Pakistan Travelogue II

#648 by Mantolives

I asked for a statement from Jinnah, because only that would be an indicator of whether he was sincere in wanting the violence to end. Does Sardar Patel`s letter prove Jinnah`s intentions? I thought for a lawyer, it would have been easy for you to understand. Looks like I`m mistaken.

And it was not as if the violence was over in a flash. It raged for more than a week, so Jinnah had ample time to assess the situation and act accordingly. It would have taken less than a minute for him to make the statement and less than a day to pass on to the Muslims in Calcutta. That he chose not to do so reveals a more devious side to that upright and no-nonsense countenance that he sought to project in public.

[The biggest Proof of this is a letter by Sardar Patel... quoted by Sumit Sarkar in his book .... where Sardar Patel is gloating over the fact that more Muslims died than Hindus in Calcutta]

The call to the Direct Action Day was given by the Muslim League, more specifically, Jinnah. So the responsibility for the desirable as well as undesirable consequences lay with Jinnah and his Leaguers. So what`s the point here?

Re: # 649

Jinnah condemned Violence in Calcutta the very next day in a press statement issued from the League high command. What you forget it is that CONGRESS was carrying out violence in Calcutta... not the Muslim League which was on the receiving end.

Had you taken this to court you would have been laughed out, because all statements as well as an incriminating evidence points to the Congress Party.

Re: # 649

The point my dear friend is that .... the Congress, it is clear, deliberately created violence in Calcutta to blame the League (Which had a ministry there)... and it worked... Congress was asked to form a central government ... Sardar Patel`s letter proves this.

The question remains that if Direct Action Day violence was the aim...Why the ML chose Bengal for violence where blame could have been easily placed on the ML.?

The best options were to choose Delhi or Lahore, where the ML could have easily blamed the violence on the Non Muslim League govts and the ML had the Muscles to incite a violent demo.

It is quite clear that the aim of the Calcutta violence was to propel the Congress Party to power in the center.

#644 by Mantolives

[Margaret Burkewhite was always a pro-Gandhi reporter and never a historian... ]

So what? Does that make her any less truthful? Do we then cast aspersions on Wolpert, Seervai, and Embree, whom you love to quote, as pro-Jinnah?

Re: # 647

No my dear friend.... Margaret Burkwhite was an old Gandhi associate .... btw not even she dares to blame Jinnah.... how else does she describe him as free from bias then? Have you read her account in detail? Rsidhar is only selectively quoting and then putting ``my comments`` to give them a deliberate tinge...

Now compare this photojournalist to the historians you condemn as ``Pro-Jinnah``

Ainslee Embree: A respected American historian from Columbia University. Author of the Volume 1 of ``Sources in Indian History`` accepted to be the most authentic source book on Indian History.

H M Seervai Advocate Indian Supreme Court. Advocate General Maharashtra. His book on Cosntitutional law is considered to be the foremost authority

Wolpert: An American and an outright avowed admirer of Gandhi. Wrote more books on Indian politicians than on Pakistani politicians.

#645 by Mantolives

[BTW Your question is as usual wrong.]

Another 3 posts and still no answer as to what Jinnah did to stop Muslims from indulging in violence. Whatever happened to the authentic sources you said you`d quote from? Or did even the authentic sources find it impossible to defend Jinnah?

[As proved above the ``MARAUDING POPULATON`` was ``HINDU`` and ``CONGRESS PARTY``... which attacked the Muslims returning from public meetings.]

Proved where? And proved by whom?

[Jinnah was in any event in Delhi and not Calcutta....]

And so was Gandhi. But that didn`t stop Gandhi from going to Noakhali at great risk to his life, touring and staying in the riot-affected areas.

[This was a clever scheme by Congress Party to taint Muslim League with violence...]

As you said, perhaps in your head.

Look, I think you are just prolonging this debate by writing nonsensical posts. My contention is simple. Jinnah did nothing to stop the violence that erupted as a result of his call to Direct Action Day. The riots raged for over a week, but not a single statement in that period from Jinnah asking Muslims to desist from indulging in violence. Do you have evidence to prove otherwise? If yes, post it without resorting to tenuous alibis. If no, just accept it. End of the matter.

Re: # 646

Sir you are not clear on the question...

Jinnah did a number of things to stop violence.... he issued a very clear and direct call for Muslims to Not indulge in a direct action of their choice but rather follow the League directive of civil disobedience... I`ve already given you the exact quote and you`ve acknowledged it.

This order was followed to the hilt by the Muslims.... in Calcutta it was sabotaged by the Congress Party... and you have Sardar Patel on the record gloating about it.... You can check it from Sumit Sarkar`s book ``Modern India 1947`` page 42 I believe...


As for Congress and Maurading Hindu population... it is a fact. Please refer to post 621 ...
Wavell to Pethick Lawrence Transfer of Power Papers page 879 volume 9


The violence did rage for a week.... Jinnah condemned it on several occasions during this period. But the violence continued from the Hindu side.... as is obvious from a simple reading of PRIMARY SOURCES....

# Various by Mantolives

21 posts by you since you said you`d come up with some authentic sources that would prove that Jinnah did try to restrain the marauding Muslim population of Calcutta. You haven`t. If someone as well read on Jinnah as you can`t come up with some clinching evidence, there can`t be a more damning indictment of Jinnah.

Re: # 642

BTW Your question is as usual wrong. As proved above the ``MARAUDING POPULATON`` was ``HINDU`` and ``CONGRESS PARTY``... which attacked the Muslims returning from public meetings.

Jinnah was in any event in Delhi and not Calcutta....

This was a clever scheme by Congress Party to taint Muslim League with violence...

Re: # 645

The biggest Proof of this is a letter by Sardar Patel... quoted by Sumit Sarkar in his book .... where Sardar Patel is gloating over the fact that more Muslims died than Hindus in Calcutta

Sardar Patel was Gandhi`s no3 right?

Re: # 642

No actually it is not.... it is in your head.

re:#628 by Mantolives
Jinnah the nationalist, secular person is well known. It is the other side of Jinnah which bothers many historians and laymen like me. What did Jinnah have in mind when he gave the call for Direct Action Day?
Margaret Burke-White has more:
http://www.homestead.com/iref/DirectAction.html

(His statement to the press was in the form of a monologue, delivered in an icy voice, which was forecast of fiery events to come. ``We are preparing to launch a struggle. We have chalked a plan.`` We reporters, although we sat around Jinnah in a closed circle, had almost to stop our breathing to hear his curiously hushed words. He had decided to boycott the Constituent Assembly. He was rejecting in its entirety the British plan for transfer of power to an interim government which would combine both the League and the Congress. He lashed out against the ``Hindu-dominated Congress`` in his flat, chilled monotone. It seemed clear, now the bondage to the British was drawing to an end, that he was free to concentrate all his fire against the opposite party.

``We are forced in our own self-protection to abandon constitutional methods.`` His thin lips slit into a frigid smile. ``The decision we have taken is a very grave one.`` If the Muslims were not granted their separate Pakistan they would launch ``direct action.`` The phrase caught all of us. What form would direct action take, we all wanted to know. ``Go to the Congress and ask them their plans,`` Mr. Jinnah snapped. ``When they take you into their confidence I will take you into mine.``

There was silence for a moment, broken only by the cooing of pigeons, hopping over Jinnah`s manicured lawn. Then he added in the same toneless voice, so strangely unmatched to his words: ``Why do you expect me alone to sit with folded hands? I also am going to make trouble.``

Next day the Quaid-i-Azam changed out of his double-breasted suit and put on Muslim dress and fez for the Muslim masses. Standing on a platform liberally decorated with enlargements of his portrait, he announced that the sixteenth of August, two and a half weeks hence, would be ``Direct Action Day.`` His vituperation against the Congress was acidly explicit. ``If you want peace, we do not want war,`` he declared. ``If you want war we accept your offer unhesitatingly. We will either have a divided India or a destroyed India.`` And the Muslim Leaguers jumped up on their seats and tossed their fezzes in the air.)

My comments: It does not matter who wrote the article but these events are part of history and Ms Burke-White (an American journalist) just recorded them as they happened.
Read the following statements by Jinnah again:
``We are forced in our own self-protection to abandon constitutional methods.``
``We will either have a divided India or a destroyed India.``
His statements leave nobody in doubt that he meant to create trouble with his call of Direct Action day.
Sridhar

Re: # 638

Had you been reading some books... instead of making these websites and sensationalist journalism you would know otherwise... Margaret Burkewhite was always a pro-Gandhi reporter and never a historian... It is her version... what is amazing is that she is forced to say on several occasions that Jinnah was free of bias.

You`ve selectively quoted the speech. Jinnah said that both the ``British and Congress had held a gun to our head. British as rulers and Congress with their threat of civil disobedience. We bid good bye to constitutional ways and means``.

Unconstitutional to Jinnah`s mind was Gandhi and his movement. Were the violent.


No Indian has answered the following questions:

1) Why WAS direct action day peaceful all over India except Calcutta, which I`ve shown damaged the Muslim League and gave the British a reason to give Congress the ministry at the center ?

2) Why HASN`T any real Historian (and even people like Lapierre and Collins who wrote that horrible book ``Freedom at Midnight``) including many Indian ones put the blame on Jinnah


The fact of the matter is that you people love to distort history ... to suit it to your own liking....

-YLH

#635 by Mantolives on April 12, 2005 1:18pm PT
We got Pakistan... cry and whine all you want now... we have Pakistan and thank God for it

...........I`ve been thanking God all along for the same.NOW, there`s something we can agree on.That`s a start.

Re #627 Mantolives


I do not know about the story about the saving statue of Gandhiji that is mentioned,
it probably is true but it is my observation, at least in India, that one does not name roads/streets/public libraries or erect statues of people who are living.
Only after they are dead that their statues appear, roads/streets are named etc..

Re: # 634

First of all .... had you seen the link it was from an indian...

Secondly the Gandhi statue did exist infront of the Sindh High Court Building... and is still there in the Indian High commission in Pakistan.