other on the back like a bunch of losers.

harish, sridhar

Ha Ha - Looks like you guys are beating YLH in his own game - quoting directly from Wolpert :)))

re:#747 by Mantolives
Manto mian,
India is a democracy. However imperfect that democracy may be, it still is a democracy. So, i guess some people can go on stage and say Jinnah is a ``subcontinental hero`` and get away with it. They won`t get hanged.
Is there even one Paki who said Gandhi is a ``subcontinental hero``? Not that the world cares.
Gandhi is finding some use in Palestine today, albeit not without some controversy.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050405/55971.html?.v=1

(Gandhi Project to Launch in the Palestinian Territories Tomorrow
Tuesday April 5, 3:24 pm ET
Sir Ben Kingsley and Delegation Set to Attend World Premiere of Arabic-Dubbed Version of the Oscar Award-Winning Epic Film ``Gandhi``

RAMALLAH, Palestine--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 5, 2005--The ``Gandhi Project`` (www.GandhiProject.org) will launch tomorrow, Wednesday April 6th at 4:00pm in the Ramallah Cultural Palace with the screening of the epic film ``Gandhi`` (winner of 9 Oscars including Best Picture). Working with Palestinian voice actors and artists, the film was dubbed into Arabic by the award-winning Palestinian director Hanna Elias. The Ramallah event will be followed by screenings in Jerusalem on April 7th, Bethlehem on April 9th and Gaza on April 14th. The April launch in Palestine will be followed in May by screenings in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The ``Gandhi Project`` aims to support Palestinian civil society organizations engaged in activities consistent with the liberation philosophy and life practice of Gandhi who stood against occupation through peaceful resistance and civil disobedience. With the screening of the film ``Gandhi,`` the project kick-starts a series of activities and programs to empower civil society and community based organizations in advancing their goals of peaceful resistance, self-reliance, economic development and local empowerment. In the Palestinian Territories, the film will be shown in many cities, refugee camps, and villages. In addition to the screenings, the Gandhi Project will provide direct support to relevant educational and community and economic development projects.

Prior to the first official screening of the film ``Gandhi`` in Ramallah, a press conference will be held on April 6th from 1:00-3:00pm at the Grand Park Hotel to announce the launching of the project and to provide information regarding the long-term objectives of the Gandhi Project. Invited to the official screening at 4:00pm of the same day are many Palestinians from all segments of society including leaders from local communities and several ministers of the Palestinian Government. Both the press conference and the official opening of the project will be attended by Sir Ben Kingsley, who won the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Gandhi in the film, Mr. Jake Eberts the producer of the film, and Palestinian director Mr. Hanna Elias who oversaw the dubbing of the movie into Arabic. Also in attendance will be project sponsors Mr. Jeff Skoll (founder of the Skoll Foundation, the media company ``Participant Productions`` and co-founder of eBay Inc.) and Mr. Kamran Elahian, Silicon Valley entrepreneur and founder of Global Catalyst Foundation.

The Gandhi Project is a collaborative program of a collective of Palestinian NGOs and Relief International - Schools Online (RI-SOL) (www.ri.org and www.SchoolsOnline.org). The project is sponsored by the Skoll Foundation.)

Manto mian,
While u are busy criticising Gandhi, the movie Gandhi has been now translated into Arabic (the language of your religious masters) and the film was recently released in West Bank. Hopefully, a large number of Palestenians will watch it and get inspired by it.
http://bedouina.typepad.com/doves_eye/2005/04/gandhi_in_arabi.html
Sridhar

re:#747 by Mantolives

``Lamenting the fact that Indians knew very little of Jinnah unlike Pakistanis who were well versed with Gandhi, the Hindi scholar, Ved Prakash Vaidik, said Jinnah should be accepted as a ``sub-continental hero.``
Ha, ha, ha!
I had a good laugh.
Who the fukc is this Hindi scholar? Never heard of him.
Jinnah is a ``subcontinental hero``!
Now, that is a joke.
The more i read about Jinnah (and i have been doing some reading on and off as time permits), the more i am convinced the guy was conniving, brilliant but evil.
He set up a goal of achieiving a seperate state for muslims,without thinking much about millions who would still be left stranded in India, without anythought about the violence that would be unleashed (if he did not foresee this, he was not well informed) when partition was thrust upon a hapless populace.
Jiinah can never be my hero, not even on my deathbed.
He is just a despicable character. The more i read about him, the more i hate him.
A cool, calculating guy, who called for Direct Action Day, never once went to the scene of tragedy or tried to stop the carnage, can never be my hero.
If India has to improve, it should compete with China, not Pakistan.
There is a worthy competitor.
Peace with Pak is important but there is nothing much to learn from that benighted nation and its benighted inhabitants.
Sridhar

Re: # 748

Calling it Bullshit will not make it so... and you know it.

Just shows how frustrated and desperate you really are.

#746 by Mantolives

More bullshit as ususal. I will come back tomorrow and reply.

On a side note.... Thank God... not everyone is as biased or bigoted as Mr Harish Hyd and others ....

From the The Hindu today

http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/15/stories/2005041513761700.htm

NEW DELHI: Mohammad Ali Jinnah — a man often criticised in India for spearheading the formation of Pakistan — was hailed as a ``great secular`` of the order of the first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, at the New Delhi launch of Asiananda`s book ``Jinnah -- A Corrective Reading of Indian History`` today.

Released by the Defence Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, the function saw speakers stress the need to accept the historical reality of Partition and work for ``togetherness`` rather than creating a confederation.

Not a Hindu-Muslim issue


In his address, the Union Minister for Petroleum & Natural Gas, Mani Shankar Aiyar, said: `` India-Pakistan relations should not be seen as a `Hindu-Muslim` issue. India is not a Hindu State. Pakistan is an Islamic State, but it is not representative of the Muslim voice of India.``

Mr. Aiyar said the two countries would not be able to be at peace with each other as long as Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi continued to be demonised in India and Pakistan respectively. ``Both were great leaders,`` he said, congratulating Prof. Asiananda for ``touching a topic many of us would not have dared to touch in India``.

The former Rajya Sabha member, L. M. Singhvi, differed with the author`s advocacy of a confederation; arguing that the future of the region lay in togetherness of the two countries. Pakistan, he said, did not live up to the vision of Jinnah, and quoted from a book to show that he had repented the Partition soon after.

Reading out a passage from Jinnah`s speech on the eve of Pakistan`s independence, he said the vision of Jinnah was not very different from that of Nehru. ``He was a secular — quite contrary to the image we have of him in India — but his secular vision was abandoned by his successors.``

Lamenting the fact that Indians knew very little of Jinnah unlike Pakistanis who were well versed with Gandhi, the Hindi scholar, Ved Prakash Vaidik, said Jinnah should be accepted as a ``sub-continental hero.``

Re: # 745

Tsk tsk... You can`t argue with logic and facts so you resort to petty insults and abuse? That is funny.

The quote I put up is from Wolpert also... and unlike the internet excerpt, he is quoting a primary source here.

So rich and fanatical Hindus barricading a city from poor factory workers assembling peacefuly to attend a rally is perfectly alright? What is clear is that Hindus had decided to stop these poor workers from entering the city at all costs thereby stoking the communal fire. Only you can`t see the devious plan of the Congress Party? Fanatical bigotry had forced the Hindus to stop Muslims at all costs... including resorting to murder and mayhem.

Let me ask you some questions again....


1) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML not choose Delhi or Lahore where it had much more muscle and where it could blame it on another government?

2) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML didn`t start it else where in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority?

3) Why if ML had preplanned the whole thing, did Hindus still manage to kill many times more Muslims than Hindus? Are Hindus superhuman? Or do God`s deities help them?

4) Why was Patel gloating if Congress had nothing to do with it? Was it Hindu Pride? or was it an indication of Congress plan working ... as in destabilizing the cross communal alliance on which ML ministry stood?

5) Why was the direct action day an overwhelming success, as evidenced by the Congress paper, all over India, and yet no violence broke out where Muslim League was the strongest or where Jinnah himself was physically present?

6) Why didn`t communal violence break out in Bombay where Muslim League had won 40 seats and which was by far the most volatile Indian city?


And last but not the least:

7) Why did Lord Wavell who was in the Congress Pocket absolve Muslim League Ministry of all blame for Calcutta?


You see the contradictions of the Indian propaganda have been exposed and all you can do is quote ``journalese reports``....

#741 by Mantolives on April 15, 2005 0:52am PT

[Since you`ve already declared Wolpert to be a credible author based on some INTERNET excerpt.....]

The “INTERNET excerpt” is there because it is there in his book. The Internet cannot conjure up things out the thin air. But like the ``energy out of djinns`` theory that a Paki scientist put forth, Pakis would believe it is possible.

[Here is something directly out of his book Jinnah of Pakistan that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Hindus led by the Congress Party started all the trouble to taint the Muslim League with violece:]

Sure! Erecting barricades equals starting trouble. Gloating means killing. But issuing inflammatory speeches and baying for blood are not counted as incitement. Are there any more gems we are privileged to hear from you?

[it becomes clear that even before Muslims came to the city to celebrate peacefuly direct action day]

Sure! When Muslim Leaguers were issuing calls to violence and bloodshed, it is only natural that Muslims came to the city to “celebrate peacefuly direct action day”. Nice logic, but try another deluded Paki, he may listen to you.

[These are the facts... whether Gurumoorthy or Rsidhar or Netizen decide to evade them is another issue.]

How insightful! In case you missed it, here is another fact. The old crook did nothing to stop the violence that had started as a result of his call to Direct Action. Instead of asking the Muslim goons to calm down, he was sleeping on the floors and preparing to be arrested.

#740 by Mantolives

[If only you were so lucky... if you can selectively quote sources, why can`t I quote them in the same way?]

I selectively quoted sources?? In addition to being confused, you are now exhibiting the traits of a lawyer, and that is resorting to lies. Show me where have I selectively quoted, or accept that you have lost it.

[What is important is that despite its bias it was forced to accept certain truths about the direct action day...]

The truth is that the Muslim League started the violence in Calcutta. And this is the truth that the Time carried, in case it escaped you.

``Rioting Moslems went after Hindus with guns, knives and clubs, looted shops, stoned newspaper offices, set fire to Calcutta`s British business district. Hindus retaliated by firing Moslem mosques and miles of Moslem slums.``

If you haven’t noticed, it says that the Hindus merely retaliated. This is corroborated by the extract I provided from Wolpert’s book. Now the Time has all of a sudden become a pro-Congress magazine? Sure.

[Now.... wait for a quote I am about to put up .... which would prove Conclusively that Hindus started the violence in Calcutta and proceeded to Murder and maim Muslims for a whole week!]

“Hindus had erected barricades at the Tala and Belgachia bridges to prevent Muslims from entering the city”

Duh!! This “conclusively proves” that the Hindus started the violence? It merely says that the Hindus were trying to prevent Muslims from entering the city, not kill Muslims, unlike the Leaguer who said that Muslims were ready to shed their blood and if the opportunity arose, others’ blood.

Man, if you are an aspiring lawyer, I’m President Bush.

Re: # 724

I have answered this question in 741

No doubt you will appreciate that while your ``quotes`` are journalese reports ... mine are actualy primary sources like the transfer of power papers.

Since you`ve already declared Wolpert to be a credible author based on some INTERNET excerpt.....

Here is something directly out of his book Jinnah of Pakistan that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Hindus led by the Congress Party started all the trouble to taint the Muslim League with violece:

On Page 284

`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.`


MY COMMENTS Stanley Wolpert has quoted a primary source Col Burrows to Lord Wavell from transfer of power papers volume 9.


When read in conjunction with Lord Wavell`s letter (which absolves the League ministry of any responsibility) on Page 879 IBID.... and Sardar Patel`s letter in which he is gloating about many more Muslims getting killed.... it becomes clear that even before Muslims came to the city to celebrate peacefuly direct action day .... the Hindus had been planning to sabotage the event by violence and they did so .... with great success.... murdering Muslim men raping Muslim women and pillaging Muslim households.

Now hatemongering fanatics and Gandhians on these boards CAN LIE all they want... misquote and try and latch on to small mercies of their foreign masters like the Time Magazine... the fact remains.... that it was the Congress Party that effectively ruined an otherwise successful direct action day.... for the simple and machiavellian purpose of bringing down the League Ministry which depended on Cross communal alliances.

These are the facts... whether Gurumoorthy or Rsidhar or Netizen decide to evade them is another issue.

Re: # 736

If only you were so lucky... if you can selectively quote sources, why can`t I quote them in the same way?

Time as I pointed out earlier was shamelessly pro-Congress and pro-Gandhi.... not to mention at one point pro-Hitler as well... but thats another story....

What is important is that despite its bias it was forced to accept certain truths about the direct action day...

Now.... wait for a quote I am about to put up .... which would prove Conclusively that Hindus started the violence in Calcutta and proceeded to Murder and maim Muslims for a whole week!

Re: # 735

First of all read the quote again.... shame on you for making up this new story. As for the link, unlike you my research is not dependent on ``google searches``, Wali Khan`s Internet propaganda website which actually makes a mockery of all human intelligence, or Hindu Nationalist websites..... the Blitz quote is found in many books on partition including if I am not mistaken Penderel Moon`s famous book.... it is also a primary source.

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.

I don`t see the newspaper accusing him of violence... but instead praising him for standing against imperialism.

What you fail to see is that Blitz is commenting on the overwhelming success of Direct Action Day as a civil disobedience movement... and not the unfortunate events of Calcutta...


It is clear to me that the truth is a casualty in India .... clearly.

Re: # 735

First of all read the quote again.... shame on you for making up this new story. As for the link, unlike you my research is not dependent on ``google searches``, Wali Khan`s Internet propaganda website which actually makes a mockery of all human intelligence, or Hindu Nationalist websites..... the Blitz quote is found in many books on partition including if I am not mistaken Penderel Moon`s famous book.... it is also a primary source.

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.

I don`t see the newspaper accusing him of violence... but instead praising him for standing against imperialism.

What you fail to see is that Blitz is commenting on the overwhelming success of Direct Action Day as a civil disobedience movement... and not the unfortunate events of Calcutta...


It is clear to me that the truth is a casualty in India .... clearly.

#736 by harish_hyd

PS: It also proves that Jinnah knew that his call for Direct Action would lead to violence. It did, but our man, instead of asking the marauding Muslim hordes to calm down, was sleeping on the floors anticipating arrest.

In post 683, Yasser quotes the Time. I reproduce extracts from his post below:

Time Magazine in its issue on 26th of August 1946 said:

Mohamed Ali Jinnah had picked the 18th day of Ramadan for ``Direct Action Day`` against Britain`s plan for Indian independence (which does not satisfy the Moslems` old demand for a separate Pakistan). Though direct, the action was supposed to be peaceful.

Like other Indian leaders, Jinnah denounced the ``fratricidal war.``

But very cleverly, he left out other damning portions of the report. I reproduce them here:

``Rioting Moslems went after Hindus with guns, knives and clubs, looted shops, stoned newspaper offices, set fire to Calcutta`s British business district. Hindus retaliated by firing Moslem mosques and miles of Moslem slums.``

Which clearly proves that it was the Muslims that started the riots.

Another excerpt from the report:

``Like other Indian leaders, Jinnah denounced the ``fratricidal war.`` But most observers wondered how Jinnah could fail to know what would happen when he called for ``direct action.`` Shortly before the riots broke out, his own news agency (Orient Press) reported that Jinnah, anticipating violence, was sleeping on the floor these nights—to toughen up for a possible sojourn in jail.``

Now dear Yasser, will you admit that the Muslim League started the violence? I have provided two different sources which clearly point the finger at Jinnah and the Muslim League as the culprits. In addition, I also provided the inflammatory statement made by Leaguers baying for Hindu blood. You have been caught with your pants down. The game is up.

re:#720 by Mantolives
You would do well to provide a link of that Blitz article.
Blitz is right in saying that it was a masterstroke from Jinnah. By unleashing violence on calcutta, ML and JInnah could point out the futility of the 2 communities living together. Jinnah`s poltical ambition of bringing Partition agenda centerstage was achieved. Congress came out cropper and there was not much of argument in favor of a United India after that riot.
Jinnah was a genius in that respect. He could always use human agencies to achieve his goal. What is a few thousand lives for a bigger cause? Right?
Sridhar

re: Manto`s post
``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. ``
NO, it does not.
It was only in Bengal that ML would benefit by the schism between the 2 communities. It was in Bengal that ML formed a govt. Calcutta formed a large immigrant community of various religious denominations with Hindus as majority, muslims as a significant minority.
Once riots were started by ML, the goons from HIndu, sikh community took over. It was not surprising that muslim death toll was more, given the demography.
Sridhar

re:#705 by Mantolives
Netizen already answered your question. Bengal was ruled by the ML (with Suhrawardy as the CM). CM was directly involved in mischief making (read my earlier posts), no doubt with silent acquiescence by Jinnah.
Sridhar

re:#700 by Mantolives

``PS: Just so that we are clear on this... I haven`t quoted Wolpert since 2001..``
Does that mean others should not quote Wolpert? I may consider Wolpert a good author. That is my choice.
Sridhar

re:#694 by Mantolives
There is so much untruth and myth making that is going on in Pak that one is not surprised that truth has become a casualty.
50 years later, it is difficult to say what happened but there are various pointers.
In calcutta of 1946, riots were started by the League but it quickly went out of control. Hindus were a majority there and the sikhs were powerful and controlled the transport. Muslims were probably affected much more due to the fact they were a minority. But the fact remains: ther riots were started by the League and Jinnah did nothing to stop them.
Sridhar

re: League politics and Calcutta riots
http://www.pukhtoonkhwa.com/factsAreSacredchapter15.htm
(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.)
sridhar

re: Calcutta riots of 1946
Why did the riot occur?
Who gained from it?
From what i have read, it seems difficult to point out who started it. It was out and out communal and Army (of the British) did not act immediately and forcefully to stop it.
The following article i thought was objective and discusses that riot:
http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/C_0019.htm

(What most distinguished the 1946 riot from previous outbreaks was its highly organised nature. The League mobilised all its frontal organisations to make the `Day` a success. Special coupons for gallons of petrol were issued in the names of League ministers to be used by their party functionaries. One month`s food ration for 10,000 people was allegedly drawn in advance to feed the League activists. Once the riot began the Chief Minister huseyn shaheed suhrawardy, accompanied by his political aids, spent considerable time in the Police Control Room to allegedly shield Muslims from police operations. On the other hand, Marwari merchants reportedly purchased arms and ammunitions from American soldiers, which were later used during the riot. Acid bombs were manufactured and stored in Hindu-owned factories long before the outbreak. Calcutta`s Hindu blacksmiths were mobilised to prepare spearheads and other weapons.)
Note: the article says League was directly involved but does not blame congress though some hindu organizations (like RSS ) might have been involved.

(While the Congress and Hindu Mahasabha put the entire blame on the League, the Muslim League argued that the Congress fomented the trouble to create a situation which would force the dismissal of the League government and imposition of Governor`s rule. But what needs to be emphasised is the role of British officials during the 1946 riot. The Bengal Governor`s ratification of the League ministry`s decision to declare a public holiday for the 16th contradicted sharply with his counterpart`s action in Sind, the only other province where the League held political power. Again, in sharp contrast to the anti-imperialist disturbances of November 1945 and February 1946, the army was not summoned until 24 hours after the outbreak of the hooliganism. Curfew orders were not strictly enforced on the first few nights. The conduct of the Bengal Governor and European officials was `culpable` in so far as a timely intervention might have averted the violence.)

(Communalism at the popular level provided a new turn to India`s institutional politics. The Muslim League warned that civil wars on the Calcutta scale would occur in other parts of the country unless its brief for the Partition was accepted and the Congress suffered a setback and its leadership, except Gandhi and Badshah Khan, accepted Partition of the country along religious lines as the `only alternative`. The turn that events had taken afterwards made a peaceful solution through an agreement between the Congress and the Muslim League a far cry.)
The last para leaves nobody in doubt as to who benefitted. AFter the riot of 1946, League could always argue that the 2 communities cannot live together and demand a seperate homeland for muslims more forcefully.
Manto has to realize that in these cases, the top leadership is never involved directly. It is the action not the speech that matters. Jinnah might not have agreed with the violent tactics of the League`s lower cadre but he did look the other way when violence was unleashed by League in Calcutta. As i said, the riot did achieve the political objective of forcefully projecting Jinnah as the undisputed leader of muslims (with propensity to create problems when necessary) and highlight the fact that the shism between the 2 communities was too deep for any solution other than partition of India.
M.J Akbar is a journalist i admire. He is objective and usually meticulous. Listen to what he has to say (he is talking about how politicians of the subcontinent use violence when it suits them):
http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/india_ayodhya/viewpoint.html

(In 1946 the Muslim League government in Calcutta, and the rest of the party across the undivided subcontinent, found the ``evidence`` it needed for its two-nations theory in the riots it inspired in Calcutta. In 1984 the Congress Party more or less condoned with a shrug the massacre of Sikhs. The Muslim League got its Pakistan, and the Congress was re-elected in the general elections that followed the Sikh slaughter. But the consequences of both ``achievements`` have haunted this subcontinent.)
How true!
Sridhar

Re: # 727

``All you guys laboriously dredging up dirt from the past must be middle aged, pudgy and old, ``

hahaha...not me. I just want to get Manto out of his Gandhi/pre-partition Congress-phobia. Sometimes if you don`t confront the propaganda, it becomes the truth.

``Let the dead past bury the past and long live pakistan, `cause our lives would have been hell if the interactions on this site are anything to go by!!!. ``

i agree. We already have many other important issues at hand.

All you guys laboriously dredging up dirt from the past must be middle aged, pudgy and old, `cause why would anyone young and open-minded waste their drivel over something that happened a long time ago?.Thank God india is changing.We are making a concerted effort to get over the past.Let the dead past bury the past and long live pakistan, `cause our lives would have been hell if the interactions on this site are anything to go by!!!.

I am still unable to understand this discrepancy that why Muslims turned out to be the biggest victims if they planned it and had the government muscle behind them?

Why does Pakistan take on India inspite of knowing that India has 5 times the muscle power as Pakistan?

Because Pakistan believes 1 Muslim = 10 Hindus. Samething must have happened in Calcutta too.

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....

Manto, now you have totally lost it.

It was Gandhi`s presence in Calcutta that stopped the riots.

Re: # 723

``The fact remains that Muslim League was set to lose from violence in Calcutta.``
What was ML going to lose?
Suharwardy lost his job, replaced by another Leagei. The riots just hastened partition of bengal and india.
So you think Gandhi wanted to trigger riots and then give a very good reason to partition the country?
Regarding the ``gloating`` issue, can you present the letter. Just presenting the facts doesn`t mean gloating. Also, gloating over others misery is immoral but doesn`t mean behind it.

Regarding the riots happening in calcutta only, when you have the chief minister/gov. itself going on hartal who is going to man the streets.

Re: # 722
Netizen,

I think both your answers are bankrupt on several counts... saying that they didn`t expect Hindu reprisals is just a joke.... The fact remains that Muslim League was set to lose from violence in Calcutta.... which ever way you put it.

``Observers`` who were wondering how could Jinnah not have known of the consequences, should have explained why Delhi remained peaceful despite an extremely successful Direct Action Day campaign.... or Lahore for that matter. They should`ve known... since they were praising Jinnah for it... In any event Harish hyd`s marauding crowds in the ``week long violence`` were clearly Hindus and not Muslims.

Now tell me why the Muslims should have accepted Congress`s claims to represent all Indians, when one of its biggest leaders was gloating over More Muslims dying than Hindus?

Re: # 720

``I am still unable to understand this discrepancy that why Muslims turned out to be the biggest victims if they planned it and had the government muscle behind them? ``

May be they didn`t anticipate hindu reprisals. The same thing happened during mumbai riots. Hindu areas which were never affected by riots before also witnessed arson/loot.

Netizen...

Please continue to post.... atleast now we are having a proper discussion.

I will respond to your posts tomorrow.... as I want to spend some time with family as well...

Re: # 719]

Time was notorious for its pro-Congress stance .... but even it is forced to accept that the action was supposed to be Peaceful

What is notoriously absent from this story is why Calcutta was chosen.... why not Delhi or Bombay or Lahore where the League had much more muscle...


Here is what the Congress Mouthpiece Blitz said:

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.


Why would Congress` mouthpiece laud Jinnah`s move ? The fact is that it was extremely successful all over India...

I am still unable to understand this discrepancy that why Muslims turned out to be the biggest victims if they planned it and had the government muscle behind them?

It can`t be explained... because the truth is clear.

Re: # 718

Foreign News
Direct Action
Aug. 26, 1946
India suffered the biggest Moslem-Hindu riot in its history. Moslem League Boss Mohamed Ali Jinnah had picked the 18th day of Ramadan for ``Direct Action Day`` against Britain`s plan for Indian independence (which does not satisfy the Moslems` old demand for a separate Pakistan). Though direct, the action was supposed to be peaceful. But before the disastrous day was over, blood soaked the melting asphalt of sweltering Calcutta`s streets.
Rioting Moslems went after Hindus with guns, knives and clubs, looted shops, stoned newspaper offices, set fire to Calcutta`s British business district. Hindus retaliated by firing Moslem mosques and miles of Moslem slums. Thousands of homeless families roamed the city in search of safety and food (most markets had been pilfered or closed). Police blotters were filled with stories of women raped, mutilated and burned alive. Indian police, backed by British Spitfire scouting planes and armored cars, battled mobs of both factions. Cried Hindu Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (who is trying to form an interim government despite the Moslems` refusal to enter it): ``Either direct action knocks the Government over, or the Government knocks direct action over.``

By the 21st day of Ramadan, direct action had killed some 3,000 people and wounded thousands more. Said one weary police officer: ``All we can do is move the bodies to one side of the street.`` Vultures tore into the rapidly putrefying corpses (among them, the bodies of many women & children).

Like other Indian leaders, Jinnah denounced the ``fratricidal war.`` But most observers wondered how Jinnah could fail to know what would happen when he called for ``direct action.`` Shortly before the riots broke out, his own news agency (Orient Press) reported that Jinnah, anticipating violence, was sleeping on the floor these nights—to toughen up for a possible sojourn in jail.

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. Jinna